This week on  the internet we learnt a new word: sodcasting. The Guardian article here. Rather good: Sodcast [noun]: Music, on a crowded bus, coming from the speaker on a mobile phone. Sodcasters are terrified of not being noticed, so they spray their audio wee around the place like tomcats.

Also in that Guardian was an amusing article about pop stars coming out of the closet.  I wish some had stayed in, wonder if George Michael can have his next tour sponsored by Snappy Snaps? : The Moment I Realised can come in many forms. For Joe, for example, the “penny dropped” after an internet whispering campaign (see: Internet Whispering Campaign). However, The Moment I Realised must never, ever involve looking at a man and thinking, “Phwooarr, I wouldn’t mind a bit of that.”

Bryan Ferry has some good new music coming out soon but the Daily Mail was more concerned about the famous 65 year old man looking a bit paunchy: Love used to be Bryan Ferry’s drug. But by the look of his portly body, his addiction these days is extra helpings. Weirdly, my comment on that article was the highest rated:

I can’t bear to watch Eastenders because it’s an inconsistent wobblyset shambles and I prefer the freaky multi-tone oddness of Emmerdale these days but was amused that top comedy character Karen from Pulling has apparently turned up and is now calling herself Rainie. She has already managed to get Phil Mitchell hooked on crack and cause outrage on the Mail site:

Pulling is out on DVD (except for the final ‘special’) and is almost as more-ish as crack.

I finished watching my Revenge of the Cybermen DVD and it was neither dreadful or excellent (no pun intended) enough for a full review. Good human characters in this one but the Cybermen start their journey to rottenness with the wrong kind of dialogue, acting and voices. They’re still quite creepy and not anywhere near the stompy stompy noisy marchy style of recent times and bring the (oddly redesigned) Cybermats  with them to attack humans in scenes with lots of acting involved. The familiar messy back story with major rewrites and a disgruntled writer made it interesting to hear about and I would have to agree that yes those emotionless Cybermen really should not be so angry all the damn time. Jolly good fun though even though I found myself unable to follow the plot but that may have been because I was doing Wii aerobics for most of it. Definitely worth a go though, and the person who wrote the production notes subtitles deserves at least a biscuit.

*shakes fist* Excellent. There is a rather lovely documentary about the VHS piracy market in the bad old days before the BBC released everything, if that can tempt you a little bit more. I must warn you that it contains images of an Ian Levine nature.

I know I shouldn’t but I can’t help it. Most ridiculous Daily Mail moment of last week:

A  former vicar and his wife have been barred from becoming foster parents after saying they did not want gay couples who are considering adopting to meet them in their own home. John and Colette Yallop told the local council that, if approved as foster parents, they would be ready to help same-sex couples adopt children and would be happy for a gay person to visit on their own. But they said they would rather meet such couples at a children’s centre than in their family home to avoid awkward questions from their own young son and daughter.

Oh dear, here we go again. I bet they play the ‘gay friends’ card…

Mr Yallop, 62, said: ‘We are not homophobic and have worked alongside gay people, but we believe inviting gay couples into our home for the handover process might be detrimental to our family life and our young children. We don’t want to have to explain to our five-year-old daughter or seven-year-old son why a youngster we’ve been caring for has two mummies or daddies.We accept council policies on equality and diversity. Even if we disagree with the rights of gay couples to adopt because it goes against our Christian beliefs, it doesn’t make us bad foster parents.’

Are you sure about that?

Gotta love the hypocritical pick and choose attitude of the ‘my religion says…’ types who use it as a handy excuse then  go all boo hoo hoo when challenged.  If the ex-vicar has never done any of those sins that are totally against their precious religion I might be able to take him a little more seriously. I wonder…

“We knew the assessment process would be intrusive,’ he said. ‘I’m no saint, having had to resign as a Church of England minister after committing adultery while married to my first wife. And I was a bit of a tearaway when I was younger. I knew the details of my going to jail for stealing would come out.”

I think maybe going to the papers with their alleged moral high ground may have been a terrible mistake.

Mail readers really shouldn’t be allowed to look after vulnerable children, all that red arrowing sensible statements may indoctrinate the kids into moronic lifestyles.

Busy busy busy but I have to mention  Sherlock being on tomorrow night (9pm on  BBC1):

It’s a Moffat / Gatiss thing so you can imagine why I am rather excited. There’s a nice BBC website worth a browse-through here.

A modern version of the Holmes experience sounds like something The Daily ruddy Mail just have to get upset about.  What can they find to squeal about in this first episode which has had excellent press reviews?

Well:

That ridiculous paper is bloody obsessed with The Gay!

It’s the latest screen portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, but it is far from elementary. Not only are the detective and his assistant Watson fighting crime in modern-day London, but viewers hear the pair discussing their sexuality… and are left wondering if the pair are gay. While the scenes are meant to be comedic, they will come as a shock to viewers accustomed to the more straightforward relationship between Holmes and Dr John Watson in previous TV and film depictions.

Taking misinterpretation to new levels for editorial agenda reasons once again, then! What else could upset the readers?

In stark contrast to the classic sleuth image of deerstalker, pipe and magnifying glass, Holmes is seen brandishing a ‘smartphone’, using the internet and texting criminals in a bid to solve crimes.

I’m not even going to mention the whole Deerstalker never mentioned by Conan Doyle in the books thing… but internet? texting? They may as well have shat all over the Sherlock Holmes Museum itself.

So what does the article actually base its mad headline on?

In one scene, Watson asks Holmes whether he has a girlfriend. He replies: ‘Girlfriend, no. Not really my area.’ The conversation leads to Holmes saying: ‘John, I think you should know I consider myself married to my work and while I am flattered by your interest, I am really not looking for anyone.’

So Holmes has no girlfriend and jokes that Watson may fancy him. Let the outrage commence!

Pavlovian reader response time:

Why read the article when you have a perfectly good (dodgy) headline to get you frothing at the mouth?

Damn you, BBC! Ruining everything.

It must be so lonely and miserable being a Mail reader. Nothing is exciting or fun, just rubbish or scary or wrong and should be banned.

Patronising cow.

We had no internet for two days (crisis) but now that it’s back I thought I should post the follow-up image of shame that links to the previous post:

Those Mail readers sure are unpleasant cunts.

Daily Mail scientists must have spent some time discussing the perfect story to set their most dedicated Pavlovian readers’ bells ringing today and they certainly succeeded. With a little sprinkling of selected quotations, a drizzle of context twisting and a heaped tablespoon full of the finest prejudices straight from Middle England they made a rather juicy story which made their ‘silent majority’ readers’ bells go into ding-dong overdrive:

Gay + Asylum Seekers + ridiculous quote = Angry Mail jizz all over the newspaper.

What the heck is that headline about? Well…

Gay men should be free to attend Kylie concerts, drink exotically coloured cocktails and talk about boys with their women friends, a Supreme Court justice said today.
Lord Rodger’s summary of male homosexual life in Britain came in a judgment that overturned a decision to deport two gay asylum seekers.

This already sounds fishy. Surely a Judge dealing with complicated asylum cases would not be so dim and superficial to equate The Gay with Sex & The City?

Both men – one from Cameroon, the other from Iran – had been refused permission to stay in the UK on the grounds that they could avoid ill-treatment by keeping their sexuality secret or behaving discreetly when returned. But in a lengthy written opinion, Lord Rodger said that the normal behaviour of gay people must be guarded as it was for straight people. He added: ‘What is protected is the applicant’s right to live freely and openly as a gay man.’To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates.’

OK, so he was being flippant and using trivial examples on purpose to illustrate his point, probably alongside more serious examples such as bloody torture, violence and murder in their home countries. Odd that he was not quoted about those things. Hmmm… I wonder why the Mail focused on  this part of his speech?

That enlightened toddler tantrum of a comment came from a man (well I say man, I would not qualify those views as human) who would have read the next part of the article:

One of the men involved in the case – known as ‘T’ – appealed against a decision that he could return to his native Cameroon, despite the fact that he was attacked by a knife-wielding mob after he was seen kissing a male partner. The other, known as ‘J’, from Iran, was told he could be expected to tolerate conditions arising from his homosexual relationship in his home country, and should behave discreetly to avoid reprisals. Punishment for homosexual acts ranges from public flogging to execution in Iran, and in Cameroon jail sentences for homosexuality range from six months to five years.

A load of red arrows for  that. Well it’s only brown poofs in the average reader’s eyes after all. What do the ‘common sense’ people think?

My… brain… hurts.

Yes, I did a typo. I should be hung or maybe at least flogged a dozen times.

And there’s more:

Home Secretary Theresa May said: ‘We have already promised to stop the removal of asylum seekers who have had to leave particular countries because their sexual orientation or gender identification puts them at proven risk of imprisonment, torture or execution. I do not believe it is acceptable to send people home and expect them to hide their sexuality to avoid persecution. From today, asylum decisions will be considered under the new rules and the judgment gives an immediate legal basis for us to reframe our guidance for assessing claims based on sexuality, taking into account relevant country guidance and the merits of each individual case. We will, of course, take any decisions on a case-by-case basis looking at the situation in the country of origin and the merits of individual cases in line with our commitment.’

The Theresa May? The one who mostly voted against gay equality at every opportunity in the past? Really? Bizarro Tory moment there, once again  causing Mail loyalists a headache, along with Cameron  not being an utter cock about that sort of thing. It’s so hard to know who to hate, poor things.

What about an expert’s opionion?
Jill Roberts, chief executive of the charity Refugee Action, said: ‘We are relieved that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the discretion test is unacceptable and was effectively asking gay people to deny their own identity and live with the daily threat of discovery.The UN Convention clearly states that people have a right to protection who are facing persecution because they belong to a certain social group in their society.’

She’s an expert but in the readers’ eyes she may as well be talking in a series of clicks, chirrups and whirrs. Time for an exotically coloured cocktail methinks and a final thought:

The Daily Mail are a right bunch of miserable fuckers, trying to convince their idiot easily-scared readers that gypsies will steal their children (and their wives now), immigrants are going to ban  cricket, gayness is going to replace maths in schools, muslims want to ban everyone having fun (irony alert) and so on and so on. They are also rather fond of the pointless celebrity non-story which usually involves one of the following judgemental scenarios:

Famous woman on beach: Either too fat (massive gutbucket cow), too thin (skinny bitch) or showing off (to the hidden paparazzi with telephoto lenses).

Famous man going about his business looking much older than a random picture of him from say 25 years ago. May even have grey hair/paunch. Yuck!

Famous woman getting out of a car showing a bit of knickers (slag): Taken by sleazebag photographer practically laying on the ground in order to get the shot.

Famous person out in the evening looking a bit bleary-eyed: Usually due to lots of camera flash from multiple shots and caught mid-blink. Pisshead!

And so on. And then there’s the classic Famous person or persons not grinning inaneely for every single bloody second of the time that a photographer is following them around while out and about minding their own business: Miserable ungrateful famous gits!

Today the Mail printed a prime example but it mostly backfired:

Gasp! Living together? In South London? In sin? (this is in the section of the paper labelled ‘News’ apparently).  So what about this “glum air” they are exuding?

Oh.

Blimey, most popular comment on the story!

Mail Reader usual  service temporarily resumed.

I do not know Dave but bless him for that.

Remember this ridiculous headline from the other day which was clearly a stunt designed to get the Mail’s usual rentaquotes twiddling their tin foil hats like crazy?

Well, as expected, after all the normal people pointed out that it was a load of old agenda-driven bollocks they have done a sequel… with a twist:

So something that was never going to happen has now been confirmed as not happening after all? What an odd way to say they fucked up:

Shoppers will not be barred from buying eggs by the dozen, politicians at the European Parliament said yesterday after fears Brussels was trying to ban the practice. Reports suggested that the EU was planning to rule that eggs must be sold solely by weight. But Renate Sommer, the German MEP tasked with steering food labeling legislation through the parliament, insisted this wasn’t the case. She said: ‘Labels will still be able to indicate the number of food items in a pack, whether eggs, bread rolls or fish fingers.’

Interesting use of language there to not admit it was a load of old arse and infer that  it has been some kind of victory for the Silent Majority. Shame the majority of the commenters have sussed out what is really going on:

And finally:

Common sense: 1 – Mail: 0

The Daily Mail is infamous for its batshit agenda-driven aggressive distortion of stories to suit the editorial policy of FEAR! FEAR! DIFFERENCE AND CHANGE ARE EVIL! but when I saw today’s front page I couldn’t resist investigating the shocking exclusive of world-shattering proportions.

I can feel the ‘fury’ already.

Hang on, as this is The Mail there must be more too it than that. The headline wants the readers (who aren’t all that good at reading the whole article once they see the specifially- designed red rag part) to think that the good old English egg boxes will be axed and their chickeny bum products will appear on  the shelves in  random-shaped containers that merely list the weight of them in those evil modern kilograms. Fury! But:

British shoppers are to be banned from buying eggs by the dozen under new regulations approved by the European Parliament. For the first time, eggs and ­other products such as oranges and bread rolls will be sold by weight instead of by the number contained in a packet. Until now, Britain has been exempt from EU regulations that forbid the selling of goods by number. But last week MEPs voted to end Britain’s deal despite objections from UK members.

So it merely says ‘sold by weight’ which just means the weight has to be listed for each purchase, right?

The new rules will mean that instead of packaging telling shoppers a box contains six eggs, it will show the weight in grams of the eggs inside, for example 372g. Or that a bag of white rolls has 322g inside instead of half a dozen. The rules will not allow both the weight and the quantity to be displayed.

I am so glad that I can read. So the egg boxes that look like six (or twelve if you’re greedy) eggs sat together in rectangular container will continue to be used but with the total weight listed on the egg box instead of the phrase ‘ six eggs’ on a box shaped like six eggs which clearly contains six eggs? So the only people who will notice the difference are those who look at a box shaped exactly like six eggs and need to read the phrase ‘six eggs’ instead of seeing that it clearly contains six eggs? Surely that would mean  nobody  would give a shit? When does this shocking new ruling start, Daily Mail?

This issue is still being considered by EU member states and it will be some time before the regulation is finalised.

Oh. Have you got any good quotes from outraged types whose whole point of existence is to provide outraged quotes for these kind of stories? Maybe not the Taxpayers’ Alliance as it doesn’t really involve tax (they would hate it of course)?

Neil Herron, campaign dir­ector of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund, said the EU directive was ‘absolute nonsense’. He added: ‘If I was a farmer I would get my customers to throw eggs at any official trying to enforce this. It is dir­ectives like this that give the European project a bad name. It makes the British public want to just pull out of the whole thing altogether.’

Perfect! Now what about the readers? Will they have read the story properly and wondered what all the fuss is about?

That’s what I was thinking of but it only goes all CAPS LOCK at the end. Have you got anything more CAPS LOCKy?

Excellent. How about some sensible comments?

FACTS ARE EVIL!

Time for your medication… and maybe 66 grams of egg if you’re good.

After a slight kerfuffle when my cookery experiment of veggie chilli featuring red lentils, red pepper, red onions (so much red!), fresh garlic, tomatoes and rice over-ran and Jamie had to record Doctor Who but accidentally taped BBC News 24 where someone was reporting live from where nothing at all was happening…. I have watched this week’s episode. I liked it but then I usually do. A tad familiar in places though.

It made sense for the Doctor to take Amy home to see Rory after the odd behaviour and trauma of their last adventure and even though they had to rush through the whole ‘she ’s been away gallivanting despite not much time having past’ thing due to the pacing of the episode length (yes I can never let it lie) they did good with the bigger – on – the – inside this time round. We have Arthur Darvill as Rory for a few more stories yet,  which either makes him the new Mickey or Captain Jack or something but in a good way as it changes the dynamic a bit and keeps it fresh. Good stag do incident and the beginning of a lot of comedy moments this week:

“Thought I’d broken out of the wrong cake ….again.” Then it was off for a little bit of fun and danger and monsters: vampiric creatures who like a dip in the water. It’s the bloody Haemovores again! Aaaaaace! Or not, as it turned out. We did have aquatic types who live in Venice though, just like in the rather good Big Finish tale Stones of Venice, guest starring TV’s Mark Gatiss and The Actor Michael Sheard, which I recommend of course. This time round the monsters couldn’t get out of the water if they were boy monsters except for the main boy monster who could do that just fine. Let’s not dwell on the logic of this or my brain will  go plop. He was played by the familiar Alex Price who is better known as Gilbert in  Being Human and the narrator of Doctor Who Confidential,  in case you were wondering.

Oh yes,  that library card scene from the preview clip which seems ages ago happened this week. There may have been one too many innuendo in the episode but I thoroughly enjoyed it. Unlike some people whose job it is to never like anything:

Yes Daily Mail, it is too rude and too scary! Won’t someone please think of the children?

Next week looks like it has real potential:

I bet the Mail hate it.

I’m having an “oh FFS” moment so here is a litle story of an odd Tory dig on the Mail site of all places. Well you can’t have the Cameron Brigade being human now can you?

The original article is here.  It appears to have originally been about them  wanting more women bosses (which itself got some great CAPS LOCK negative responses about them wimmin) judging by the URL but then it got updated to this shocker:

A Conservative government would ‘consider’ changing the law to allow gay civil partnerships to be renamed marriages, the party revealed today. The promise came in a ‘contract for equalities’, unveiled by shadow women’s minister Theresa May, which said the Conservatives were ‘committed to a fairer deal for gay people across Britain’.

I just had to leave a comment, which I cannot screen grab because it got removed by the moderators who sent me an email to explain:

Dear Dan Hollingsworth,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/terms.html

We have received a number of complaints about the comment you made on article “Tories vow to break up ‘old boys network’ with plans for more women bosses”(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1270998/General-Election-2010-Tories-vow-break-old-boys-network-plans-women-bosses.html), 03/05/2010 at 16:20.

Your comment has been removed from MailOnline until it can be assessed by one of our team.

After that, your comment may or may not be re-instated.

In the meantime, here is a link to our Terms and House Rules.

Terms:

House Rules:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/house_rules.html

Privacy Policy:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/privacy.html

Contact:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/contactus.html

This is an automated message from MailOnline.

The offending comment can still be seen as various people replied to it and the debate grew, as it should with these kind of things. Here’s the discussions I had:

Elsie was at least polite about my ‘offending’ comment.

I am genuinely interested in why people don’t get this point. Why do people get married? It’s not hard to understand.

Me and Jamie are just like those two sisters down the road, of course. If they are seriously warped.

I couldn’t let it lie…

Last Sunday me and Jamie went out with my brother and his husband (oh yes I am biased for obvious reasons) and our parents as we often do and it was a pleasant occasion (and they are lifelong Mail readers). I think we’ve been out with them more times since we got married than ever before. Simple family values (but with less lady wives). Not hard to understand, surely?

I am sure some childless couples are actually not that fond of children actually, but that would not fit into the narrow view of ‘proper marriage.’

I declare this a draw. Now when will my comment be deemed fine by the moderators and reinstated, eh?