What’s the difference between smoking and smoking?

Professor Steve Field is the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

So one would imagine that Professor Field knows what he’s on about, when he talks of matters of health.

In today’s Guardian newspaper, Professor Field has said that parents who smoke in cars, in front of children, are committing a form of child abuse.

What? Wait!

Only parents who smoke in cars? Not people in cars who might not be the parents of children present?

I’m confused.

I agree with much of what Professor Field is saying here. I agree that parents need to take much more responsibility for the health and wellbeing of their children.

But what’s the difference – when children are present – between parents who smoke in cars and passengers who smoke in cars?

And also, what’s the difference between parents who smoke in cars and parents who smoke at home?

I’m not waging an all-out war on parents who are smokers, I’m just wondering why Professor Field appears to have tunnel vision that is focussed on smoking in cars and not parents who smoke at home?

As the country’s leading General Practitioner, Professor Field is in a position of public influence.

He seems to have been behind the recent policy shift, to stop using the word ‘obese’ and instead, to call people ‘fat’ – another change in policy direction I wholly agree with.

But I don’t understand why Professor Field’s campaign to get parents who smoke in cars classed as ‘child abusers’ is not extended to *people* who smoke in cars.

I also don’t understand why the ‘smoking in cars when children are around’ campaign is not rolled out to include ‘smoking in the home when children are around’.

Ah well, that’ll be why I’m not a professor and he is.

Special guest…

We cover so much ground and so many topics in this week’s podcast that, frankly, I couldn’t list them all for the website.

That’s because we had a special guest in the studio this week – Pigeon Girl (aka Soph’s friend Gemma).

As well as much random conversation, there are four top tracks that we scoured the planet for.

Fancy giving it a go and joining us live? Use one of the ‘listen’ options below then add ‘thisrealitypodcast’ to your skype address book and we can have a conversation during a future show.

Simples.

1. You can listen by streaming the show straight from our website: just click here!
2. Or you can download the show to your computer – or your mobile phone – so you can listen whenever you want, and in the privacy of your own home: just right click here and use the ‘save’ or ‘save as’ option in your browser
3. Or, if you have iTunes, you can get the show from the iTunes store (free of charge!): just click here and listen to it on your iPod, iPhone, iPad, your computer or other iTunes-compatible music player. Better than radio!

Good old BT (the latest update)

So, to recap, we have been experiencing on-going problems with our BT Vision box.

Daily rebooting, to make the thing work; dropped menus; dropped (paid for!) on-demand programmes; refusing to record.

Generally being an obstructive and uncooperative piece of technology.

Unlike the BT’s offshore Helpdesk, who are obstructive and uncooperative humans.

But fortunately, we have been rescued from the unhelpful clutches of the aforementioned Helldesk by the staff of BTCare.

Thanks to BTCare’s intervention, we have been able to talk to the BT Vision resolution team, and as a direct result of that we are having a new BT Vision box delivered on Saturday morning.

But how awful is BT’s offshore Helpdesk?

Really awful, obv. Awful to the point where we would rather put up with a failing service than go through the pain of calling them.

Anyway, that’s an issue pending resolution.

The other issue has been our hideously slow broadband speed, as experienced the other night.

This has, we’ve been told, been put down to ‘technical issues’ with BT’s equipment in the local exchange.

So there we are. That’s the end of these problems.

Hopefully.

Good old BT (this morning’s version)

I was struggling to download a package that I have to edit – struggling, because my download speed was around the same levels as last night’s downgraded performance – when suddenly my download speed zoomed through the roof.

Is it funny that this miraculous speed improvement occurred just a few minutes before 8.30am?

Is it also funny that last night’s speed dive occurred in the early evening?

Am I being paranoid to suppose that someone, somewhere in BT’s domain ‘did something’ last night, and then went home? And someone else came in this morning and corrected the ‘something’ to put things back on track?

Because how else could you explain the sudden downgrade in performance last night, and the equally sudden upgrade in performance this morning?

Here’s the screenshot of what I’m now getting:

And this morning's 'up to 10Mb broadband speed is…'

Good old BT

I haven’t really chronicled my current battle with BT yet. I’ll just say that my first phone call with BT’s overseas call centre actually had me on the verge of tears when the person on the other end disputed my statement to the point of almost – but not quite – calling me a liar.

Even though I had a voicemail from BT Vision’s technical resolution team to confirm what I was trying to tell him.

There’s far too much meat on all of this. I think it could be time to export all of my BT-related posts in to one purpose-built website.

Anyway, tonight.

I tried to use Twitter.

I tried to read email.

I tried to watch a video on YouTube.

I tried to look up Owen’s competition results.

I tried to send young Jess a Facebook thing.

All of these attempts failed. So I ran a speedcheck. Read it and weep girls, read it and weep:

And tonight's 'up to 10Mb broadband speed is…'

Sunday morning in the Big Brother house

Sophie has just gone back to bed with a cup of tea. She’s now reading.

Bren is downstairs. He has just backed up many websites and internet databases. He’s now sipping his tea and wondering if he should call BT Vision’s helldesk.

Actually, it’s surprisingly difficult to keep everything in the third person.

Hello people! How are you all this fine and sunny grey and overcast Sunday morning?

I’ve updated the theme; what do you think? A little too fiery? A touch too dark? A bit too much ‘apocalypse nowish’?

Oh well.

Suck it and see. As the actress said to the Bishop.

I have just finished checking that the many websites and databases that I host for a variety of nice people have been correctly backed up and stored.

They have.

I am sipping a fantastic cup of tea made by the lovely Soph (who, even now at 9.35am, is Back In Bed Reading A Good Book), whilst I wonder whether I should trouble BT Vision’s helldesk to tell them about their product not working much.

It’s a busy day for a Sunday.

We have to produce a concept demo of a new show for a radio station. That’s all I can tell you about that for now.

I have a 2pm meeting in Oxford with an independent record label.

And this evening we are going to an Over 18s showing of Toy Story 3 – again, in Oxford.

There won’t be any porn or live sex, it’s not that kind of over 18s thing. It just means there won’t be any little darlings being intrusive all over the place.

And Twitter is currently down for maintenance.

Breakfast is definitely going to happen next. And maybe another cup of tea.

Ear, there’s a thing. Why do I say ‘cup of tea’ when I mean ‘mug of tea’?

Am I subconsciously displaying some kind of posh pretension,  by substituting the word ‘mug’ for the more middle-class ‘cup’?

I hope not!

I am to pretensions of posh what Ghengis Khan was to Emily Post’s notion of etiquette.

Here’s an interesting fact:

In the same year that General Custer was getting his barnet refashioned, in a very rudimentary style, at Little Big Horn, Tivadar Puskás was designing the first telephone exchange for Thomas Edison.

Amazing, isn’t it?

I mean, if George and the Native Americans could have held on to their differences for a little bit longer, they could have sorted things out over a conference call.

Right, my tummy is talking to me. Food is required.

Time passes…

Breakfast has been consumed, tea is being drunked, washing is ‘on’ and Soph is Back In Bed.

And I am on the phone to BT Vision.

Well, when I say I am ‘on the phone to BT Vision’, I mean I am in a queue – in to which a recorded announcement breaks, every not and then, to say thank you for holding and to say how busy they are and how wonderful I am but never the two shall meet.

Or something like that.

More time passes…

I am still in the queue. The same lady keeps breaking in to tell me my call will be answered as soon as possible.

I have been in this queue for ten minutes, so far.

There’s some Israeli apologist on the television who is trying to make the point that The World Is Too Critical Of Israel.

Disappointingly, no-one on the panel has thought to bring up the peculiarly-overlooked murder of civilians – in international waters – on ships bearing aid. What short memories some people have.

Meanwhile, I am still in the BT Vision queue. The lady tells me that my call Will Be Answered As Soon As Possible.

It has been seventeen minutes so far.

Time passes some more…

I am speaking to someone!

I have given him the long list of problems that have affected our BT Vision box over the last week.

And he appears not to understand.

He has gone off-line to perform some line diagnostics.

Why? The problem clearly is hardware related and nothing to do with the line. The shopping-list of problems should have told him this.

I shall wait some more, but at least this time I have Eine Kliene Nacht Musik coming down the line at me.

Time passes just a little more…

The guy came back to tell me that we have a broadband speed issue which is affecting our BT Vision service.

While he’s telling me this, I run a quick broadband speed-check which gives my current download speed as:

Broadband speed check results

Frankly, I find it very confusing to be told that 7.01/Mbs is an insufficient broadband speed to support BT Vision.

And yes, we are actually having one of the common issues with our BT Vision box, as I’m on the phone to the guy, so this is real-time reporting on a real-time problem.

Anyway, after 34 minutes, the call ends in an ‘inconclusive but promising’ fashion. The guy at the BT Vision helldesk has said he will forward our problem on to their 2nd line support/technical team; they will contact me within 24 hours.

Now then, what shall I do next?

A judge says… (some dubious things)

Whilst passing sentence on Sean Goodfellow and Murray McAllan, both found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, temporary judge Kenneth McIver said, ‘As in many of these tragic driving deaths, issues are here raised as to the wisdom of allowing new drivers immediate, unrestricted and unconditional driving opportunity.’

The judge also said, ‘To drive at speeds in excess of 90mph on such a road is complete folly. To do so while engaging in a contest of speed, effectively a road race with another vehicle, is indescribably stupid and dangerous.’

Whilst I agree with His Honour Judge McIver as to the folly of racing on roads, I think that the DVLA and VOSA should be taking immediate steps to remove Judge McIver’s driving licence from him until he can demonstrate his knowledge, by passing a new test.

Why?

Because the speed limit on that stretch of road is not ‘unrestricted and unconditional,’ to use the Judge’s words.

It is 60mph.

So the Judge appears not to know that the speed on that road is 60mph, and the Judge appears to be unable to understand that these two foolish young men, who drove at speeds of up to 90mph along it, would have broken whatever restriction had been put in their way.

It also seems to me that (again, to use his own words) the Judge seems to believe that we have some roads in the UK that are ‘unrestricted and unconditional’.

This is also not the case.

Therefore the Judge, Mr McIver, should have his licence removed and should be compelled to take a retest with immediate effect; he has clearly demonstrated he does not know some of the most fundamental rules of the road.

Source

Video (from the Latin: ‘I see’)

I’m desperately trying to keep this away from a Bristol-related rant. And also I’m going to work hard to keep this away from an ‘Underage and Having Sex’ (which we’re currently watching) rant…

I’m thinking of making a video.

No, really. A proper one, not one of those videos!

My sitcom sits on the hard-disk; finished and ready to get pimped around London. I think it’s not a bad piece of writing, obviously, otherwise I wouldn’t be setting myself up for the pain and rejection that the odds indicate are going to come my way.

I also think it’s not a bad piece of comedic writing (which isn’t much of an indication of quality, because writing comedy has always been my weak suit).

But, and here’s my problem, I’m having trouble seeing it as a piece of visual… stuff.

And that’s why I’m thinking of making a video.

Because making a video would help me with the visualisation, no? And it would give me an opportunity to fine-tune the screenplay and really help to develop the shooting-script. No?

It wouldn’t be a posh job.

We’re talking a wobbly hand-held or tripod-mounted camera and the whole product subjected to some seriously bad editing.

But the soundtrack would be a killer. And the soundtrack is a significant component of the sitcom.

My dilemma is, unfortunately, twofold.

Dilemma #1. Setting. Apart from the opening scene, all of episode one is set indoors – but in three different sets. But I think that could be OK. This isn’t supposed to be the finished article, and with a little creativity from the props department (me!) and a bucketload of imagination from the viewers (probably no-one), I think we can work around this.

Dilemma #2. The cast. Episode 1 scripts 6 speaking parts and a bunch of non-speaking extras. Even from the position that no-one will be expecting Oscar-winning performances, how does one begin getting the potential company together, where from and – when they’ve been found – what’s the best way of casting?

Hmmm… I think I need to consult an AmDram specialist. Fortunately, I have one at the stables.

In other news…

The girl on the television in the show ‘Underage and Having Sex’ was just talking about how, as a 13-year-old, she had sex for the first time.

She said ‘It happened, I don’t know how’.

Well dear, I could be a million miles off target with this, but I’d hazard a guess that you let him put his cock in your cunt. Is there anything else you need to know?

Tsk, kids.

As you can see, I successfully avoided a Bristol rant, but the ‘Underage and Having Sex’ rant just kind of slipped out. Sorry.

When is a military secret not a military secret?

When anyone with a brain can work the truth out…

The ’90,000 item Wikileak dossier’ has got some sections of the internet huffing and puffing like a highly excited bunch of huffing and puffing things.

There are flaps of outrage and indignation from the US and UK governments which, when subjected to logical analysis, are shown to be incomprehensible and meaningless.

William Gibbs, the US President’s press secretary said (and I quote), ‘these documents [being in the public domain] pose a real and potential threat to national security’.

My response to William Gibbs is twofold.

Firstly, can you please learn to speak English? Because, William, until you do, everyone on this planet is going to ignore you from this point forward.

Let me explain.

Something can either be a real threat, or something can be a potential threat, but something can not be a real *and* a potential threat.

And secondly, William, you obviously haven’t noticed yet, so it falls to me to point out to you, that the situation in Afghanistan is an *international* one.

You are in no position to put American national security before the international security of *all of the states* who are caught up in the conflict. No legal position at all!

The truth must out, it is that simple. No matter how unpalatable to our political servants (and let’s just remember for a moment that the people in The White House and Downing Street are working *for us*) the truth is, it must be our default position.

That there are high-level elements in the Pakistan government who are actively backing and physically supporting al-Qaida is blindingly obvious to anyone with a functional brain.

But the US Government doesn’t want to be *saying* that publicly because:

• it would cause a PR shitstorm in the US heartlands amongst the voters whenever a new raft of coffins are repatriated
• it would upset elements of the Pakistan government
• it would (rightly) cause distrust amongst the forces on the ground
• it would make many people in many countries ask what the fuck is going on, and question the wisdom of our elected politicians

To underline my point I bring forward Frank Askin, Professor of Law at Rutgers School of Law, Newark (USA, not the original Newark).

Professor Askin says (and again I quote):  ‘Transparency should be the government’s default approach to national security’.

The lack of transparency in this conflict is staggering. Under the sacred banner of ‘national security’ (which I have already demonstrated is a meaningless concept in this war), things are being unsaid, truths remain unspoken and massacres of innocents are being unreported.

All of these things are wrong.

What is the difference between 20 civilians being killed by the Americans, or 20 civilians being killed by the Pakistan-backed al-Qaida?

There is no difference.

Except in the former, the story is suppressed, whilst in the latter every single war reporter and every available photographer and film crew are ferried in to the area to record, in great detail, the once-human corpses, the blown-up cars, the dead livestock and the bullet-marked houses.

And come on, the only people who hadn’t figured out that the UK and US special forces have been operating under ‘locate and kill’ orders for the last couple of years, are sections of the UK and US public.

Does William Gibbs really think that members of al-Qaida have not worked these things out for themselves?

Of course they have.

I have downloaded my copy of the dossier and although I haven’t read it in detail yet, I have scanned most of it, and I have to say that all of the information I have seen so far would be known to the enemy!

All of it.

Yet the data has been withheld from the UK and US public.

The logical conclusion is that the governments of the UK and US see the public of the UK and US as the threat.

We are the enemy.

But perhaps we are not ‘the enemy’ within the context of this conflict in Afghanistan; just ‘the enemy of our elected representatives’ – by virtue of our power at the ballot box?

I’ll leave you with just one example of how the truth is being suppressed, and when it leaks out, corrupted.

When US intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, leaked a video that proved that US Apache helicopters fired on and killed two Reuters cameramen in Baghdad – information that, until that point, the US government had suppressed – who was charged with criminal offences?

Was it:

1. Bradley Manning for leaking the video, or
2. The Apache helicopter crews for murdering innocent civilians?

Ah, I can see from your wry smiles that you know the answer. The casualty is, once again, the truth.

Blogging bullets

• 17th March, 2004
• My first blog post
• Over here
• I’m re-reading it all
• Sad git