Page : 1/1

First Page    Prev. Page    Next Page    Last Page

Tuesday, 12 Apr 2005

"Wayne Rooney - what a tit," is what someone in my office was heard to mutter earlier this afternoon. This was after he'd read yet another headline in the newspaper regarding the alleged antics of this football icon.

But come on - it's very easy to ridicule the young and talented men of football. It's all too easy to criticise these super-earning, celebrity football heroes in the prime of their life, who swan about with the world at their feet and believing they can do anything to anyone without consequence or recrimination.

Very easy indeed.

Thursday, 7 Apr 2005

If people are being beaten up in the backstreets, should we establish clinics where they can be attacked in hygienic conditions?

Monday, 4 Apr 2005

It's a sad time for Roman Catholics. We should be rejoicing for John Paul's life and leadership, and proud of the way he conducted himself to the end. As someone on the Radio commented, he could have hidden himself away in his last weeks, but he didn't. He let his weakness be known and that highlighted his faith and the meaning of his faith.

But we're sad too.

Apparently John Paul was a "controversial" pope. I think this meant that he stuck to the teaching of the Church and proclaimed her message without flinching and that some groups disagreed with him.

I think that the words "uncompromising" and "authentic" better describe his leadership style. Yes, I'm a fan.

I heard Shirley Wiliams issuing her opinions of his papacy on the Home Service at the weekend. She acknowledged that the Church is a more unified entity after his rule than when he started in the job. (A good thing, all agree.) She then went on to suggest that the Church would now need to grapple with the issues of birth control, the celibate priesthood and I think some other items that I cannot remember now... but essentially those fairly radical and central areas that are at odds with the liberal and pluralistic interests in society.

By "grapple with" I think Shirley Williams meant "change its position on". I could be wrong. But I doubt it. I think her argument was half-baked because (i) the Church *has* been grapppling with these issues and many others of a social, moral and political kind; and (ii) I believe the reason for the Church's increased unity is down in no small way precisely to JP2's strong leadership - which included his "hard-line" and "conservative" position.

One of the duties of the Church is to tell the world what she holds to be the Truth about God and Mankind, including moral teaching. If people in vast numbers choose to live their lives differently, I do not think this means that the Truth changes, or that the message should automatically change to engender more popularity or support. I know this is where the Anglican Church is at - i.e. unity at almost any cost, and you have there a group that is so unified in its diversity that you don't know what it stands for, if anything. Maybe Shirley Williams is an Anglican. But I'm not.

Friday, 1 Apr 2005

There's a new Question internet service provider that offers "Global Internet Access" yada yada...
Sign up for the world's premier global Internet roaming service powered by BouncingFish and iPass. Ideal for road warriors and businesses with mobile workers, global Internet roaming connects you to the Internet, email, and mission critical information � with a local call � throughout 150 countries* and thousands of locations worldwide.

There you go - looks fair enough. For some dashy-rashy corporate execs, this might even be a useful service.

But the name... I ask you... "Bouncing Fish" takes the concept of a meaningless name to a new level. It's just stupid and, dare I say it, a little too dot-com 1990s for me.

No... maybe I should just get aboard the bandwagon and start my own new company with a silly name. How about "Cartwheeling Donkey", "Dancing Peacock", "Capuccino Monkey" or "Fidgetting Squirrel"? Or even "Tinned Peach"? Or maybe just "Total Crap".

I despair sometimes, I really do.
From the Daily mail today:-

The Prince of Wales has shown a rare flash of anger in another PR blunder for the royal family. The Prince said "I hate doing this" and "Bloody people" as he faced the press on a skiing holiday a week before his wedding.

Actually I think the "rare" refers to the public airing of Prince Charles' feelings. My gut feeling is that he has not much except disdain for commoners and he manages by and large to hide it. That he hates the press is almost a necessary given.

Perhaps The House of Windsor is making a commemorative set of mis-steps concerning the forthcoming welding of Charles and Camilla. Collect the whole set!

Charles muttered the comments, which were picked up by microphones, as he posed for pictures with sons William and Harry in Klosters, Switzerland.

How long has he been in this job? Not long enough to do it professionally.
The Prince, who is to marry Camilla Parker Bowles on April 8, looked uncomfortable as he was asked about the forthcoming nuptials.

After being questioned about how he was feeling before the big day, he said: "I'm very glad you have heard of it."

To my mind this is a fine example of (i) a typically ungenerous spirit on the part of this member of the Royal Family - a trait he shares with Princess Anne - and (ii) a typically really rubbish sense of irony or sarcasm. If you're going to be sarcastic, make it good at least.

But then he muttered: "Bloody people."

Keep digging, old chum. You may eventually get to Australia. They love you down under. Beacon