All About Manners

I can say that I was bought up to have some manners. The basic, respect for adults, your parents in particular.  I was taught that if a lady came into a room, you stood up. If you were on a bus and you were already seated, and an older person came on, you stood up so they could sit in your place. You didn't speak until you were spoken to (for children that is) but as an adult, you didn't butt into a conversation until the other person had finished what they had to say. As a child, adults knew better than you and you most certainly never answered them back. The old saying 'children should be seen and not heard' is very true. In my day, you'd just sit quietly or leave the room. Today it seems that children think they can get away with all sorts of bad behaviour because they have 'rights.'   Lacking today is respect. People don't seem to have a great deal of patience. Things like social media, Twitter and Facebook, allow people to say things about others which they'd never dream of saying to a person's face. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, even if it's the opposite of your yours. I've found that, on the road, when driving, other drivers (not all, as there are probably more decent people than those who are not, I have to point out) who expect you to get of of their way, some driving very close behind you. They expect you to ignore the speed limit, whatever the consequences. On roundabouts, you get cut up by other drivers, even when you are obeying the rules. Unfortunately, the rules of the road don't seem to apply to many drivers. In Milton Keynes there seems to be a particularly aggressive sort of driver. They want to drive as fast as they can and to more or less ignore the rules when they get to one of the many roundabouts. If you are careful, like me, and slow down when approaching such a roundabout, and you get a car coming up behind you, they don't like the fact that you're being cautious and stop to make sure there's no other traffic coming in from the right, and if you are waiting, they attempt to get you to move. I've seen the faces of some drivers (although I almost always try to avoid eye-contact) and they look angry, or wave their arms in the air, if you don't get out of their way fast enough. The 'not driving to close' rule that used to be in the Highway Code, seems to be ignored. It makes sense to not drive to close to a car because, what happens if you brake suddenly, in particular when it's wet or icy, you're more likely to skid and then the car behind is going to run into you. Give other road-users space. Common sense, really.

People in shops can be really bad mannered. In Marks and Spencers, a couple of months ago, when they had their special offer meal deals, £10 for a meal for two, main, side, sweet and wine (excellent value. Waitrose also has a similar offer.), I got there and a large crowd of people were grabbing the items in the offer, in  one of those shelving units at the end of an aisle. People were pushing in, and one woman barged her way in without a word of apology or 'sorry.' Just had no manners. I thought Marks and Spencers customers were better mannered that this, but apparently not. Then, when you get to the till, the check-out, and you have to queue. Some people don't like waiting. I thought the British had this 'thing' about queuing, most likely dating back to the Second World War, when there was rationing and you had to queue to get whatever it was. I think that has most definitely gone out of the window. People can be exceedingly rude to the poor staff on these checkouts. It must be very difficult to be polite to customers who are just plain nasty.

It doesn't help when certain people who are judges of television shows such as 'Strictly Come Dancing' come out with some really nasty remarks about some of the celebrity dancers. I'm not actually a fan of this sort of show, but it seems bad manners don't apply when Craig Revel-Horwood says some quite spiteful things. Just to get mentioned in the tabloid press or on social media I reckon. I realise that a lot of so-called 'reality' television is hyped to deliberately get things mentioned in these forms of media and the producers set up people such as the judges, but I don't think it's necessary to be quite so nasty. As a result, some audience members think they have a right to be similarly unpleasant to people. Footballers and other sporting personalities who behave in a reckless manner, such as speeding in their cars or in a drunken manner, falling into the gutter after leaving a nightclub or brawling are setting bad examples for fans, and thus giving the impression that their bad manners and general behaviour is acceptable. As a consequence, young people think they can get away with that sort of behaviour. These sports personalities as well as pop musicians and actors who have a loyal following are setting bad examples when they should be trusted to behave in a better fashion.

I think mobile phones and social media have a lot to answer for, as regards manners. How many people do you see walking about as they use their mobile phone? You rarely get eye-contact with anyone these days. Too busy texting. Rarely get any sort of contact with anyone who speaks. If you do, it's usually those of a mature age. Mostly it's the younger generation who are obsessed by mobile phones. I know they have their uses, but when people can't even speak when you try to make conversation, it's a bit of a worry for the future. Are there going to be people who have no social skills? They're going to be sort of stunted, as regards social interaction. People using mobile phones when they're in a restaurant and not paying attention to other people at the table, grossly bad manners in my opinion.

I've heard recently of someone objecting to someone using a mobile phone as they were sitting in the audience for a play in the West End and the person on the mobile punching the person who objected. Also, people eating food while they watched a  play. Just plane bad manners to even think of eating food and being obnoxious. As for using a mobile when watching a play, just thoughtless behaviour and shouldn't be allowed. What on earth is the point of going to see a show, when the tickets are probably very expensive, and then chatting on a mobile phone all the way through it? Do people think it polite to talk all the way through a live performance, annoying for the other audience members and just distracting for the actors who are trying to give a decent performance. I'd have hope he person who punched the man who used a mobile was done for assault. As for eating in the auditorium, definitely not the place to eat.

More Niggles-Television- Part 3

Why do television schedulers think that, by putting the word 'celebrity' in the title of something, that viewers will flock to watch it? And anyway, what does the word 'celebrity' mean? What does it conjure up in someone's mind to make them think something is worth their time and effort to watch?

Today, the word has been spoilt because people become a so-called 'celebrity' by merely being on a particular show, for not actually doing a great deal, such as being a contestant on a something such as 'Big Brother.' Merely being ON TELEVISION seems to mean you've become a star! No real skill is necessary, you're not even an actor, presenter or anything particular. Look at someone like Jade Goody. She was a contestant on Big Brother (hardly a 'contestant' being in that show. Not even a 'show' either, in my opinion.) She didn't do anything in particular. Annoys me that that sort of programme makes people think they've got a right to become some sort of performer or 'celebrity.' Andy Warhol said that 'in the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes.' My quote may or may not be his exact words, but he was right, nevertheless. Now it's possible to be 'famous' for merely being on television as a contestant in a 'reality' show such as 'Big Brother.' No skill or training required. Just be on television. In that respect this 'celebrity' thing is watering-down any skill that you might require to be entitled to be called a 'celebrity.' So we get shows which suddenly get the appellation 'celebrity' included in their titles, such as 'Celebrity Big Brother','Celebrity Masterchef','Celebrity Great British Bake Off.' And the list goes on and on. I know that a lot of these shows have an element of raising cash for charity, such as Children In Need and Comic Relief, but it does get really boring.

My next niggle: Saturday evening television. Why do schedulers think that, just because it's a Saturday evening, we have to endure dumbed-down rubbish? A new show has arrived on BBC1, hosted by the former lead judge from 'Strictly Come Dancing,' Len Goodman, being the host of something called 'Partners in Rhyme.' Having only seen a trailer for this, I have to say, from what I've seen, it looks just plain appalling and down-market.  Who on earth thought this was a good show to commission? As Goodman has left 'Strictly,' it seems the good old BBC thought they ought to use him in some way, so offered him the job of compere of their heap of old tat. Then there's that show where the contestants have to fling themselves onto huge rubber balls and obstacles with water pouring onto them. I forget the name of the show, but it's not exactly demanding viewing, although it must be very demanding for the contestants. The show as called 'Total Wipe-Out.' Having just done a Google search. Then there's the National Lottery gameshows which have such easy questions that they're just an insult. I know what you're going to say, with so many television channels, you don't have to watch any of this sort of television, to which I agree, but as a television license payer I get annoyed that they have to waste the money on such rubbish. As the Beeb is lumbered with providing a show which presents the Lottery (now re-branded at Lotto for some reason best known to the company who runs the National Lottery.)  numbers on a Saturday they have to dress it up someway by showing a rather lame gameshow. 

Trumpery, Brexit and A Bitterly Cold Morning

A really bitterly cold morning. The ice on the car really took some shifting. I almost used up an entire bottle of spray anti-freeze. I have to be really careful with cold that intense. I get a real pain in my chest. Not sure I want to induce another heart attack as a result. I think it's because your arteries close up or something. Stops blood pumping through. I'm not going to see what happens so I'd rather be in the warm. The central heating is on. I turned it up a notch yesterday.

So, today is Donald Trump's inauguration. I'm not so sure how I feel about the man. He's made some really nasty comments, he's divisive, what will his Presidency be like? How will we, in Great Britain, get on with the man? More or less the complete opposite ideologically, to Barak Obama. Sorry to see him go. Let's wait and see what happens. I think Trump's style of campaigning during the run-up to the U.S. Election was based on his experience of being on the reality television show "The Apprentice." These shows rely on 'sound bites.' They need them so that people make comments on social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. He has used these 'sound bites' to get a reaction, to get people talking, whether for good or bad. He just needs to temper his comments. He says something, and then sometimes regrets it. Something like "The Apprentice" has catch phrases such as 'Your Fired!" which everyone knows. The same with "Strictly Come Dancing" which is manipulated by the media to give it the best stories which can be reproduced in the Tabloid press. Whenever one of the judges says something nice or nasty, it gets a headline in 'The Sun' or 'The Mail.' (Other tabloid newspapers are available.) Do Americans realise that 'Trump' has a different meaning in this country? As George Bernard Shaw so succinctly said about American and British 'English' and the difference, 'two countries divided by one language.' 

As for Brexit (I'm sorry, but I hate the term.), why didn't our politicians make more effort to actually EXPLAIN what the E.U. was about, well in advance of the Referendum in June? How many voters in that vote actually know what they were voting for? So many people, particularly those in the youngest age-group, say from 18-30, don't appear to have any interest in politics. I know the scandal of M.P's expenses a few years ago tarnished the reputation of Parliament and it's members, which is understandable, but how many people really understand what we got out of the E.U.? If you don't understand the process of Parliament or the E.U. (which also has itself to blame.) how can anyone make an unbiased decision, to leave or remain, if they aren't given the facts? most young people seem more interested in celebrity culture, reality television, the latest football results, than politics and in particular, the E.U. How many people do you see walking about the streets with their mobile phones in their hands, and not actually interacting with the world around them?  When the result of the Referendum is going to have such far-reaching consequences, wouldn't it have been more important to vote in this important Referendum than keeping your face glued to a stupid mobile telephone? It was the tabloid press in Britain who were very much responsible for giving the E.U. a negative presentation, which would have swung there readers towards voting to leave. I also blame the government who drafted the legislation which allowed the Referendum. Why did they not have a clause in that which said that the vote either for or against, had to be of a certain percentage one way or another, to allow for a leave or remain decision? The fact that the 'Leave' vote was so low, I don't know the exact figure, but it was as low as 1-2% in favour of leaving the E.U.

Having done some research on the subject of the Referendum on the internet, I find that around 25,000 votes were invalid or blank. What are we to make of this? Why were they 'invalid'? Are some people so stupid that they spoilt their ballot papers so they became invalid? Didn't they think the vote was important enough to use this Referendum properly and actually vote one way or the other? If they had voted, perhaps the difference in the outcome would have been very different. It just shows the ignorance of some people knows no bounds.

Great British Bake Off

It's surprising how addictive the television show "The Great British Bake Off" can be. I suppose you could ask, doesn't it fall into the category of 'reality' television, competition, gameshow or reality, because it has real people put into a situation that they wouldn't otherwise be put in, or perhaps it's got a combination of all these.  I'm not a great reality television fan. In fact, I detest it. I cannot see what the attraction of 'Big Brother' can possibly be. Merely watching a group of non entities living in a house and having their every move poured over by the media, Facebook, Twitter, the Red Tops and so on, just doesn't make very interesting television I'd rather watch the testcard (if they use one still, which I very much doubt). For a start, I hate the term 'reality television' because everything you see on television is fake. The very picture you watch is an illusion. Made up of 625 lines and flickering at a rate of something like 250 frames a second. The image you watch has been edited carefully. Put a camera in front of anyone who isn't trained as an actor or other performer and they will react differently. Some people clam up, whilst others 'play' to the camera. Then the images you see are carefully edited as I say. This particularly for something like 'Bake-Off' because the time scale of each episode has been condensed. The contestants have, say, two hours to bake a cake or whatever and it is filmed and edited to take perhaps 15 minutes on screen. The director and editor will edit out the extraneous matter, the un-interesting bits and keep only the most interesting bits. How do we know what bits have been re-shot, with the camera in just the right place to get the most interesting view of something? We can never be sure. Do Sue and Mel spend a long time composing what we imagine are off-the-cuff remarks? Does the director make sure that they are put in just the right place so that they can come out with these remarks? And the double entendres, those little gems such as 'soggy bottom' etc etc, put in to get a cheap laugh?

After all that, I think I like it because the contestants are interesting. They're not celebrities. They have interesting lives. We can, as the viewer, identify with them all, or most of them. There's the builder the grandmother, the former practice manager of a doctor's surgery. Nobody is generally nasty to one another. There is no viewers' vote. It doesn't get spun out for ages and ages before we learn who has been voted off at the end of each week's programme. No baying audience as there is on 'Strictly Come Dancing' who clap and cheer at every little thing the dancers do. And the setting is somewhat different to most other similar shows. A tent in a country house garden where the weather seems to interfere on a regular basis. How the production company manages to keep the rain out whenever there's a downpour is a mystery to me. Have you ever been in a similar tent when there's a rain storm? You can't seem to avoid the drips. Not every tent in one hundred percent waterproof. And the biggest mystery to me is, how do they manage to keep secret each week's vote-off and most importantly, the over-all winner when it is filmed so many months in advance?