I am 60 years old!!

 Its a family members birthday next month, now, its a bloody pain in the arse having to  rack ones brain what to but someone for a birthday prezzie when ones exhausted ones limited brain power in thinking what on earth to buy them for a Christmas gift let alone having to squeeze the old brain cells to come up with a gift for the birthday in January!
But I did it! I came up with a gift for this person! I decided to buy it on line from 'Boots.com'. Its an especially suitable gift for this person I think which I think she'll get use out of. However buying the gift caused me to become really cross-not only at the global company that is 'Boots' but I guess at all those other companies we buy items from via the internet.
What got my goat was when I attempted to register with boots  (in order to buy the gift) I was requested to disclose my date of birth & then chose a "screen name"-a name which others would see when I give the company a review following my purchase.
Now I ask you just what the fuck has my date of birth got to do with me buying g a gift?? (if it were alcohol or a weapon yes, but not an item of bath furniture!!) Surely to God the only essential information that the company require is whether or not I have sufficient funds to buy the damn item not my age!! I did attempt to leave blank the section that demanded my date of birth, but the site refused to accept my registration if I left it blank. It also refused to accept my refusal to enter a "screen name".
 My date of birth, my age is my concern. For any company to demand my date of birth is an intrusion into my personal affairs.And to refuse to accept my registration when I decline to give my date of birth is ageism pure and simple.

I refused to disclose the demanded information incidentally and brought the item using my daughters already registered email account with Boots.

Being a Catholic has its perk(s)!! But only at Christmas!

 I could have shouted out "I'm alright Jack, bugger you lot!" But I didn't. We were en route to the Holy sacrament that is the Mass this morning-I am a Catholic after all & I've gotta get my 'tick' on the register that will gain me entry into eternal life!). The car park at the rear of the local church was cordoned off by traffic cones & supervised by 2 burly fellows who were stopping cars 7 questioning the occupants.Our turn came. Winding down the car window the bury fellow on my right squinted at me and without a change of facial expression nor a word passing between us he nodded to me & his colleague at the same time. Whereupon the cones were lifted and we allowed into the church car park.
This happens every year around Christmas. Regular shoppers shopping for their Christmas prezzies are searching their little hearts out for a place to park their cars. Well now, they can forget St Dunstons's Church car park, cos unless you're a Catholic that goes to Mass, you ain't got a snowballs chance in hell of parking with us Catholics!!
IT was like a scene from a movie set in German occupied France during the 1940's-You're stopped by 2 burly guys in plain clothes who squint at you and shout "Papers!!" Only now, in 2012 Birmingham we have to show them our Baptismal Certificate that proves that we are Roman Catholics. Then, & only then will you be allowed to park your car. Otherwise....you're turned away.
It was hard not to feel a tad smug, when we were allowed through, but there again....I'm sure that smugness is a sin.
Being a Catholic has finally proved to be a perk!

Part of the car park at St Dunston's-Catholics only!

Rest In Peace.

Add caption

Rest In Peace Ravi Shankar.

Hindsight

 Hindsight, they say is a wonderful thing to have. Indeed it is I'm sure we'll all agree with that.
And when I think of the recent tragic suicide of the nurse Jacintha Saldanha who took the hoax call from those 2 prat DJ's in Australia I wonder if the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge are thinking in  a hind-sightedness sort of way? 
The couple apparently said when they heard of the nurses suicide that they never complained to the hospital managers following the hoax call & that they were sadden to hear of the nurses death.
Its a great shame that they never said  personally to the nurse while she was alive that they never had any issue about the stupid call. Then perhaps Jacintha might still be here today & her family would be together for Christmas.

Morning Sickness in pregnancy - The Duchess of Cambridge.

As far as the Royal Family are concerned I don't really give a tinkers cuss about them. I wouldn't cross the road to catch a glimpse of them if they were in my street, & I know that they cost the country a small fortune to keep  but there again they do generate a fair amount of income for the UK one way or another.
However, I do think that there are a few 'hangers on' in the Royal Household who don't appear to do much, & we, the hard pressed British public have to fund their lavish lifestyles.
Now I don'y bare the Duchess of Cambridge any malice & I hope that she has a safe and healthy pregnancy.  But what the hell is going on when she is admitted to hospital suffering from 'Morning Sickness'!?
There are thousands of pregnant women in the UK (& throughout the world for that matter) who, although suffering from Morning Sickness, have to get up each & every morning, & go out to work in all weathers. If they didn't, then alot of them would lose their jobs & wouldn't be eligible for any State Benefits. There are thousands of women although suffering from Morning Sickness have to get up, dress children, feed them, take them to school & then go to work themselves feeling as they do absolute crap with the symptoms of Morning Sickness.
So come on Kate Middleton, get a grip. Grow up & smell the coffee.
Bloody Royals namby pamby's.
Nevertheless I wish her well.

Freedom of the Press??? Post Leveson enquiry.

So now the costly Leveson enquiry has made its report. I won't bore you with the outcome-you can read that yourself, but the report does advocate that there should be some legal control on what the press report/publish. Our slimy Prime Minister Cameron is against this. I guess his motives aren't transparent though, given his dealings with Rupert Murdoch et al. but what ever his motives are for opposing legal control of the British press I have to agree with him. My God Almighty!! I never thought that I'd find myself actually agreeing with a Tory politician, let alone David the slimy Cameron!!!

My belief is that if we have legal control on the press freedom is only a matter of time before the law has some control on all that is printed. Its a slippery slope.  Where will control of what is written end?
Yes, the press behaved totally immorally in tapping phones, printing stories that were sensitive & terribly hurtful & damaging to some people, their motives were purely financial to sell newspapers to a stupid, sad cross section of the British public who have nothing better to do that steep themselves in the daily lives of celebrities. So its my belief that the British public are also equally to blame for actually buying the gutter press that published these stories, tapped the phone-lines  & told outrageous lies.
So I say "no to legal control of the press". I say a resounding "yes" to press freedom & freedom of all that is published. Otherwise I think we're on the way to a state controlled media. whats next?? The burning of books that give a controversial opinion??