Wild, I was absolutely livid.

Tonight's Big Brother finally gave us the required culture element in Channel 5's broadcasting remit.

To begin with they introduced a housemate with an IQ high enough to learn sign language and operate basic machinery (more than Jay, anyway) in the form of Yambo the gorilla. Except it wasn't. Yambo was actually an actor in a costume, much like the rest of the housemates.

He arsed about in the straw, arsed with Maisy's arse (I have decided I may spell Maisey's name differently each time I use it) and managed to allow the HMs not to arse up the shopping task. If I were doing this week's shopping list, I'd including nothing but bananas, straw and monkey nuts.

The repercussions from THE KISS rambled on. Tom suddenly realised his popularity was flying out the window with his sanity and pleaded with Sir Aaron De Stubble to "speak to him proper, innit". Aaron, still recalling the PUNCH IN THE FACE comment, hedged his bets and focussed on grammar, for he'd rather have a strained relationship than a hanging participle (and who can blame him?).

The other "men" - and I use that term loosely - rolled around in some sour grapes in the bedroom as they discussed how they never wanted Maisy ANYWAY, and she'd be shit in bed and Aaron isn't beating them at playahood without once wearing a baseball cap backwards or doing a bad rap, and...and....well, girls smell too. *scratch self, adjust right testicle, sniff*

Whilst Maisy acted subtly, Faye threw her metaphorical and literal ass into the ring. Taking hints from Yambo, she showed Aaron the back of her neck, allowed him to pin her down and was more obvious than Alex's arse hanging out her shorts in staking her claim as the shagged cuddly toy to Aaron's silverback. Their coordinating pjs sealed the deal for them as couple of the show/5 minutes.

I can't help feeling a bit sorry for Maisy, she's like that girl that the boy practices kissing with only to use the skills learned on the popular girl. She's Watts in Some Kind of Wonderful, or Jo in teenage Health Freak. Of course, in both these the bloke ended up with the practicee in the end....but I fear Maisy's scary Madonna look may have written her out of the "plain but beautiful when you look twice" friend role. She should have gone in brunette, with a bun, and glasses then dyed her hair, shook it out and Aaron would have given up the T-Birds and made Sandy his steady.

However, it wasn't all adult fare as the show wandered into Playschool territory with Alex and Tom in the craft corner, makign tinfoil people and singing little songs. I fully expect to see them making tinfoil hats to keep out the bad voices before the week is out.

Harry, bless him, began having prep school flashbacks and thought he was fagging once again by making up a "special spray" to put in some of the beds. This led to rather silly pranking, which got out of hand and the over-tired children needed to go to teh diary room for a glass of milk and a nap before cleaning up the mess.

Thankfully, in the midst of all this juvinility a real cultural highlight occured as Alex and Harry acted out a deeply significant piece of art depicting the age old class struggle. You may have thought it was merely a playfight, but actually it was a skit of real depth that Stephen Berkoff would have been proud off. The ketchup Harry squeezed on Alex represented the years of blood and supression by the upper classes on the poor lower class, whilst Alex's water symbolised the lack of resources open to the poor. I fully expect to see it at the Globe next year - Sir Ian mcKellen would make a magnificent Alex, especially in the hotpants.

Still, Lousie managed to bring us back to earth by setting the woman's movement back 50 years with he treaty on how to treat *giggle* a man *giggle*. I'm sure it changed the minds of all the men watching, with one hand.

P.S. A message to Aaron on his made rather ungentlemanly comments about Heaven. I do not agree with what you say but I support your right to say it whilst looking hot all stubbly in a white shirt.

A Little Light Duvet Action

When is a kiss NOT a kiss? When it's on Big Brother and becames the reality Tv equivalent of Hitler marching in and announcing he's going to eat some babies.

In this year's BB12 World War came when 2 single people - Aaron (looks like he should be in a L'oreal for Men advert) and Maisie (looks like she should be in an advert for Madonna's Tru Blue album) - without due thought, care or attention decided to indulge in some late night smoochery. This has caused no end of ructions, not least with Anton who did the TV equivalent of putting a glass to your bedroom wall when they neighbours are shagging. He sat up in bed at the mere hint of a rustling duvet to ensure he got all the action. Then made sure to spread the good word.

The news that Aaron and Maisie (Or Maron as the coupling terms should be known) locked lips then began to ripple across the house, knocking egos over in its path. Suddenly people who had never even met Aaron were huffed that he hadn't snogged THEM, when clearly he was already betrothed to them as his Mum once said he likes girls in blue pants.

Tom, previously the "jolly gay", found himself channeling Downton Abbey as his poor reputation was besmirched. He reviled that bad, bad man Aaron because apparently there was an unpsoken bond between them that meant that straight Aaron would never touch a lady whilst he knew Tom had a fancy for his pants.

Molehills became weapons of mass destruction and Faye (previously expressed no interest in Aaron "that way") and Tom suddenly bonded over all the ways Aaron had led them on - alleged neck kissing and hints of "when we leave the the house" had occcurred.


Frankly, I feel a bit left out. After all, I think Aaron looked at me down the telly and I think his stubble whispered "take me, I'm yours". I think I'll complain to the PCC that he led me on before heartlessly kissing a girl who's eyebrows have more in common with my hair than hers.

It seems that Tom had an entire relationship in his head with Aaron (Has he read Caitlin Moran's How to be a Woman?) and then felt his jealousy and put-outed-ness was only natural when his imaginary lover went off with a girl. Perhaps the papers will be full of other imaginary lovers of Toms? "Tom left me after he saw me walking home to my wife. He felt the way I asked him to press the button in the elevator had led him on" "Tom and I had a 3 year affair, though I only became aware of this when Tom told me he was ending it after he saw me marry Kate - Prince William exclusive".

Still, after this debarcle they all handled it maturely. The blokes made sex jokes; Maisie denied it happened; Tom threatended to punch Aaron's pretty face; Faye huffed in a sexually alluring fashion and Aaaron had a duvet surgically attatched to his head.

However, the paroxide soon wore off and Maisie saw sense and encouraged Aaron to talk to everyone and clear the air in an oddly mature fashion, which he huffily did. Tom clung to his straw to the last, declaring he was DEFINITELY led on by Aaron. (If he had a fan, i'm sure he would have beat it angrily)

And thus ended the saga of "the kiss", in which 2 grown, single adults who are friends snogged, and didn't let it affect THEIR friendhsip. What good is THAT to anyone in a reality TV show?

Can we all now get back to foccusing on the REAL issues, that of why DOES Alex speak like that and was Aden raised in a barn, did pigs teach him his table manners?

Hey JC, JC won't you die for me?

(I started this post last weekend then fell ill before posting. hence references to Easter weekend. You haven't fallen into a timewarp)


Well it is EAster weekend, which seems as good a time as any to talk about christianity.


It would likely come as a surpirse to many that I consider myself a Christian, what with all my sweariness, hot lesbo action and generally debauchry. TO be fair, I am on the libral side of liberal Christianity. There are things I agree with, and things I don't. Things I believe and things I don't.


I believe in God's hand on my life and in Jesus dying for our sins. But most of all I believe in Jesus's message of loving one another. For me, Chrisitainity is about acceptance, forgiveness and love. Hubster calls it "The groovy side of Christianity". I call it the truth.


I do not, however, believe much in religion. I don't believe the Pope is infalible. I don't believe the Bible is literal. I don't believe in judging others spirituality or relationship with God. And above all, I don't believe in picking and chosing from the Bible to suit your own needs.


Actually, that's not true. I DO believe in that. i believe every single Christian does that, or there's be no prawn cocktail and a woman on her period would be left out in the garden an poked with a stick. I just wish people would accept that picking and choosing is what they do, and stop using "it's what the Bible says" as a reason to parade their prejudice, particularly in relation to being gay.


As millions of smarter, more Bible-educated people than me have said before - why decide that the stuff about homosexuality is still so important but the stuff about weairng mixed fibres belongs with the Arc (literally). Who decided it and why? Who decided THEY knew what was put in there just as culturally imprtant at the time and what is one of God's super-duper life-time clause rules for eternity?


Because, as far as I can see , when Jesus rocked up and said "Hey guys, you know all those rules you used to live by? Yeah, not so important as long as you love the big guy and are cool with each other" (I may be paraphrasing here) he made ALL those rules obsolete and hating on the homo is part of that. 


For me, it simply makes no sense. The things that I believe (and IMO any sane thinking person believes) God wants people to live by, are the rules which make logical sense. They are rules about being honest, truthful, kind, respectful, loving and forgiving. Sexual sin to me is mistreating your body and exposing yourself to hurt or using your sexuality to hurting others. The idea of gayness being sinful simply does not fit in with every other rule God made.


Being gay is simply loving. Nothing more, nothing less. And I will never ever believe that the God that I know would think any different.


And that is why I find it hard to agree with "religion" in general, though I definitely consider myself Presbetyrian - if only because it suits my feelings about faith. I find it very difficult to talk about comfortably, I don't like public displays of religious fervour, and I'd rather not be asked to pray in public, ta.




It is the denomination I've grown up with, and while there's a lot of things I disagree with, generally speaking I love me some cuddly Christians. 


Our family church has always felt like a second home for me, though i don't go regularly now, my family is so intrenched in every aspect of the church (my mum still cleans it every week) I feel safe and welcomed whenever I return. 


There are plenty of the old biddies who disapprove when one of the teenage girls gets her tongue pierced, or are horrified if a minister wears white socks. But generally speaking they embody - in the physical, every day way - the essence of Christianity.


I have experienced their Christian love when our car broke down and it took a long time to fix, so someone leant us their car for our summer holidays. I saw it when a team of people from the church gutted and redecorated a man's flat when a pipe burst whilst he stayed with his family over Christmas. I enjoyed it in the pack of chocolate bars a wheelchair bound man sent home to me every week because I was ill. I saw it in the tears of dozens of grown men and women at my dad's funeral. And I am still greatful for it in the teams of people who catered and ran my wedding for free, out of love for God, my Mum and me. 


I don't deny the evil that is done in religion's name but it is not done in God's name. Hubby - the athiest - got it spot on when he alerted me to quote from the Chronicles of Narina, referring to Tash his enemy:


 "For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him."


That sums it up for me. Hate crimes and bigotry or small mindedness of any kind cannot be done in Gods name, by it's very nature.


But love - expressed in a very REAL form - is what Christianity is all about. 


Too many people think of Christianity and christians as this namby-pamby form of love that has so little to do with the real world. But the Christians I know are deeple entrinched in the real world - they are doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen. And they live their lives in a Christian way, not just by praying, singing hymns and reading the Bible. They do it by volunteering, giving to charities (and not just "safe" charities. The Guild supports AIDS charities, mental health charities, causes for victims of domestic violence etc) and PHYSICALLY showing their love for their neighbour by giving of their time, energy, passion and compassion to help anyone struggling.


Even recently, we had hired a van to move some furniture. At the last minute we were let down by a lot of people helping us, but a guy form our church who I had never met heard my Mum talking about it and gave up his Saturday afternoon to run (literally!) up and down stairs carrying bookcases.


That's the religion I believe in - helping those around you, in any way you can, even if it puts you out. And I hope others can see that expression of love, God, Christianity or humniaty - however you define it - in me.

When do shorts become hotpants?

Tonight I watched The Sex Education Show - Stop pimping Our Children, largely because I love a good shot of knob rot and a gander at other ladies boobies, but I am also very interested in the topic of sex education and the sexualisation of the young.

In case anyone is wondering, I am ALL FOR sex education. I certainly don't think there is enough of it, or that it goes far enough in the UK. A belief which I believe is borne out by the teen pregnancy and abortion rates of countries which DO go much further in explicit sex education for YOung kids.


It angers me every time the Daily Mail, and the like, get on their WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN high horse about any hint of a willy being talked about to 5 year olds. The faux horror, as if every parent (and most of those Daily Hail screaming harpies claim to BE parents, which apparently gives them automatic correct answer and a say in every single subject) has NEVER had to discuss with a toddler what a willy is and what makes a girl's body different (what word do you use? If I could be bothered I would start a campaign for a nationally accepted safe-for-kids, happy word to be accepted for the vulva. And NOT a word that is already in use because surely a 4 year old gets confused if she believes she pees from a fairy, then hears that a fairy is Peter Pan's best friend! Perhaps "dilly" or "fooby". Yes, spread the word.)

Kids ARE exposed to sex education every day - they ask questions and understand about why mummy and daddy kiss, they will learn why daddy has hair around his willy, that mummy can't stand up to pee, and maybe when she walks into her parent's bedroom during the middle of the night, why mummy and daddy have a special cuddle.

(My 3 year old niece saw the wallpaper on my laptop, which was of the Josie & John James Titanic shoot "sexy" pic. She asked me who they were and what they were doing. Before I got a chance to explain she said "They're just having a cuddle, aren't they? And they're going to put their pyjamas on in a minute?". LOL It had the ring of an excuse from mummy and daddy I felt.)

If the child has a younger brother or sister, they learn even more about where babies come from as they see mummy's tummy grow and know their little sibling is in there and that daddy (or Uncle Steve) put it there.

This is all the sex education that the government (or lobbyists) intend to implement - the basics that young children can grasp and which gives them a sense of peace and relaxation instead of confusion and uneasiness. One particular piece of over-reaction by the Daily Mail, was over "shocking material" which contained"explicit cartoons" and "adult language". The main target of their horror appears to be a cartoon of a couple in bed kissing, covered up entirely by duvet and the description of sex as "As they cuddled, your dad’s penis moved gently inside your mum’s vagina and the sperms flowed out."

Apparently this description will rot children's minds, cause them all to get tramp stamp tattoos and start humping thier teddy bears. But really, is it THAT different to the description a pregnany mum will give to their child? Simply because the correct terms are used instead of "mummy's magic place", "daddy's special tool" and "special seed" somehow it makes it more offensive or explicit? All it does is make it more factual and less confusing and obtuse.

I live in a town with one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and teen abortion in Europe. I've personally known both boys and girls aged 13 who have been involved in pregnancy. I certainly don't think over-exposure to sensible, factual descriptions of sex acts and sexuality cuase this. Had a contraception message been drilled in to them from a very young age (My mum tells me that when I was very little, on a bus, i once loudly asked "But how do you NOT have a baby?" So I certainly was ready to hear about that) then MAYBE they would have still had sex but maybe the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy would not have happened.

One of the big "fears"of the outraged seems to often be any notion of educating youngsters on other aspects of sex not confined to penis in vagina. When teachers start answering questions fo what a blow job is, or explaining snowballing or Mars bar eating - or other sland terms for sexual practices I've never heard of - then the wailing and finger pointing begins. Why? Because god forbid they find a part of sex is enjoyable.

Somehow it's understandable to teach kids about intercourse because it is important to learn that babies can be made and about contraception. But SURELY one of the best contracpetions teens COULD be exploring is enjoying their sexuality without indulging in baby-making or STI exposing sexual acts?

There seems to be this perception with the young that immediatly you've kissed or decided someone is your boyfriend or girlfriend then BOOM you need to have sex. I remember seeing it on Teen Big Brother. It was barely minutes after a kiss, they immediatly shagged and it was all over in about 5 minutes flat.

Shouldn't we be teaching teens that exploring each other's bodies for a LONG time, can be a great, fulfilling way of being sexual without quite the same risk as intercourse?

Instead of shying away from handjobs and fingering, let's include them in sex education and devote the same amount og time to them that teens should be.

As for WHY kids are having sex so young, I don't think it's a simple problem. I think so many factor contribute including lack of ambition, lack of self-worth and sexualisation of media.

I am as shocked as anyone at pants that says "SEXY" across the bum, for 5 year olds. BUT I do feel there is an element of sweeping generalisation when it comes to clothing, as was shown in tonights The Sex Education Show.

Yes, string bikinis, off the shoulder tops, and high heels for little girls are riduclous. But the bras I do have to defend.

The problem is that girls develop at different ages now, and the average age is getting younger and younger. Sometimes 8 year olds DO need to wear a bra. As a young developer (I was fully developed and having periods by 10) I know how uncomfortable I felt about the whole thing, and the only way I eventually wore bras was when I was able to buy really cute ones from Chelsea Girl (God, I'm old!) and the like. So I can't see how it is bad for shops with clothes ranges for that age group should include pretty underwear sets.

And if another girl aged 8, who hasn't developed at all, sees them it is up to her PARENTS to let her know its not something that's appropriate for her to have at the moment.

Tonight on the show they highlighted 2 items by Peacocks - a 28AA bra and a pair of size 6 pants with a sexy logo. SIZE 6, not age 6. Why should a slim, petite 16 year old not be able to buy fun pants in her size just because a 10 year old might also be able to fit into them? And the same for the bra. My friend was a very skinny girl who did not develop until she was 16. For a couple of eyars she was wearing a 28AA bra, and JUSt being able to buy that made her feel better about herself. If some 9 year old is the same size it's up to her parents to make the call on whether she needs a bra.

It may seem that I'm contradicting myself here - school/government responsibility in sex education but parental responsibility in clothing - but for me there is a difference. Yes, I believe sex education should come first and foremost from parents, but sadly so many are lacking and the governement needs to pick up the slack. Because the kids lives are at stake.

With the clothes, I think it's a personal issue - like deciding if you want your kids to eat sweets or get thier ears pierced - and the government needs to step back.

Sex in a Life-Mad Society

Life in a sex MAd society by Joyce Huggett is a Christian book aimed at teenagers offering them "guidance" (ie the fear of God) in the realm of relationships and sex.

It was given to me during my days at Bible youth group...Actually, I lie, it was given to my best friend. The fact it ended up in my possession says something about me I think.

When I first read this book, I was about 15 and it made me laugh and scoff. When I reread it at around 19 - when I actually had a boyfriend - it made me livid. Now, I read it and it's all about the laughs again.

It's so manipulative, it's hilarious - though obviously not if you are a confused 16 year old with a hormone flux and a hot boyfriend/girlfriend.

What has always angered me the most about the book is the assumption that all young people have the will power of a wet noodle. It advises never to be alone with your beloved, never to lie down together, never to wear tight jeans and low cut tops, never to let a tongue in your gob and certainly never to have a quick grope - because surely within 10 seconds you will be shagging like dogs and all thoughts of His Loveliness will be gone FOREVER.

And the part that most made me fling the book across the room is the chapter on meddling with non-Christians. The anecdote about the poor sap who married the evil non-Christian devil-worshipping gal who apparently CONTROLS HIS EVER THOUGHT AND MOVE so he now doesn't pray, read the Bible or go to church is the worst. I'm surprised he didn't also say his hair was falling out, he'd lost his job and children pointed at him in the street. Heathens can do that, you know?

Anyway, I shan't rant on, instead I thought I'd share with you some of the LOLworthy illustrations to aid us on our journey of how to be jiggy-jiggy within the Lord's eye line.

Now this illustration shows us HOW to be a couple within Lordy limits. Ensure any shenanigans such as kissing are done in public, preferably on an open, moving vehicle such as a fairground ride. Lips should be dryly pushed together - no unholy tongue - and most importantly, ensure your crotch is as FAR AWAY from the girl as is humanly possible. Hands should not be on each other but holding onto something solid to prevent any accidental stumbles and knobs slipping into mouths/vaginas.

Now, far be it from me to make racial slurs against this book but....this is a chapter about how the evil media makes us all want to bump uglies. They show this with random blackdude and non-quite-Tina Turner. It all goes back to the introduction of the black man's music into rock and roll. It turned normal teens into greasy, over-sexed, spunk buckets. It clearly all makes Not-quite-Tina angry.

Ah the petting problem. When a hand job turns to hell. Now this poor couple clearly are having a petting problem - largely because she is actually giving a handy to a bloke off to the right. Poor side-parting fellow is devastated and rejected. We can tell this because his tie is undone. This is illustration code for sinful and slack-moralled.

Poor, poor sex mad dolly. She is here to show us that if you have THE SEX then bad things will happen to you. You will be tied to a gatepost, develop a habit of smoking dog-ends, get unruly hair and DEAR GOD let us not talk of what happens to your FEET when you shag. She smiles, but that is a vacant smile of one with knots for feet. Under her pretty yellow dress her vag is equally as yellow with the POISON of sexual sin.

Sing with me Kids From Fame fans - "Hi-fidelity, high, high high high". Monogamy, not a board game, more a bored game (according to Derek Jarman, who they quote.) Yes this insanity in coloured pencil is here to show us that 2 girls bad, 1 girl old enough to be your mother, in pink tights - GOOD. Don't believe me? Here's a close up.

EEEH gads. Now see that poor angry fella top left, he is angry at being left out of an orgy going on the other side of the red (for sin) door. See how he makes a fist and wants in. But he is left with the twee sisters and their sensible shoes. Meanwhile, on the other side of the castle wall (I mean WTF?) leaping off a swing is happy monogamous man. Though he does not look very happy. He looks like he is flinging Sharon Osbourne there from his lap in horror as he realises she is actually his mum. Still, he at least got it half right. See first illustration - only indulge in sexy times whilst on some moving outdoor item. They really take swinging to a whole new level.

Ah now, we come to the Illustration which I personally subtitle "I'll never date Christian men if this is what they all look like". Polo shirts, sweaters and glasses (or an unfeasible HUGE head). The happy Christian girls though, how they laugh to be in such scintillating company. Ah but is that why they are so chipper? Or is it because chappy on the right is actually tearing up his copy of Life in a Sex Mad Society so they can all have a guilt-free gang bang once the pizza's gone down?

And that, my friends, is only HALF of it! Oh the sexy, sinful, watercolour joys that are yet to come!

Tattle tail telling tales

Something on twitter - and online life in general - drives me absolutely batty. Actually, a lot of things do, hence my reputation for ranting in twitlonger. But the thing that's winding me up today is the concept of "talking behind someone's back".

In real life it's something that irritates me, and for years watching Big Brother it's always wound me up as well. In fact, it is the very thing that (should be health not be sucky) would stop me auditioning to become a contestant (there's also the fact I wouldn't want to poo in front of the nation, and I would go clinically catatonic without the internet).

For me, the whole concept of "talking behind someone's back" is - to put it bluntly - a crock of shit.

We ALL do it. All the time. Anytime you talk about someone and they are not in the same room and can hear every word you say, you are talking behind their back.

It is not neccesarily a bad thing. A lot of the time, I think it's a perfectly healthy thing.

I know in my own group of friends I talk behind the backs of my other friends, and I assume they do the same about me. I don't mind in the slightest.

The fact is, they are my friends, they want to stay my friends but some things I do annoy, bother, worry or bore them. That's fine, because obviously those things are not enough to outweigh the wonderousness that is me, or they'd simply drop me as a friend.

So, I think it's perfectly healthy for them (or me) to be able to have a wee moan and a laugh and roll their eyes at my foibles, knowing that DESPITE those things, they still love me.

Now, if they were telling other parties who DON'T love me negative stuff about me - without tailoring it with positivity - or spilling private information then that's a different kettle of fish as it's clearly being done to hurt me or belittle me as a person when they claim to love me.

Howver, when it comes to people I don't know well or don't love, I couldn't give a knat's toss about that. Why should I? If they don't like me, it's likely BECAUSE of the behaviours they are having a rant about. So they are entitled to that opinion or feeling and they are just entitled to express that - in what ever manner they like. I'm not going to change for them so I don't need to know about it.

I don't understand why i should WANT to hear about it. If they chose to tell me, fair enough. But why should I DEMAND to know every person's opinion of me? It's ego of the highest order.

And this is where the internet aspect of it comes in. People seem to be under the impression that the internet is the equivalent of one big room, and as we're all in it, we should all be allowed to hear and partake in every conversation going.

It's not accurate at all. It's more like a massive city, with houses and buidlings and rooms. Some are public with many people in them, some are privvate and you can only enter with permission.

If someone is talking about you on the internet, there is absolutely no need for them to address you specifically, or make you aware about it. It's like someone is talking about you at the bus stop, and you happen to walk past and hear them. Are you going to berate them for talking about you and not TO YOU, simply because you exist in the same world as them?

If you saw someone in the street you didn't know, and they were behaving in a way you didn't like - nothing illegal or immoral, just not your taste - would you feel the need to go up to them  and TELL THEM? Or would you go home and tell a member of your family or a friend about the rude person you saw today?

I don't know about you, but about 75% of what I talk about is other people - their lives, their actions, their feelings - I'm not going to go and find each one and tell them everything I've said about them.

It's exactly the same on the internet. Blog and social sites like Twitter exist for people to be able to express themselves freely, without cencorship. (well, to a degree)

On the other hand, it is important to remember that unless you set your tweets to protected - or the equivalent on other sites- what you are saying IS going out into the ether for all to see.

That's not to say you should watch what you say, self-censorship or have to justify your every thought. It merely means that you can't expect not to be JUDGED on what you say and do.

Just as the example of the person on the street, we make judgements about the people we see in life and online every single day. It's how we decide who to be friends with, who to socialise with and who to agree with.

You can't get angry when people judge you on your words or actions and decide they don't agree with you, or like you very much.

There was in fact a legal precedent set recently where someone who WAS being judged by her tweets, tried to bring a courtcase over those judging her. She lost, because her twitter account was public and the words were her own and truthful, so people were allowed to make a judgement call from that.

As I said above though, what we DON'T have a right to is to demand people explain why they don't like us, demand they give every thought about us to our face and act betrayed when they don't.

Unless of course you HAVE told every single person you've ever encountered what you have ever thought about them? From your first teacher, to your granny, to the man who served you in Starbucks. No? You haven't? Then the hypocrisy that you accuse others of is staring you right in the face.

Beck, the scientologist nutter, is quite right

I had planned to start this blog with an introductory post about me, my life, who I am, but due to unforeseen moronic circumstances, I am delaying it in favour of the stuff that is currently top of my brain, like a tupenny falls machine being shoved off the edge by the thoughts building up behind it. Last in, first out.

So, forgive me, you will have to wander into my life like tuning into a film half-way through (and you can't even look up my plot on Wiki....at least I hope not. *Googles self* No...no, you can't.). We'll do the blog version of catch-up/+1 another day.

Yes, as the title says Beck and some random internet people are right. I AM a loser - but don't kill me.

I lose many things. Largely socks, hairbrushes, ballpoint pens, money, my sense of direction, my dignity, hope and - in this instance - patience.

I have lost patience with people who think it's fun and funny to go through life demanding what they want, giving not a thought for others on the way, and then hold their hands up with a poor-me "whaaaaaaaaaaaaat?" when you mention it may not be the nicest of behaviours.

To be honest, I am by nature a pretty patient and forgiving person (too forgiving my brother has always said) and I can veer into the territory of bleeding heart liberal with my instinct to understand and tolerate bad behaviour in many people. But even Saint Me is pushed to my limits. I have my buttons which can be pressed.  And ingratitude, a sense of entitlement and selfish, self-centred behaviour is right up there.

There are lots of behaviours I can witness without feeling the need to butt my over-sized arse into, largely when I think it's deliberately being done to provoke a reaction, or I can see the person exhibiting it is coming from a bad place and is acting out.

One of the main reasons a lot of other people overlook unsocial, unpleasant behaviour is because the perpetrators are young. "They're only young, they don't know" "Oh they're just young and having fun."

Well, you know, my niece is 3. When she was visiting recently we were playing Prince and Princesses (short but complex story mixing dragons, Sleeping Beauty and sometimes Spiderman and the Green Goblin). I - thinking I was being fabulous imaginative Auntie - took the story into an unexpected turn. This was not so fabulous, apparently. Niece didn't like it, shouted at me for doing it wrong and stormed out of the room in a huff because the game was not going the way she wanted it to.

2 minutes later she came back into the room with a sorrowful look on her face, gave me a hug and a kiss and apologised for her behaviour. No one had told her to do that, she had come to the conclusion herself that she was not behaving or playing nicely and you don't do that to someone who is being nice to you.

Now, if a 3 year old can come to that realisation herself, why can't grown young men and women?

And if it is coming from a place of ignorance, I can understand that, but the only way to solve ignorance is education. So, I felt I had to say something. And I have. This means that, like warnings to a toddler, if they do it again they are aware what they are doing is wrong and so there's no more excuses. And we can only assume their intention is either to deliberately hurt or - as I suspect is the case - they simply don't give a rat's ass about the feelings or happiness of anyone else but themselves.

Oh, while we're here let me also briefly (*snerk*) touch on the subject of jealousy. Whilst being a loser, I am also jealous. Yes, I am.

I am jealous of Jodie Marsh and her ability to earn a good living from seemingly being an utter twat.
I am jealous of my friend's husband, Lee, who exists entirely on a diet of meat, potatoes and Pepsi - not a single fruit or veg in sight - and yet is as thin as a rail, horrificly healthy and has all his own teeth.
(or course he could drop dead before 40 in which case I will no longer be jealous of him, but will be jealous of my friend who will be quids in with a massive life insurance and will no longer have to put up with her home-cooked meals being thrown against the wall)
I am jealous of people like the stunningly beautiful Adele, who can move people to their core by simply opening her mouth.
I am jealous of every woman who ever slept with my husband (uh before he WAS my husband, I hasten to add) because part of me wants to be his only ever. (but on the other hand, you taught him well ladies- thank you)
I am jealous of Brian Froud and other fantasy artists who can create such beautiful ugly creatures out of their imaginations and depict them in watercoloury gorgeousness.
I am jealous of people who I know who are just "ok" in the personality department but who seem to attract millionaire friends like wasps to jam and get massive cash hand outs with the simplest bat of an eyelid.
I am jealous of people who have 2 toilets in their home
I am jealous of people who can go about their every day lives, going to work, going shopping, meeting friends - all in one day - without having to ration their energy or know that every minute of good time will be met with an hour of painful recovery afterwards.

Yes, there are people I am jealous of, but none of them were at a party in London on Friday night.