Monday, 28 February 2011
Wrong Decision.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to look back and see where you have made a wrong decision. Of course, at the time, I thought I was making the right decision, because I usually think the circumstances out long and hard beforehand. However, in December 2009, I made a bad career decision which I now regret.
I left a secure permanent job to go to a temporary job. I was under the impression the temporary job would lead to a permanent position, but alas, it did not turn out that way. After several months, the contract ended, and I became unemployed. It was only then I realised I had made a wrong decision to leave my permanent job.
I haven't made many mistakes in my life, but that was the biggest mistake of my life, and hopefully will be for the remainder of it. I suppose we all learn from our mistakes, and I have certainly learned from that one.
At the moment, I am still hurting from that wrong decision and going through an uncertain period of my life. I am hoping events in my life will take a turn for the better soon and the wrong decision will be easier to live with. Time will tell.
I left a secure permanent job to go to a temporary job. I was under the impression the temporary job would lead to a permanent position, but alas, it did not turn out that way. After several months, the contract ended, and I became unemployed. It was only then I realised I had made a wrong decision to leave my permanent job.
I haven't made many mistakes in my life, but that was the biggest mistake of my life, and hopefully will be for the remainder of it. I suppose we all learn from our mistakes, and I have certainly learned from that one.
At the moment, I am still hurting from that wrong decision and going through an uncertain period of my life. I am hoping events in my life will take a turn for the better soon and the wrong decision will be easier to live with. Time will tell.
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Andy Gray and Richard Keys.
I have to say I am disgusted at the departure of Andy Gray and Richard Keys from Sky Sports. The giants of football punditry... probably the best at what they do. I am disgusted at Sky Sports for the way they have handled the whole sorrowful matter.
For me, it's an over reaction to Gray and Keys' behaviour on the part of Sky Sports. What was said between the two of them is banter that takes place in pubs and workplaces everyday all over the country. Their dialogue was not broadcast on air - it was a private conversation off air. Yes, what they said was sexist, but not sufficient to merit a sacking.
The fact this off air conversation was made public means somebody at Sky Sports wanted them to pay for it. Or else this would never have seen the light of day. The same goes for the video clips that were released soon after, obviously again by an employee or employees of Sky Sports. Why did they want Gray and Keys out? Jealousy and envy spring to mind. Or perhaps they are ageist and want younger personalities to take their place. Whatever their reason is, it's sad and pathetic behaviour.
Of course, it would not be surprising if it's the same person or people who decided to sack Andy Gray. Apparently, a reprimand was as far as it was going to go until the video clip of him asking Charlotte Jackson to "tuck him in" was released by a Sky Sports employee. It's absolutely ridiculous Gray was sacked because of this clip. Incidents similar to this occur all the time. We would have thousands of men sacked every day if that's a sackable offence. Sky Sports were obviously looking for a reason to sack Gray, and the first little chance they had, they took it. I certainly hope Gray is successful with his plans to sue Sky Sports for £3 million.
What annoys me is how Gray and Keys have been treated differently by many people. Gray is made out to be the bad guy while Keys is looked upon as being led astray. Why? It was Keys that initiated the conversation about the lineswoman. It was also Keys that had a go at Karren Brady. So why do journalists like Henry Winter and Oliver Holt and many other people portray Gray as this seedy figure, but look upon Keys as still a great presenter? I cannot see what Gray has done that is worse than Keys. Surely not that incident with Charlotte Jackson? Come on. Keys made sexist remarks in a video clip where he is referring to an ex-girlfriend of Jamie Redknapp. I can't understand why Sky Sports did not sack Keys if they thought they were justified in sacking Gray. I would love to know their explanation of this, but emailing them will not produce a reply, I'm afraid. Someone or some people at Sky Sports obviously had it in for Gray more so than Keys.
I disagree that the views of Gray and Keys are "prehistoric." As I wrote earlier, views or banter like this happen all over the country every day. The problem is we love in a world that has became increasingly politically correct. Yes, politically correct gone mad. You can't say anything without some killjoy complaining of you being sexist, racist, or homophobic. We have to be extra guarded about what we say, because some humourless person will complain and report it if it falls slighty into the three categories I just mentioned. Lighten up, people. Stop taking everything so seriously. Have a laugh. The world has become too intense, uptight, and humourless.
An example of this is Rio Ferdinand. He tweeted "prehistoric banter, no place for it." Richard Keys was correct when he referred to it with, "Are you telling me it does not take place in the Manchester Utd dressing room? My information is that it does." Ferdinand is a hypocrite, just like Henry Winter and Oliver Holt. Footballers are the last people on earth that should have a right to be critical of a person's morals.
For me, Andy Gray and Richard Keys were and are the best at what they do. Presenting and the analysis of the best of English football. They have been doing it for almost 20 years and it's a great shame they are not being allowed to continue doing so. I will miss them a lot. I would like to think they will be given the opportunity to work for another television broadcaster in the future. If I was the boss at ESPN, I would sign them up as soon as possible. Give them a weekly show so they can continue to give us the highest standard of football presenting and analysis.
Maybe I'm dreaming about that, but it's hard to accept they will never appear again on our screens in the capacity they were working in so well.
For me, it's an over reaction to Gray and Keys' behaviour on the part of Sky Sports. What was said between the two of them is banter that takes place in pubs and workplaces everyday all over the country. Their dialogue was not broadcast on air - it was a private conversation off air. Yes, what they said was sexist, but not sufficient to merit a sacking.
The fact this off air conversation was made public means somebody at Sky Sports wanted them to pay for it. Or else this would never have seen the light of day. The same goes for the video clips that were released soon after, obviously again by an employee or employees of Sky Sports. Why did they want Gray and Keys out? Jealousy and envy spring to mind. Or perhaps they are ageist and want younger personalities to take their place. Whatever their reason is, it's sad and pathetic behaviour.
Of course, it would not be surprising if it's the same person or people who decided to sack Andy Gray. Apparently, a reprimand was as far as it was going to go until the video clip of him asking Charlotte Jackson to "tuck him in" was released by a Sky Sports employee. It's absolutely ridiculous Gray was sacked because of this clip. Incidents similar to this occur all the time. We would have thousands of men sacked every day if that's a sackable offence. Sky Sports were obviously looking for a reason to sack Gray, and the first little chance they had, they took it. I certainly hope Gray is successful with his plans to sue Sky Sports for £3 million.
What annoys me is how Gray and Keys have been treated differently by many people. Gray is made out to be the bad guy while Keys is looked upon as being led astray. Why? It was Keys that initiated the conversation about the lineswoman. It was also Keys that had a go at Karren Brady. So why do journalists like Henry Winter and Oliver Holt and many other people portray Gray as this seedy figure, but look upon Keys as still a great presenter? I cannot see what Gray has done that is worse than Keys. Surely not that incident with Charlotte Jackson? Come on. Keys made sexist remarks in a video clip where he is referring to an ex-girlfriend of Jamie Redknapp. I can't understand why Sky Sports did not sack Keys if they thought they were justified in sacking Gray. I would love to know their explanation of this, but emailing them will not produce a reply, I'm afraid. Someone or some people at Sky Sports obviously had it in for Gray more so than Keys.
I disagree that the views of Gray and Keys are "prehistoric." As I wrote earlier, views or banter like this happen all over the country every day. The problem is we love in a world that has became increasingly politically correct. Yes, politically correct gone mad. You can't say anything without some killjoy complaining of you being sexist, racist, or homophobic. We have to be extra guarded about what we say, because some humourless person will complain and report it if it falls slighty into the three categories I just mentioned. Lighten up, people. Stop taking everything so seriously. Have a laugh. The world has become too intense, uptight, and humourless.
An example of this is Rio Ferdinand. He tweeted "prehistoric banter, no place for it." Richard Keys was correct when he referred to it with, "Are you telling me it does not take place in the Manchester Utd dressing room? My information is that it does." Ferdinand is a hypocrite, just like Henry Winter and Oliver Holt. Footballers are the last people on earth that should have a right to be critical of a person's morals.
For me, Andy Gray and Richard Keys were and are the best at what they do. Presenting and the analysis of the best of English football. They have been doing it for almost 20 years and it's a great shame they are not being allowed to continue doing so. I will miss them a lot. I would like to think they will be given the opportunity to work for another television broadcaster in the future. If I was the boss at ESPN, I would sign them up as soon as possible. Give them a weekly show so they can continue to give us the highest standard of football presenting and analysis.
Maybe I'm dreaming about that, but it's hard to accept they will never appear again on our screens in the capacity they were working in so well.
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Unguilty Pleasures.
What exactly IS a guilty pleasure? I mean, you either like something or you don't. Why would you feel guilty about it? What would make you feel guilty to like something? It really is a stupid phrase. What idiot or idiots thought it up?
I ask this because there seems to be a common use of "guilty pleasures" over the past few years. The idiots seem to attach it to something classic from years gone by. For instance, classic musical artists like Abba and ELO have been tarnished with this awful description. Two of the best pop acts of the 1970s. Why do the idiots think it's guilty to like them? Why would they be embarrassed to like listening to their music? Very strange behaviour.
My theory is it is the views of young people who look back upon classic works in the past as "cheesy" and embarrassing to listen to. They are snobs who look down upon the likes of Abba and ELO as if they should only be heard in private, and not shared with the outside world. Why? I guess because these artists are too old and not considered "trendy" enough. Musical snobs.
I also hate the word "cheesy". Once again, it's used to describe things like classic music from the 70s and 80s in a derogatory sense. Again, by the same young people who use the words "guilty pleasures" in their vocabulary. You hardly ever hear older people like myself use "cheesy" and "guilty pleasures" when talking about classic music from the distant past. "Classic pop" and "classic rock" are the perfect descriptions for it. We are not musical snobs because we grew up with music when it was far superior to todays's mediocrity.
Abba and ELO are pleasures not to feel guilty about. They are unguilty pleasures, to be precise. You should never feel guilty about liking something, regardless of when it was produced. And please stop using "cheesy" as a description... it's much better to describe it as "classic".
I ask this because there seems to be a common use of "guilty pleasures" over the past few years. The idiots seem to attach it to something classic from years gone by. For instance, classic musical artists like Abba and ELO have been tarnished with this awful description. Two of the best pop acts of the 1970s. Why do the idiots think it's guilty to like them? Why would they be embarrassed to like listening to their music? Very strange behaviour.
My theory is it is the views of young people who look back upon classic works in the past as "cheesy" and embarrassing to listen to. They are snobs who look down upon the likes of Abba and ELO as if they should only be heard in private, and not shared with the outside world. Why? I guess because these artists are too old and not considered "trendy" enough. Musical snobs.
I also hate the word "cheesy". Once again, it's used to describe things like classic music from the 70s and 80s in a derogatory sense. Again, by the same young people who use the words "guilty pleasures" in their vocabulary. You hardly ever hear older people like myself use "cheesy" and "guilty pleasures" when talking about classic music from the distant past. "Classic pop" and "classic rock" are the perfect descriptions for it. We are not musical snobs because we grew up with music when it was far superior to todays's mediocrity.
Abba and ELO are pleasures not to feel guilty about. They are unguilty pleasures, to be precise. You should never feel guilty about liking something, regardless of when it was produced. And please stop using "cheesy" as a description... it's much better to describe it as "classic".
Thursday, 9 December 2010
People's Behaviour On The Internet.
I have to say I have been saddened by some people's behaviour on the internet. I have been online for 12 and a half years now, and throughout that time, there has been constant bickering and name calling. Just like in real life, I suppose. It used to get to me, but these days, I am more composed and try not to get involved in pointless arguments. There are far more important things in life to be concerned about.
The arguing usually takes place on forums / message boards. If I read an opinion by someone who I disagree with, I sometimes post my opinion, and may mention why I disagree with the opinion already posted. However, there are people who can be insulting and offensive when responding to opinions they disagree with. Basically, it's a lack of tolerance for other people's opinions. Sadly, the way human nature is, this will never change.
On the social networking sites, I have had people delete me as a friend or block me. I haven't written anything wrong, in my mind. Some people have just taken it upon themselves to remove me from their friend or follower lists. At first, I kept asking myself what I had done wrong, but if it happens now, I don't lose any sleep over it. It's their issue, not mine.
It's great to have the power to delete or block someone on the internet, isn't it? It's a shame it's not possible to do that in real life! Well, you could, but you would have to go to prison for it.
The people who have deleted or blocked me, I wonder if they behave like that in real life? Someone says something to them they don't like, so as a result, they remove the person from their lives. Never speak to them again. It's the same behaviour as deleting or blocking someone. Childish and immature.
The sad thing is, a few of these people have been celebrities I admired. Well, used to admire. Sometimes it's best not to meet people you admire because you will find out they are, in reality, unpleasant people.
The arguing usually takes place on forums / message boards. If I read an opinion by someone who I disagree with, I sometimes post my opinion, and may mention why I disagree with the opinion already posted. However, there are people who can be insulting and offensive when responding to opinions they disagree with. Basically, it's a lack of tolerance for other people's opinions. Sadly, the way human nature is, this will never change.
On the social networking sites, I have had people delete me as a friend or block me. I haven't written anything wrong, in my mind. Some people have just taken it upon themselves to remove me from their friend or follower lists. At first, I kept asking myself what I had done wrong, but if it happens now, I don't lose any sleep over it. It's their issue, not mine.
It's great to have the power to delete or block someone on the internet, isn't it? It's a shame it's not possible to do that in real life! Well, you could, but you would have to go to prison for it.
The people who have deleted or blocked me, I wonder if they behave like that in real life? Someone says something to them they don't like, so as a result, they remove the person from their lives. Never speak to them again. It's the same behaviour as deleting or blocking someone. Childish and immature.
The sad thing is, a few of these people have been celebrities I admired. Well, used to admire. Sometimes it's best not to meet people you admire because you will find out they are, in reality, unpleasant people.
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Play The Bloody Music!
I don't like radio DJs (disc jockeys). You know, those annoying people who speak between songs on the radio. I would much prefer if radio wiped out DJs and all we had to listen to was music and news bulletins. Radio then wouldn't be so annoying. It has got to the point for me now that I'm hardly listening to the radio at all. I switch it on and more often than not, there is someone muttering on about something. Play the bloody music!
The problem is DJs just love talking about themselves. They love being the centre of attention. What makes it worse is, they are surrounded by cronies who chat with them and laugh at almost anything the DJ says. Many DJs can't do a show on their own. They need people to talk to. They aren't strong enough to do a show by themselves. Idle chit chat with others needs to be part of the show. Play the bloody music!
I prefer when the DJ is talking to the listener. Of course, this means the DJ is on their own and not constantly talking to someone in the studio. When the DJ has a motley crew in the studio, the DJ is not talking to the listener. The DJ is talking to the cronies in the studio. Sadly, this is a phenomenon of modern radio. Play the bloody music!
Northsound 1 have cloned their breakfast show on that of Radio 1. It's makes me cringe. It's embarrassing. This morning, I tuned into Northsound 1 for a minute and the DJ was chatting about going 2 days without shaving to the amusement of his giggling gang. Please! I don't want to know. It's utterly dull and boring. It's the lowest common denominator. Play the bloody music!
When the DJs talk, half the time they don't say what song they played. Several times I've heard a song and wondered what it was, only for the DJ to waffle on about something and not tell us what the song was. Their job is to tell us what is playing. If they can't be bothered doing that, they might as well not be there. I don't want to listen to their idle chit chat. Play the bloody music!
I remember many years ago when satellite music television channels used to have VJs (video jockeys). However, it was decided their sevices weren't needed anymore, so instead, music videos were played back to back without the need for VJs. This is what needs to be done on radio. Remove the DJs so all we hear is the music. For the last time, play the bloody music!
The problem is DJs just love talking about themselves. They love being the centre of attention. What makes it worse is, they are surrounded by cronies who chat with them and laugh at almost anything the DJ says. Many DJs can't do a show on their own. They need people to talk to. They aren't strong enough to do a show by themselves. Idle chit chat with others needs to be part of the show. Play the bloody music!
I prefer when the DJ is talking to the listener. Of course, this means the DJ is on their own and not constantly talking to someone in the studio. When the DJ has a motley crew in the studio, the DJ is not talking to the listener. The DJ is talking to the cronies in the studio. Sadly, this is a phenomenon of modern radio. Play the bloody music!
Northsound 1 have cloned their breakfast show on that of Radio 1. It's makes me cringe. It's embarrassing. This morning, I tuned into Northsound 1 for a minute and the DJ was chatting about going 2 days without shaving to the amusement of his giggling gang. Please! I don't want to know. It's utterly dull and boring. It's the lowest common denominator. Play the bloody music!
When the DJs talk, half the time they don't say what song they played. Several times I've heard a song and wondered what it was, only for the DJ to waffle on about something and not tell us what the song was. Their job is to tell us what is playing. If they can't be bothered doing that, they might as well not be there. I don't want to listen to their idle chit chat. Play the bloody music!
I remember many years ago when satellite music television channels used to have VJs (video jockeys). However, it was decided their sevices weren't needed anymore, so instead, music videos were played back to back without the need for VJs. This is what needs to be done on radio. Remove the DJs so all we hear is the music. For the last time, play the bloody music!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)