My Little World10

So it’s international weekend and I’m bored waiting for an England game, I thought I’d sort out my old online gambling accounts – I had let some old ones slide when I went to uni and had nothing to play with and thought I’d check what I had. Pleasantly I found £2.50 in one I didn’t know about, but otherwise I was sensible enough to clear the rest.

But what I did find was that PremierBet, an old one, had disappeared completely – apparently they had basically done a runner in 2007 – I’m fine, I’ve had no money in there for years but certainly other people seem to have lost out. This got me thinking how likely is this to happen, especially in our current financial crisis? Well, I don’t want to cause a run on the sites because obviously a mass exodus from them as people struggle to pay bills and such would undoubtedly be what brings them down, but I wonder how likely it is.

Firstly let me point out – PremBet was one gambling site out of a few dozen main ones and is the only one to have done this, and some quick checking of any site should reassure punters of who is safe. Most sites will simply be absorbed into larger ones if they go under – as happened with totalbet going into Skybet and sporting odds into sportingbet – in which case accounts are simply transferred. As a safety note – current legislation does not protect winnings, but it does protect deposits – so as a tip if you make a fair bit of profit be sure to withdraw (which obviously you should do to actually make a return), you can even deposit the same amount back in, but then it’s secure as a deposit – *this is an incredibly cautious move and is highly unlikely to actually happen, but it’s worth knowing*

So who should you go with?

Well the largest bookies in the land are Coral (also part of Gala – the bingo people), Ladbrokes and William Hill – all big recognisable high street names, and there is also Betfair – the largest online bookmakers and very reputable. These guys aren’t going anywhere soon.

However I have my issues with the big high street chains – safe and reputable, yes, but when it comes to online gambling there are better sites out there. Ok firstly I’ve never used Coral, so all I can say is the odds aren’t anything special (hence why I’ve never bothered). Likewise Laddies and Will Hill – the odds are distinctly average, but I also dislike their sites – Ladbroke’s in particular is hard to navigate, and William Hill is only a bit better, the menus are confusing. Also they offer little in offers and because they are high street brands, can rely on that to bring in the cash – so frankly, whilst they are perfectly reputable I would look elsewhere.

Betfair meanwhile, is one of the best sites out there, it’s the largest online bookie, and you will probably have seen its national adverts and sports sponsorships – and it’s hated by the old order because it is a betting exchange (which coincidently offers much better returns than them). They’re a very safe and respected gambling site who offer something very different to usual bookies – it’s an exchange, like a stockmarket (yeah, not a great thing to say right now I guess – but there’s no short-selling, hedging or speculation) – basically punters lay the bets as well as back them, i.e. you bet on what won’t happen, it can be a little confusing for the inexperienced gambler (they do give you lots of simplistic video tutorials) but once you get the hang of it it’s very lucrative – and of course you can just back bets as you would normally. As a result Betfair make their money off a 5% commission rather than you losing, but because they don’t want you to lose and you set the odds you will pretty much always find the best odds on there, so you do win more than at other sites. Their offers are also very good – lots of new member deals, and in my experience the customer service is excellent. One thing I’ve always wondered is how they get people to lay on every market (every market, like slovakia vs finland or something) – but I guess a million customers helps. They also have some great gambling games as well as poker and a casino, operate in Australia and have nothing to do with the damn U.S gambling restrictions (the enormous British gambling trade makes me very proud).

So what about the rest? They’re not all tin-pot organisations; I’ve merely listed the ‘big three’ high street brands and the rather unique Betfair.

There’s always the Tote – the original government run bookies, not any more since Labour, you know, the socialist party, started privatising them - but anyway, a safe and well known brand who are likely to be run by another reputable brand pretty soon. Can’t say I’ve ever used them, but certainly safe.

Then there’s the privateers – Betfred and Victor Chandler – basically two blokes who’ve set up their own bookies and made a fortune – again two well respected bookies. Betfred have 700 shops, mostly up north – safe hands, they also sponsor lots of little entrepreneurs in the gambling world, which I personally like. They are still a bit small on the net tho, they don’t get a lot of action and the odds are a bit crummy. VC on the other hand are far more internet inclined, another well-respected old bookie who are now almost solely net based and are one of my favourites. They offer great odds, although I’d advise waiting til the 24hours before a match to get the odds (which is true of most admittedly) – and also a lot of competitions, playing ‘Beat Victor’ is basically free money. They have a reputation as innovative and friendly, helped by the constant involvement of Victor himself, even if the man did inherit the business he’s been pretty successful – and is responsible for forcing the UK to drop gambling taxation by moving to Gibraltar a decade ago, which we should all be thankful to him for. Also the site is very user friendly, one of the essentials of internet gambling.

Another user-friendly site is Bet365 – it’s probably the most pleasant to use out there, and has very good odds on football (my main area, they may well be good in other areas). They’re an old bookies who moved into online gambling, hence the better service online (see a pattern here?) – they come highly recommended. If you want some accountability they are owned by the chairman of Stoke City FC.

How about Skybet? Yep, they are owned by Sky and are part of the empire – but as you can imagine that means you can trust them in as much that they can’t exactly pack up and run off with your cash. Again another internet based bookie – and again a lovely system to use, that’s my main draw to them – they also offer a lot of deals, ala sky TV – some are pretty good, and they are quite good with customer service – they like to bend over backwards to keep you happy, offering little insurance sweeteners such as protecting you from injured players and injury time winners, doesn’t cost a lot but it goes a long way. I guess if Betfair are the Google, Skybet are the Tesco. Skybet obviously keep me happy because I still use them even though I know their odds aren’t that great – their one drawback, which clearly has been outweighed by their ease and service in my mind. They also have a link with “Soccer Saturday super 6” – which is a free game you can play for money. So trustworthy and pleasant, but for big winnings not the best choice.

That’s most of the ones I use and trust – I am aware of Paddy Power, another big chain – they’re Irish…enough said. But seriously, a reputable brand and one that is renowned for its silliness in it’s marketing and offers – these are the people who paid out on Derby being relegated after about 6 weeks last year.

All these sites are well-respected and in my experience, safe – and depositing and withdrawing is painless as far as I’m aware. There are plenty of others out there, and I pass no judgement on them, but I merely champion these guys for your betting needs.

So I would recommend: Betfair, Bet365, VC, Skybet and also advocate Betfred, William Hill, Ladbroke’s and Totesport.*

One I would warn you from is Sportingbet – a large group who offer in my experience very poor service, and are quite slow to pay – I’ve never heard anything good about them, a shame because they absorbed sporting odds, who were pretty good back in the day.

*And of course I take no responsibility if you believe me and then lose money – you’re listening to some anonymous idiot on the net?

Ok, so daft title probably but reading the news the world is ending - but when i walk out the door people are still going about their business, going to work, going to school, getting transport, buying groceries

but the FTSE has lost 20% in a week!!

So? i can still walk into a supermarket and buy what i want, and petrol prices seem to be finally settling, i can go on the internet, buy stuff, gamble - whatever

I admit i'm in a lucky position, i don't have a mortgage or loan and am 46 years away from a pension - but that's just it isn't it? everybody talks about the global financial crisis, and undoubtedly people have been hit - the building trade most obviously, and that's not good for them, it's hard times, but it solves the housing crisis for a bit and it was part of the bubble anyway - oh and of course bankers - can't quite see the unions coming out for them

ok admittedly if our councils lose all that cash in iceland that may be a problem - why were they placing taxes in high interest bank accounts anyway?? council tax is extortionate and they want 8% interest on it? is it not enough? or do we not get that return?

But on it rolls - and you know the stupidest thing about it? it's based on imaginary money and fear - unlike many economic crises this is not about a shortage (such as oil or food) - it's about our financial system basically inventing money which can't be paid back, it's daft because it's all high finance bringing itself down, the effect on the little person is on their banking system - and obviously if this daft market tumbling (which is built on fear! nothing else! that's why the government have to give them billions, to make them feel better) continues then no bank may be safe, earlier it was presumed once all the bad creditors had been paid out (building societies such as HBOS, Northern Rock, B&B) it would be ok for the safe banks like Lloyds, HSBC and Barclays - but maybe not

So what will happen? 1929 again? the great depression? probably not tbh (famous last words) - government's have far more power now and the welfare state will probably cripple itself to maintain the system even if it suffers for twenty years

I for one just want to see an end to this, either crash or buck up, and then we can work on picking up the pieces

yup, as you can guess this is about football

so, do you want to know the real reason I hate Ronny?

...Fantasy football - that's right, fantasy football - the most irritating thing for me is that if you wanted to be a decent manager last season you had to have the 31-goal season diving wonder in your squad or you got hammered - (this is the official premier league fantasy game by the way) - with nearly 300 points he probably justifies his 14 million price tag this year - but at 3 million higher than the already expensive likes of lampard, gerrard and fabregas he completely dominates a team, you basically have to find an extra cheapie who may get points to balance him

there's not much I can do about it, if he was cheaper even more people would have him, and his score does pretty much warrant the pricetag - but I don't want to have to buy him and ruin the balance of my team(s) - I pride myself on sneakily buying the likes of Cahill, ashley young, arteta, zaki and rory delap - but none have the ridiculous consistency that ronaldo had last year, which meant without him you were always playing catch up and having to divert your funds to him, meaning tactics were watered down - i found the whole experience very annoying - "build your fantasy team of fifteen players, built in ronaldo for 14 million, required: 2 dirt cheap midfielders from fulham"

obviously there are popular players, but he had such consistency that everyone had to have him if they wanted to win - 31 goals in 38 games is ridiculous, especially considering forwards get less points than midfielders, so the expensive torres with 24 goals got proportionately less - so the european 'forward of the year' got extra points for being called a winger, while the winger* ashley young was classed as a forward and got less...strange huh?

and so that is why i am not happy about ronaldo's return, while i may dislike the diving little s**t and all the hype around him I particularly loathe the fact that he may well reduce the fun of fantasy football (how sad am i??) - i was so happy when he had surgery (what? don't look at me like that, he's not dying or anything) - no ronaldo at the start made the fun of finding players like wright philips and deco, or the failures of bentley, and the tottenham team in general (love it), much better

but now he has returned, i'm hoping he won't pay his way as much this year, which would give me a massive advantage over those novices who already bought him (leaving 14 million on the bench) and will snap him up this week - what with berbatov up front he may have to share his goal tally a bit because quite frankly i don't want to fork out 14 mil on this incredibly top heavy player - time will tell, and i'll get pasted...

(well nearly)

yes that's right, the premier league is back - obviously the football league started last week, but sorry that just doesn't cut it - call me a tool of corporate sponsorship if you must but there are far more ways to make money of the prem, and MOTD is way better than the 'championship'

so - what shall we talk about? I have decided on a team run-through and an inevitably wrong prediction so..

Arsenal: last season 3rd - lets take a look at Arsenal's summer changes - they have lost Gilberto Silva, Flamini and Hleb - Silva means nothing but the other two were core to their midfield, they now have ramsey and nasri and some german bloke - like for like swaps, apart from ramsey is about 12 and nasri ain't all that - now last season they were good, until as I predicted they collapsed from lack of depth - how will this change?? they still have Fabregas of course, and Walcott should come into his own - but buying a child and not strengthening leads me to ask how they expect to improve - i see no improvement and so can't see them breaking 3rd - probably 4th plac, oh and they have an injury list as long as my arm and are currently sending out the under-12s - good luck

Aston Villa: last season 6th - Still a good side, the only key player theyve lost is Mellberg, although Barry will undoubtedly be off soon - he'll be a big loss - Mellberg is fairly simple to replace and Villa have really strengthened at the back, their only real weakness last year - theyve bougt cuellar, luke young, curtis davies and shorey in - all fine purchases, as well as replacing Carson with Friedel - a solid choice, going forward they should be same as last year - the only difference is the loss of luke moore....yup, maybe they need a bench warmer to make up numbers but i think theyll live - and then of course there's Barry - the captain and linchpin of the midfield - in to replace him is steve sidwell - he who has spent a year on the chelsea bench after playing well at reading - it's a bit of a risk, he's good but it may take a while to fill barry's shoes, still we should see a similar if not better result for Villa - 5th or 6th

Blackburn: last season 7th - Now i'm sure i'm being racist here but I think Blackburn will struggle - for the simple reason that theyve lost mark hughes... oh, and david bentley - Paul Ince has just jumped into the big pond from the fishtank and has no premier league management experience - it did of course work for roy keane, and Incy has talent as a manager but I can't see it happening with these purchases - Robbo in goal, should be a good choice assuming he's not as loony as he has been the past year, but they haven't really brought in anyone of serious quality - and should they lose roque santa cruz (which i now hope because they bought a bloke called julio santa cruz) they may see their fortunes slide - by struggle I mean mid-table, they aren't going down but remember Blackburn are actually a small side and punch above their weight, they could easily slide into 10th-12th spot

Bolton: last season 16th - Boring! why are they still here? ok i'll try - they've lost Campo and Diouf now, and bought Danny Shittu from watford, Muamba from Birmingham - I can't see anything special coming out of it, now theyve lost both Anelka and Diouf, but Megson should have them tearing enough chunks out of teams to stay up against the likes of Hull and Stoke - lucky, low but safe - 15th-ish

Chelsea: last season 2nd - gotta be one of the teams with a chance, they were pipped last year but really there was nothing in it between them and united - a few gusts of wind perhaps, Scolari is an unknown quantity and will probably surprise us all by being awesome, Chelsea remain solid at the back - overspent on Bosingwa and Deco is elderly but a fairly standard replacement for Makelele, they should be title contenders - first or second, but no sure thing

Everton: last season 5th - yeah good luck challenging for the Champions league again - put simply everton have no money because they're investing in their new stadium - they haven't bought anyone! they've lost andy johnson, big whoop, the words chocolate and teapot comes to mind - and lee carsley, one of a bunch of generic midfielders, but both first team players, neither being replaced - doesn't add up, they still have yakubu and Arteta - and Cahill depending on fitness - so I still expect a top 10 finish, but nothing like last year - 8th would be good, not the best place to be this year i feel

Fulham: last season: you bastards!! (17th) - yep, theyre still here, overturning a ridiculous point deficit in pretty good style as birmingham and reading cocked about trying to secure a point...credit to roy hodgson - they are still looking at bottom 6 tho - even with goal machine andy johnson - he'll be a big player with about 10 goals at a team like fulham, theyve also bought west ham veteran bobby zamora, theyve sold a lot of crap, and bought a lot of crap to replace it which im not going into - theyve notably lost mcbride, bocanegra and bouazza - under hodgson i think theyll be ok - but 17th is looking preferable

Hull: new boys - hull, hull, hull - i dont know a lot about them - apparently they have an awesome keeper who might be helpful as ben foster was at watford, and theyre clearly trying to bulk out their squad - bringing in a fair few players, like boateng, geovanni and gardner but is it good enough? I don't think so, i think they'll be 18th or 19th

Liverpool: last season 4th - 'must do better' springs to mind - the team i know most about, theyve lost Riise, big bloke, but replaceable and bench warmers kewell and crouchy.. and who have they bought? Robbie Keane for 20 mil - they remain solid at the back, strong through the middle with gerrard, mascherano, and hopefully Barry, and then up front with Torres of course - a very good team, and Keane is a good addition - but what about the wings? Babel is decent on the left, if he's consistent, but they really couldve done with Bentley - instead he buys Keane...hmm, I think i know what he's up to - Rafa has enough sense to know dirk kuyt should not be on the wing...or the pitch...but i guarantee you he'll be sticking with mascherano, and if he buys Barry you think he'll be leaving either him or gerrard on the bench?? it's a five man midfield - so keane is...going on the right - now keane is creative and much like rooney probably can play from the wing, but when it comes to real wing players they are pretty weak - what i hope is that Rafa opts for the 4-4-2 against weaker sides, droping the defensive mascherano - but then you need a real right winger - it's a big hole, and as usual most of liverpool's problems will come from Rafa's bad league tactics and focus on the champions league, remember the reading defeat - i saw that coming..prediction: the usual 2nd-4th, i'm not risking 1st - News: Rafa played Keane with Torres for the CL qualifier, kuyt on the wing - 3rd anyone??

Manchester City: last season 9th - new manager, petulent owner...this'll end well - he is a very good manager tho, and sven turned the side around in great fashion (note: he wanted a top 10 and got 9th, then got sacked for being too good at the start and too bad at the end, oh and qualifying for europe through fair play...) - they havent lost much but a bit of depth like sun ji hai - the purchase of Jo is a gamble and that for me is the key factor - otherwise the team remains as strong - they were good against AC milan the other day - winning, but lacked a finisher - that is Jo's job - if he works, theyre looking at 5-7th, he doesn't or Thaksin sells the squad theyll be near 9-10th again, or lower

Manchester United: reigning Champions - What's the big story at United? - Berbatov - this morning the papers expected them to sign him up today, so far nothing but it's looking increasingly likely he'll go - United have so far bought no one and offloaded the likes of Chris Eagles, danny simpson and Pique - not huge losses, altho pique covered for a bit - they still have the depth - what they needed is a big striker - and Berbatov fits the bill, he's the target and he's as good as 5 signings one of the lower teams might make because he's been so carefully selected - this would pretty much cement United - however, they do look like they're resting on their laurels - only one big signing? they must be asking themselves why improve?? last year chelsea gave them a very close run, the same will happen this year - and united only buying a goalscorer doesnt really add a dimension - they already had bags of goals in ronaldo and a ridiculously solid defence - my issue is their midfield - should they strengthen? i think we're looking at the retirement of scholes and giggs, and nani and anderson aren't as good - i don't make a very strong argument...they are the same team, i just have a feeling that's not the best idea and they're going to feel the heat - of course they are contenders, as always - injuries and decisions will probably make it as much as anything - 1st or 2nd

Middlesboro: last season 13th - dull, dull, dull - somehow gareth southgate has made a strong side that are comfortable - they are the new tottenham, very settled and unlikely to go anywhere - pundits are loving southgate these days, but i'll never rate him - they'll get a similar position, still got goals in tuncay and alves

gah i just wrote the final teams and blogspirit deleted it! i saved at tottenham anyway you twats!!

digest version then!:

Newcastle: last 12th - all about keegan, and owen - 9th ish

Portsmouth: last 8th - crouchy and defoe deadly, solid at the back - one of the best non big 4 - 5th or 6th

Stoke: Kitson good, but lack quality - rock bottom finish

Sunderland: 15th - good purchases, mostly from spurs - have quality, comfortable second season but still 12/13th

Tottenham: 11th - Big losses, some big signings - but need to settle and need a bit more depth, probably not at top 6 level - 7th

West Brom: new - have no goals! looking at 19th i think

West Ham: 10th - dull, nothing exciting, probably 10th again

Wigan: 14th - bought Kapo, but nothing of particular note, Zaki may be good - they'll scrap their way to safety again, steve bruce will see to that

so my table:

top four: Chelsea/United (can't call)

3. Liverpool

4. Arsenal 

5. Pompey

6. Villa

7. Spurs

8. Everton

9. Newcastle

10. West Ham

11. City

12. Blackburn

13. Boro

14. Sunderland

15. Bolton

16. Wigan

17. Fulham

18. Hull

19. West Brom

20. Stoke

Summer always produces interesting topics, hence it's title of silly season - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7552015.stm - yes a Bill of Rights

apparently Britain doesn't have one! the Beeb seem to have neglected the original 1689 version - now I only say this because the reference to the American style one is obvious - the idea is to mimic such a piece of paper, when in fact the American one was based around the principles developed in England and transplanted by the immigrants that went there and eventually said 'cock off' to parliament - the British one is older and not quite as revered but to me it seems a pretty big flaw in their reporting - considering the document, although revised by acts of union, still prevents catholics from sitting on the throne and ensures the rule of parliament - it also bans a peacetime standing army, an issue i love to bring up against sun readers who love our proud military tradition...of the last century or so - conservative argument is so easy to pick apart

What's particularly depressing is 'Have your say'- quite possibly one of the worst forums on the internet - for both content and execution - full of apparent BNP voters and very bizarre right wingers who post the same tripe under a variety of pseudonyms and a moderation system that means your posts rarely get published and are seemingly posted in a giant block so you only get seen near the front if you're very lucky, oh and a fairly draconian moderation policy that restricts debate and argument because they prefer you to make statements rather than correct people - i can see the idea behind it but i want to challenge the overwhelming tide of bs on there, i think it's half the reason few intelligent people bother with it - it's basically there for you to say 'i like this' or 'i don't like this' in a very charming BBC breakfast show kind of way, which doesn't work at all - it needs updating, or they need to ask inane questions rather than bringing up highly politically charged issues, because frankly the whole section is a disgrace to the BBC,

personally I would also like it improved because there are very British-centric forums out there, they are always dominated by Americans and their usual total lack of comprehension of the world outside the US - it's strange really considering how internet savvy britain is, an unfortunate by-product of using the english language i guess - fark is good, but anything british is only added to mock and is usually a nanny state article from the daily mail, and it would be nice to have football discussions rather than seeing bizarre stats and figures about nfl or something or talking to american manchester united fans who have bugger all understanding of the game

anyway, so on 'HYS' most comments refer to criminals having too many rights under the human rights act etc etc or children not being responsible for their actions - frankly i cant be bothered with all of it because there's some decent debate in there somewhere but it's depressing

what i really noticed is plans to put rights to social things like education, healthcare and housing - and protection for vulnerable groups - this to me isn't a declaration of right - rights are basic freedoms - all men are equal, freedom of speech and conscience, free press, fair taxation, fair trial and the democratic system - these are fundamentals, which are of course underlying in Britain anyway and in law through various Acts 

however, if you add these 'social' rights you are going to create a massive legal minefield, of course i agree all people deserve a free education, and healthcare - but to put this into one transmutable document for all time would produce a nightmare, the housing one especially scares me - the government has to provide a basic standard of living? - this is based too much around socialism and isn't a basic 'right of man' as it were - it's politics of the left and such a document really shouldn't be being written based on political views, because they aren't underlying - they are policies, beliefs - not basic rights - hence i don't think MPs are up to writing a credible document, and if it were to happen I believe it should be kept very simple - and therefore is probably useless with the exception of protecting us against the chances of a totalitarian government - which is of course the American argument against our 'undemocatic' unwritten constitution - them being more free with their appointed head of state who has power of veto, 2 party system, guantanamo bay, security services, bans on gambling, religious dominance and censorship - but they have guns!! and we have the queen and CCTV!

I've always taken the belief that our evolving constitution, while there is a theoretical risk, has survived for over 300 years and doesn't create the same grief that one virtually unalterable document from over 200 years ago does - in principle i support the US constitution and understand it, but it can't adapt as well and is based on 200 year old ideas and technology - i'm sure if the founding fathers were alive they'd advocate changing a fair bit of it to suit modern life, at the end of the day you have to ask who is more free? i can't say we're particularly good either and i'd like to be protected from comrade Brown and his cronies but i think we've done pretty well, 200-odd years ago the constitution was a revolutionary document - now it's a historical remnant that causes more problems than it solves - the two systems could learn a lot from each other

anyway...what was my point - oh yeah, we already have a Bill of Rights, it should be simple to be worth anything, and it's probably useless 

I've come to realise how much I hate left-wingers - once again I will have to defend myself as not being right-wing, i hate them both equally, immediately speak out against something politically correct and you're a racist or a fascist or something, even if it's line with basic liberal belief on equality

i am very angry  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7473568.stm

now to be honest this isn't a rant against age discrimination, it's the stuff at the bottom:

"Under plans to make workplaces more diverse, Ms Harman wants to allow employers to appoint people specifically because of their race or gender.

The proposals would only apply when choosing between candidates equally qualified for the job.

But it means, for example, women or people from minorities could be hired ahead of others in order to create a more balanced workforce."

now is that or is it not discrimination?? I firmly believe in equality, if i was employing you frankly i don't care what you or your genitals look like - but because the statistics aren't even we have to just reverse the situation and discriminate against the majority?? i'm sorry but two wrongs don't make a right

firstly - ethnic minorities - Britain is over 85% white-British, and another 6% are white-other, many irish - that's over 92% - let's think statistically here - if you have 10 candidates, chances are only 1 should be from an ethnic minority - but does he/she get the job? should the other 9 even bother showing up because frankly the other guy has an advantage being born the way they were - that is racism, pure and simple - and what happens - is there a quota of ethnic minorities? if only 8% of the population isn't white then how does every company recruit from that group - does it try to get 8% of its workforce  to be 'ethnically challenged'? - everybody wants to be seen as recruiting from a diverse background and every company will put pictures of female workers from an ethnic minority (preferably in a wheelchair) on their website as their 'face' to say 'we're diverse' - but you are overshadowing an absolutely huge majority here, it's not fair to over represent a minority

when i walk into a job interview I don't want to feel at a disadvantage purely because i'm white and have a cock - how is that fair? some groups need a leg up? if they're competing with me then they have a degree and aren't exactly facing a wall of racism/sexism against them, but oh no, they're first choice - welcome to socialist hell based on flawed concepts and statistics - but don't worry because all we nay-sayers are intolerant right-wingers

gender is of course a different kettle of fish - 50% of the pop is female, nothing wrong with that - and indeed few would argue that the workplace isn't dominated by men - but do they have equal opportunities? i would say yes - girls get better exam results at school, there were plenty at university, more girls than boys on my course - that's an opportunity

but it's really hard to get respect in employment - is it? they have exactly the same educational opportunities, and no work is denied to them (bar certain military roles etc) - but the pay gap is still 13p!! so we must force men out of high paid jobs

can you honestly say that there are women out there in britain who are saying society has denied them? - i readily admit this may be a generational thing - maybe i don't see the lines, for example my mother was restricted because of older policies - so therefore maybe we could just wait and see when people born in the 70s/80s become the elderly and see how it's evened out - certainly there is a chasm between opportunities in the older gens, but now? maybe we should wait this out, give it 30 years, because for me having an equal start is the most important - and we have to wait for the old order to go because that can't be changed now - we can't send my mother to college to get a-levels and a degree and be allowed to study physics, but she's still in work, she is disadvantaged - but were she born now? no, i don't think so

of course, do the gov want 50% of binmen(people) to be women? they are predominantly male and nobody cares, how about builders? millions of self-employed men, so the gov gives out grants to self-employed women to up the figures - completely ignoring the fact that maybe women don't want to be tradesmen, which accounts for the majority of self-employed - but no they're all 'entrepreneurs' and women must be equal

women are different, but equal - to steal a famous phrase - it may have been wrong when it was applied to race but can you honestly say it isn't true for the sexes - we are different! end of, it's biology not social darwinism and unfortunately labour have slipped into the left wing beast that blair had to hide in a cupboard and have these ridiculous views on 'society'

all i want is a fair chance - militant feminists like hariet harman just have a chip on their shoulder and can't accept reality, i see an equal society - i see the remnants of one that wasn't - and i also see an interfering government that promotes racism and sexism underneath a politically correct tablecloth of socialism

but of course, i am a nazi (and now i'm on a government list somewhere) - and were these views expressed to certain people i want be shouted down and decried as such, being intolerant and oppressing women - i would actually seriously consider jeremy clarkson politically now - common sense and stop all this bullshit!

oh and on that age thing - insurance going up for oldies? - pretty sure they use statistics that show over-75s cause more accidents - of course they do! old people do have worse health, reactions and eyesight - yes i can show you one 80 yr old who still is as fit as a fiddle - but majority rules here, it's risk assessment

will they stop discrimating against under 21s? they are statistically more likely to have a crash - ive never had one and i'm 22, but i had to pay more - exactly the same but i guarantee that won't be changed (of course if it was it would just be changed to 'new drivers statistically...blah blah')

the best line had to be old people shouldnt be told that health declines as you get older - really? don't these 'health professionals' realise that we are meant to live forever??? i'm 70 but my declining eyesight and hearing can be restored, as can my ailing heart - of course health declines!! - seriously, this isnt worth my effort in arguing against (but of course it sounds great, i'm a miserable cynic who lives in reality) - gordon brown and his crack team of feminist nazis out! 

So unsurprisingly the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty that has been hanging around like a bad smell for about 3 years, the ghost of the EU constitution that was killed by the French and Dutch before it made Tony Blair blush

now firstly - i am not a right wing hater of the EU, neither are the Irish - they like the EU, and they're in the Euro, they just didn't like this treaty

the pro-Lisbon lobby will see this as an attack by the ignorant haters of progress, but was it really?

the Lisbon Treaty is a remnant of the failed constitution, which was rejected by the FRENCH for god's sake, thus saving Britain from any responsibility and stopping us being the villain - now the treaty is just a partially watered down version of the constitution (as admitted by every european leader bar Brown) - so do you really think the French, and the Dutch, who voted against it in the first place, accepted the 'treaty' instead?

the answer is of course they didn't, why do you think they haven't bothered with a referendum again? (and no it's not because it's just a treaty, that's the whole reason for doing it as a treaty though)

so basically the european leaders refused to accept defeat and kept pushing, as they did back in 92 - you really think that convinces people like the french to support the thing instead? - no, because it smacks of being undemocratic and elitist bigots in brussels forcing through unpopular constitutional changes

now we british of course love to associate the EU with the dirty french, and we love to feel victimised by seeing them as the big bad guy in the EU who are orchestrating our downfall, so french opposition to it is a particular boost to british euro-scepticism

so we're actually in tune with our old enemy, or at least its people - and that's my main point, it's not that the EU is doomed - look around Europe, and more importantly western europe, the big boys and you see solidarity - the Irish are heroes in the netherlands and denmark, being called 'heroes of democracy' - this is not just the british refusing to play along as we are so often told - the people of europe do not want this and that is what my title refers to - europe is actually united on a popular level, against the actions of the EU - ironic huh?

the french, dutch, british, danish, germans etc do not resent Ireland, and they do not hate each other - we're all in the Union and the desire to remain in it is still the majority feeling but the anger is against the so-called bureaucrats and fat cats sat in brussels trying to make the EU into something that most of the European people do not want - this isn't just some brits resentful of the EU - it's a popular feeling across europe

and that to me is a good thing - i see solidarity and unity across europe, all because these people want to keep their sovereignty - allies, yes, but not a super state - the liberal consesus across (at least western) europe remains and the willingness to co-operate is there, but they don't want more power in brussels, they want europe to be a happy, but individual place

and that is why I, and many people across europe thank the Irish for voting No on this bollocks, because this treaty has been attempted to be implemented through the back door, against the wishes of the people and is thoroughly undemocratic

i guess this appears fairly right wing - but as you can see my main opposition is the whole undemocratic thing, this should be a consesus of opinion, not pushed through by politicians who think it's right

they're arrogant and won't concede defeat - they don't want a decade of work flushed down the toilet and so now the issue will be what to do

two-tier europe is being bandied about, obviously for Ireland and if that were to happen almost certainly Britain - the one good thing ive heard gordon brown say (or rather his aides) has been that he won't sideline Ireland, so the two-tier thing looks pretty desperate

it's frustrating for the european politicians, they have to get 27 members to agree to something and little old Ireland, essentially a minor player with about 6 million citizens, may have put the boot in - it helps that the big boys are popularly against it too but for the EU to ignore one country, no matter how small, would undermine the whole point of it - the idea of 'one europe' would be completely destroyed were the EU to leave out the skeptics amongst its members, there needs to be agreement, from the people especially - if it's going too far and cannot progress then that's where it should be left

hopefully the Treaty will be put out of its misery (probably to return as the vienna treaty or something next year), what i want to see is the whole idea being taken back to the drawing board - it's not as if this is essential work, it's a super-national union, there's no rush or need to increase its powers - ask the people what they want, chances of them agreeing are slim but at least there will be some democracy instilled

i realise this is wholly unrealistic - the EU big wigs will simply continue to decide things their people don't like and try and force it on them - i see that as a mistake, and could well bring it down eventually and if we have to reconsider the whole EU then why not? it's not worth having something lingering over it  

ahh, life can be a bitch sometimes

so we're back on the topic of kiwi girl, and it's something i haven't written about for ages, mainly because i tried to put it out of my mind while i was at uni,

until recently when we had a big chat and opened up, our feelings and what not and realised we both cared far too much - and since then we've been spending hours chatting, maybe about 2 whole nights a week

she gives me subtle hints about how she feels, her best friend, she's my best friend too, but it's sort of like when you marry someone and say theyre your best friend - i'm beginning to understand that now

thing is, she lives around the world and we won't be seeing each other for at least a year

we had probably the most open conversation yet this morning, and she nearly said it - and i wish i could say it myself, but i'm scared of ruining it if she doesn't say the same thing, but weve found we often hide these things that we actually both feel, and im feeling fairly confident she does - setting myself up for a fall

she said that we've reached the limited of what we cant say in person, it's true, i want to be with her, just hold her and nothing i can write can do anything about that, unless it earns me a few thousand quid

i hope she's just holding back for that very reason, it's pointless to take something so seriously over the internet and if we can't be together then she doesnt want to get hurt - i truly hope that's how it is, because that would be great

she also said she was scared we might not both feel the same way in person - now that to me suggests she's worried i wont reciprocate, rather than thinking i love her when she doesn't want me, which would be pretty horrible for her 

she's guarded, and can be hard to read, but all the things lately point the right way - but i just want her right here, right now, i want to tell her and it feels so bad, of course what happens in person also worries me, i hope she feels the same way - she also said something about how we feel in a year, hoping neither of us finds someone else, which we both worry about - surely she feels the same??

i just want to say it! and how am i supposed to wait over a year to do that! i keep saying grab the moment to her, but i do exactly the same thing because im not jumping on a plane right now

oh and then tehre's living arrangements if it works out...i'm hoping to get over the love part first and see what happens - is this the ultimate sexual tension???

this is just a repeat of the last post

what the hell is wrong with me, my friend just gets to me

i dont know why, i just feel wrong about her - i feel like a second rate friend basically

she still always talks to my other flatmate, today i rung her, basically as an experiment, she was in car, she rung back and spoke to him far more and about other stuff - we only spoke for a few minutes and i asked was she ok, she said fine, so i'm out of something here - obviously i know you dont have to share everything, but it's always been this way for nearly 3 years

i dont think anyone else feels this way, so clearly i have issues

ok firstly im not in love with her, shes getting married and i have no problem with that, but am i just jealous of their friendship?

im sure not all friendships are best friend level, but maybe i just feel too close and don't feel it's reciprocated, maybe i cant have anything else, character flaw

it's something like i dont want to give unless im getting the same back, and i don't feel that

maybe im just competitive, cant deal with a better friendship, because the fact is she'll always go to him, not me - but that to me isn't what i call a friend - i know im a good listener, im just some bloke to her, maybe ill get a christmas card

so basically i don't want to get involved, and i think im trying to get myself out of this, at least mentally

defence mechanism? im a selfish coward, im not putting myself out there just to lose her friendship in a couple of years when im not living with my flatmate and im a nobody...why bother if she actually doesnt care? he's her friend, im a sidekick

yeah i'm an egomaniac, maybe i want too much, im emotionally stunted and untrusting (that a word?) so i want out, i only want the few very good friendships i have because i fear everyone else will just f off

urgh, she reassures me but i still feel like this, maybe it was the whole thing a few weeks ago that sunk in - stupid brain, why do i care? 

me and my sporadically updated blog are back - and this time i actually have something personal to write about, been a while...

well, at the weekend i had my last formal ball at uni, my flatmate invited one of his oldest (female) friends, who happens to be quite fit and who i get on with pretty well

then we get into soap-style drama territory, despite the fact that i arrived back at about 2 and they didn't come back til 3, she decided it would be a good idea to jump into my bed - i'll let your imagination fill in the rest, needless to say i got no sleep

now we were quite worried about my flatmate's reaction, he doesn't seem to mind and tbh she has done it with other friends before, so maybe we just watch too many tv shows - so that's not too bad

my main concern is where does it go from here? - she was drunk, drunker than me (but not drunk enough to not be able to bolt my door) but she was saying things like I 'meant more to her than she means to me' - it was confusing and she was drunk, i figure she fancies me, which is something i haven't been used to for a while, and i guess the fact that she jumped on me rather than me doing anything would suggest it was quite one-way - but i'm a bloke! and i wasn't exactly going to try it on with one of my best friend's best friends, there's always been something there - we flirt and seem to be pretty similar people but i've never sought to follow it up, i do like her but tbh i've never taken it that seriously, i don't fantasise about her or anything which seemed to be the level she was implying

i have at this point realised i am emotionally void, have been for a few years and i don't know if this will go any further - whether that means physical or relationship or something - unfortunately i can't really discuss it because to avoid awkwardness only my flatmate and one other friend  know what happened, we neglected to tell everyone else - and the other friend probably isn't the best to talk about this with considering the sexual tension between us (yes, i am great at creating sexual tension - the manifestations however are very rare)

and to top it off we leave uni in a month, so i won't be seeing much of her unless i go to visit my flatmate at his home, which i might do over summer

the good news is she's still talking to me online and seems quite flirty so i don't think she regrets it, and she was quite complimentary (i won't believe that just yet) so hopefully she still likes me, but i know she is fairly 'loose' - not to be too rude, she's not a slag or anything but i know she's quite active, meanwhile i'm stoic and unemotional so i don't know what the hell is going on - i feel quite bad about the whole 'i like you but you don't like me'

urgh, i don't know - just gotta move on i guess