Twitter - power to abuse

There was a time when using twitter was like crying in the rain. Tweets sent out drifted off into the ephemera without much impact on anyone's lives. It was a place people talked about what they had for lunch, bitched about the weather and discussed conspiracy theories over the continued success of Simon Cowell. Whilst all that is still true, over the past couple of years the media have started to take twitter far more seriously and the impact it can have - both positive and negative - has been recognised.

Twitter can - and is - used for good, from making sick kid's dreams come true; to connecting friends with common interests across the world; to making "internet celebrities" of those rare people who can fit wit, intelligence and insight into 140 characters. However, with this infamy also comes the negative and it's those stories that have made the news in recent times.

For some, the ability to say whatever they think or feel to thousands of people has led them to do exactly that, without a passing thought to the consequence. Twitter has sadly always been used to make racist, homophic and simply moronic posts but now people are starting to take note, whether is be the offensive tweets about the gravely ill Fabrice Muamba, the vile homophobic threats against Boy George or sexist abuse towards Louise Mensch.

People are beginning to realise that - as in the street - you can't simply say whatever you like on twitter without it touching or effecting anyone and prosecutions have been made.

As some of you know, I recently received a second bout of abuse from a twitter user. He  to try and blackmail me, claiming to have information on me, where I live and threatening to inform my husband about my behaviour and "come up and see me so we can talk about this". FInally, he made the libelous statement that I have been "convicted for threatening to rape children."

http://twitpic.com/a2tzdv/full

At the time of the initial statements, I did noting about it. However, when he repeated these threats and accussed me of stalking him I decided it was time to take action. With all the publicity over twitter prosecutions as mentoined above and reading about a succesful prosecution by a councillor (who had a twitter user charged for calling him a C***) I thought that this kind of behaviour was now taken seriously.

I contacted the police in England, who were extremely helpful but as I (the "victim") live in Scotland they could not actually prosecute. It was down to my local police. When I contacted them the result was very different. The police officers admitted they knew nothing about twitter and in the end said the best course of action was blocking and reporting the user to twitter.

I appreciated their help but found the advice lacking. Whilst I agree that generally bullies and "trolls" are best ignored - thus starving them of the attention they thrive on - there are times when this does not solve the problem. This is not the same as someone sending you abusive emails - where the upset comes only from you seeing the unpleasant things said about and to you.

In the age of social networking, bullying and harassment is not about simply upsetting you, it's very often about attempting to defame, destroy and derail your online presence. Trolls (a short-hand, catch-all term I'll use for bullies and harassers online) are not just happy with hating you, they want everyone else to hate you too. In the days before social media and online lives, an enemy might harm your reputation by spreading rumours or making accusations against you - but it would be hard for them to reach more than handful of people. Now trolls can set up a blog, facebook or twitter account and spread any gossip, innuendo or accusations to thousands of people in a matter of minutes.

So while you may block them and not see what they are saying, all that does is mean they can carry on saying whatever they feel like about you and you won't know about it. Rather like the old "if a tree is cut down in a wood and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise", but in this case you know the noise it's made when it's repeated to you by a well-meaning lumberjack or is recorded and played back to you when every time you try to make a phone call.

These days some "ordinary" users on twitter have the same amount of followers as a local newspaper, and with the power of the retweet or share the tweet or status about you can reach thousands more in an instant. Whilst it may be noble not to care what anyone thinks of you, it's soul-destroying to have your name or repuation besmurched to friends, colleagues, and contact - whether you are reading the slurs or not. In the past week I have spoken to several tiwtter users who are being harassed via twitter and both have found the main problem is the abuser is sending tweets ABOUT them to people they know, admire or work with.

This leaves the option of reporting a troubling user to Twitter. To begin with, I found the actual process a mine-field of clicking round and round their help and contact pages before finally locating the correct page (here for anyone you needs it https://support.twitter.com/forms) and then the form itself created a whole new set of issues.

In order to report harassment to twitter (as opossed to impersonation or spam) you have to specify individual tweets rather than just a twitetr account in general - this can be tricky when so many twitter trolls will delete the offending tweet after it has made its impact. And twitter support clearly states they DO NOT accept screenshots, so even if you capture evidence that the tweet existed, in the world of twitter support it's gone therefore it can't be reported - despite their statement "If someone means you harm, just removing the threatening statements does not make the issue go away."

Another stumbling block is the policy that Twitter will not receive reports on harassment to a user from a third party - that is, if your followers can see a person is sending you abusive tweets (perhaps while you are not reading your timeline) they can't report it. ONLY a complaint made by the person who has received the threats will be accepted by twitter.

This means, that in the case of Fabrice Muamba only HE could report that he was offended by the tweets about him, whilst he lay critically ill in hospital. Obviously this wasn't the case in his situation, but it's the policy twitter states in it's automatic reply to any Support Ticket submitted.

Now I understand why they may have this policy in place - without it they'd likely be getting millions of support ticket submissions every day with such delights as "OMG Drake just said Justin Beiber's music is crap, you have to BAN HIM" and "This bitch said Harry from 1D is ugly, I want something done!" - but it's not a policy that is in place in other forms of media. Whilst Andrew Sachs could make a complaint to OFCOM that he was abused by Russell Brand and Jonathan ROss, it was the sheer number of complaints who said THEY were offended by the broadcasted interaction that led to it actually having an impact.

This again brings us back to the blocking issue, if you have blocked the user but they are still tweeting abusive messages about and to you viewed by their thousands of followers, none of them can do anything about it - other than inform you so YOu can report it. Once again, making blocking redundant.

The main problem with Twitter's support is their belief that everyone has different levels of tolerance in terms of what is offensive, so they refuse to deem anything offensive. Therefore you can make racist, homophobic and generally abusive (they say they will respond to specific threats of actual harm) comments freely without Twitter doing anything.

That is, of course, unless you are famous. Here is the important difference. If you are a well known personality with hundreds of thousands of followers and a high-flying lawyer behind you, it's all a different story. Suddenly, the power of numbers that Twitter claims not to care about comes into play.

If a trolling account becomes "well known" due to abusive tweets sent to celebrities it becomes a double-edged sword. the retweeting and mentoins feed their attention seeking behaviour but it seems that it is ALSO the only way to make Twitter (or a higher authority) react.

It seems that if you are an influential person, you can get the power of media onto your side and get something done about inapporpriate tweeting, be it from twitter, the police or the real life employers of the Twitter user. And by influential person, i include even Keith chegwin! When a local BBC reporter used her PERSONAL twitter (she stated all opinions were her own) to give her negative opinion on the ex-BBC Tv persoanlity (she said his voice made her feel sick) Keith kicked up a fuss and she was made to apologise.

Twitter-star Lilly Allen also used her own influence and power to get a soldier who made an off colour remark to her (it seemed racist but the intent was unclear, it may have been a typing/grammar error) to get him into trouble with his superiors in the army.

But what of us "common people", those of us who don't have the money and ability to pursue a civil case through the courts? If Twitter won't help and the police find their hands tied, what do we do? We don't have the masses and the media behind us - the Daily Mail aren't going to print an outraged story that I was called a peadophile - where do we turn?

It seems that for Twitter we don't matter. Our hurt, our reputation, our lives aren't enough to warrant doing something to protect us from abuse.

We've already won the race

As my twitter account is testament to, I sobbed, swore, exclaimed, laughed and clapped my way through the utterly glorious Olympic Opening Ceremony last night. I am generally not interested in the Olympics themselves (like my infamous childish declaration that "these chips have too much potato in them", I'd like the Olympics more if they had less sport in them) but I love a good show and Danny Boyle gave us that in spades.

Far greater writers than me have today put into words how well the entire show captured what we, the people on the street, know to be the true spirit of Britishness. From the things that inspire us (great literature, landscape and music), to the things that make us laugh (A monarch with a sense of humour, farce and farts), to the things that bring us sadness (the loss of the innocent past, the loss of innocence of childhood and the loss of lives), to the things that drive us daily (hard work, the health of our families and love) - all were depicted in a wondrous technicolour dance.

So it sadness and angers me greatly to see the complaints that it was somehow too left-wing, too working-class - and worst of all - too multi-cultural.

Growing up in the 70s and 80s in a large Scottish city, I wasn't exposed to many cultures. In primary school, there was one African boy who would rub his big, round Afro and give each of us curious, fascinated kids a little bit of his springy black hair. One year we had Vietnamese twins in class, who flirted like mad, grinned and played a mean game of Heads Down, Thumbs Up, but I learnt nothing of Vietnam. By primary school, I knew a coupe of Indian kids and knew snippets about their religion and how it differed from my own Presbyterian upbringing. Racism was something I knew about only from TV and the news. I knew I hated it (at age 8 I drew an anti-Apartheid poster) but I didn't experience the glory of mixed cultures until much later in life.

In fact, it is only NOW I have read journalists talking about how unrealistic it is to find an educated, middle-aged, mixed race family living HAPPILY that I stopped and thought that I've not only witnessed it - it's part of my family.

In 2005, I travelled from my home in Dundee, Scotland to London to attend the wedding of my wonderful older brother at the beautiful Battersea Arts Centre. It was one of the best days of my life for so many reasons - surrounded by my family, on an amazingly gorgeous day, in stunning surroundings celebrating the happy event of my brother's commitment of love to his Londoner Indian bride.

All the things that certain right-wing commentators claim don't exist was there. The bride and groom were both from working class parents. My late father was a systems analyst in a factory, my mother was a cleaner and carer. My sister-in-law's father was a grocer and her late mother a stay at home Mum. She spent the early part of her life in Kenya before growing up in council housing in east London, while my brothers and I grew up in council housing in one of the poorest housing schemes in Scotland.

Yet, these two people had brains and a hard-work ethic drilled into them by their families. Both left university with degrees and both ended up working in the City in London. However, they never met.

It is here, that the other theme of the Olympic Opening Show is connected to their story - Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the world wide Web - because this story is a truly digital age tale of love. My brother had fallen in love with computing ever since his Basic "10. You smell of poo 20. Go to line 10" days and was now a software engineer. My sister-in-law had taken a much more diverse route but ended up working in the usability area of a mobile phone company. It seems fitting then, that it took the Internet to bring them together. Yes, like my husband and I - my brother met his wife online dating.


And so like Frankie and June in last night's show - they fell in love. And less than 2 years after their first email exchange, I was at their wedding as a witness to their love.

On the day it was simply a day of love and meeting new family and friends, but looking at it from a purely factual point of view the multiculturalism rolled through the day in a delight of colour and laughter. The families of the happy couple wore suits and kilts, saris and sherwanis. (The kilted men expressed their envy of those in the cool linen loose trousers and tunics as they sweated in unseasonably warm weather under their yards and yards of heavy wool). The civil ceremony was followed by a Scottish lunch (shepherd's pie and cranachan) and later everyone devoured a spicy, Indian buffet.

The traditions of east and west mixed, the drink flowed and in the evening I did my bit as I took the stage to lead everyone in some traditional Scottish dancing. I called out the moves to the experts and the enthusiastic uninitiated alike. It became a whirl of laughter, squeals and hysterics as people were swung around and around by people they barely knew. Saris and kilts swirled; kids were lifted off their feet, the confused were ushered around the dance floor and the voices that rang out lilted with accents from London, Manchester, Dundee, India, USA, Canada, France, Taiwan. The "Eightsome Reel" became the "Elevensome reel" and people told me later it was the most fun they'd had in a long time.

No one cared what colour anyone's skin was, what country they came from, how much their father earned or which god they prayed to. We were all people who cared about a couple who were declaring their love and commitment to each other and us all.

THAT is what I know of multiculturalism. That is the Britain I know that exists now in the 21st century. They are middle-aged, educated and happy? Well, my most beautiful perfect almost 5-year-old niece is a testimony to that.

She is Indian and Scottish; Hindu and Protestan; she teaches me Gujarati words and what she knows about narwhals; she kisses me and tells me she loves me but that I need to clean my bedroom more.

So yes, they're happy. And more than that, we're happy. We're happy my brother found the love of his life; we're happy she brings new wonderful things and people into our family; we're happy the union gave me my only niece and my Mum's only grandchild. Race doesn't even come into it.

Derek (No Clive)

So I decided to bite the proverbial bullet and watch Derek, merely so I could have an informed opinion of this controversial "comedy drama". 

Most of us have our hot spots, the tender places we can't be poked too hard without encurring a viseral reaction in terms of topics explored or simply displayed on television be it fictional or documentary. For some it's cruelty to animals, others it's distressed children, for me it's confused elderly. I find it extremely hard to watch, and so really had no intent to watch Derek which seemed to be mocking those mentally disabled and elderly folks in homes.

I will say straight off that I don't think Derek MOCKED anyone. That's not to say I thought it was great television, I didn't.

It is very hard to watch it WITHOUT bringing into it all I knew of Ricky Gervias, his history with the character Derek and his entire "mong" issue that has been played out over twitter and in the media. If I based my opnion entirely on all of that, I certainly would think Ricky thinks it's funny and clever to mock the disabled and those "on the edges of society" - as he terms it. So, I tried not to do that and simply watched the show only judging in what I saw on screen.

And what I saw, was a simplistic, flawed drama with very little comedy and a whacking great lack of direction.

In terms of a TV show alone, I think it was all over the place in terms of characters. Derek (and for now we'll just ignore all that's been said and ASSUME he is a man with several developmental and health problems, likely on the spectrum because that is what I SAW), we were told over and over had a "heart of gold", yet it wasn't really shown. I balked when Hannah said "I've never seen him feel sorry for himself" early on in the programme, as at that point there was little evidence he SHOULD feel sorry for himself. He had friends, a job, a flatmate, people he loved, hobbies. So, are we to assume he should feel sorry for himself because he's disabled? She said he'd been through so much but very little clues were given as to what exactly?

The comedy element was I felt the weakest, I didn't laugh once. The only part I found vaguely humourous was the scene with Derek and Hannah trying to find out if Tom was gay. This scene worked because the comedy didn't come from Derek being "stupid" but from Hannah acting like a preteen and Tom gently poking fun at her. 

I am assuming the scenes of Derek sitting in the pudding and falling in the pond were meant to be the real humour pieces but they left me as cold as that water Ricky landed in. The problem from the comedy side of things comes, in my opinion, from the flawed principle that Ricky has that it's funny to laugh at someone who is mentally disabled being, well, mentally disabled. It really isn't. There has to be MORE to the humour than laughing at a man with one leg fall over, or someone with Aspergers confuse a social situation. The humour must come from someplace else other than "aren't they useless?!". With Derek, I felt that element was sorely missing.

I don't know what (if any) research Ricky did but I'm sure carers like Hannah could tell lots of genuinely funny stories that don't involve someone simply falling over or running about naked. 

Derek's friend Doug (Karl Pilkington) was also underdeveloped. He seemed to exist with the preknowledge that we would all know Karl's personality and so would just tack that on to make Doug a rounded person. There seemed little logic in why he was part of the "in crowd". Becuase he has a bad hair do and glasses? The grumpy (but with a heart of gold) caretaker is a classic, but I felt Doug laked the bite and sarcasm of this sterotype. And the pay off of his true kindness (by fixing Joan's painting after she died) didn't ring true with him calling Derek to show him. Surely it would have had a bigger impact if Derek, Hannah or the camera crew had discovered it themselves? That way Doug can keep up his pretense about not caring about their "junk".

All of that said, I did find the latter part of the show very moving. The story of Derek's friendship with Joan, the way she made him feel, was lovely. It gave a small hint that maybe the "things he'd been through" were people who did make him feel that accidents did make him a bad person. Ricky's piece to camera was very powerful and well acted, had depth and emotion.

I just felt what was the point of it all, what was the story Ricky was trying to tell? I may be simplistic in my tastes because I like a message, a point, or something and I just felt Derek was awash with lots of half-baked ideas. Even the abuse Derek received in the pub was tame and lacking the hard bite of reality. Derek himself could have been a wonderful character who COULD teach us about the truth of life. He could be an observer who says the things many of us ignore or try not to think about. But it seemd Ricky didn't have the drive to really push that side and was lost on his need to have Derek do stupid things to make us laugh. And have the rest of the cast tell us how funny what what a heart of gold he had.

(As an aside, what did Derek do as a job at the home? He wasn't the caretaker, and seemed to look after the old people from his heart of gold rather than as a specific job, as he was often sitting with his friends, watching Tv or napping.)

The show didn't make me angry, didn't even make me uncomfortable but it did leave me feeling that Ricky was desperately trying to prove how much he cared about the "undesirables" in life and show all those nay-sayers wrong. But it REALLy is hard to stomach that idea when you've seen how the Derek character has been thrown out there time and again through Ricky's career - always a figure of fun to be pointed at and mocked. All his posting of "mong" faces on Twitter etc show he's doing them THINKING they are funny. Funny to a 3 year old who thinks funny faces are the height of wit, maybe. And every so often in Derek, that feeling would rise as I felt Ricky slip out of the character and become a comedian doing the stupid face of a slow person.

I have no idea WHY he's so insistant that Derek does not suffer any actual disablities because a) clearly he does (a grown man who has no understanding of what £20,000 would buy for instance) and b) does it make it better to laugh at someone who is simply an idiot? 

Karl Pilkington is known as an "idiot" but it's obvious he's a man of regular intelligence, who - for whatever reason - just has very odd ideas of the way the world does and should work. Laughing at him is very different from laughing at someone who is struggling to understand the simplest of concepts in the world.

I think Ricky COULD make Derek a wonderful character, there was certainly glimpses of it, but it requires him accepting the knowledge of those better educated than him about disablities. It takes him listening to the stories of those who work. I'd rather see Derek become the man he could be heartbreaking and wonderful, showing us the REAL problems people face and commenting - as only those who are not bound by our stupid polite society rules can do - on the secret of life, the universe and everything. And not sitting in custard.

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.