So, which is better?  Religion or Science?   As in the words of Harry Hill: “There’s only one way to find out: FIGHT!”   Joking aside, this does seem to be the attitude of a great many.   People like binaries and they like the “us or them” mentality.   This is greatly obvious when you observe society at large: Why for example are there two sides of argument in a debate (“For” and “Against”, “Proposition” and “Opposition” etc.).   The reason is, that by considering two extremes we are hopefully able to see a more enlightened middle ground, rather than side with either of two intensely biased perspectives: this seems to be how we like to think.   We also have an instinctive need to identify ourselves in particular social groups, which will often naturally pit us in opposition to another.   Even in this country, one scarred into liberalism by war and colonialist guilt we still cannot resist putting ourselves and others in groups, sometimes justifiably, think of the following binaries: (“normal” – BNP voter), (“normal” – racist), (“normal” – paedophile) etc.   I’d be surprised if anyone reading (at least in the UK) didn’t feel an affiliation to the “normal” group in any of those cases.   And what is “normal” (everyone knows that no one person is truly generic in every way)?   The powerful majority, which invariably we will naturally want to identify with to avoid being marginalised by society.   Religion vs Science is just another binary, except more balanced (and therefore providing more freedom into which side can be chosen) and there is, chairing this argument, a sub-group known as agnosticism, a open-mindedness for either argument and, in this time where “open-mindedness” considered “good”, a dogma in itself not to believe anything in particular.   As a Christian, however, I have never bought into Science and Religion being irreconcilable, which is, what I think, are the two core mistakes of either side, and do not lose a lot of sleep over this conflict.

First off, I think, many Christians are guilty of turning the Bible into what it isn’t: a scientific text-book and make it entirely literal and this means that a conflict is inevitable, usually centering on the Garden of Eden.   No one knows whether the story is true or not, but it seems highly unlikely that the world was created in 6 days as we understand it.   Could these be metaphorical days?   Was there something unsettling in the creation of the world resulting in days lasting millenia rather than the standard 24 hours?   Or is the story simply a myth, a metaphor to help give us understanding of the nature of the world?   Jesus often told stories to describe the kingdom of heaven and moreover, no one was there before the creation of the world to give a scientific account, so how can some Christians say with such certainty that speculating using the first three chapters of Genesis is an appropriate way to determine what happened at the beginning of time?  To me, none of these questions a that significant and to dwell on these for a Christian is to miss the point of the story; that the source of the world’s problems (or the “beast” as it is referred to in Golding’s excellent Lord of the Flies) resides inside us (pride and selfishness) and that we, by choice, have distanced ourselves from our creator.   Could it be that the fruit of the tree of knowledge was not really “magic”, but that the act of disobedience simply gave humanity an awareness of their own capacity for sin?

Science should not sit with too much complacency on this matter either; as a statistician I feel I should point out the huge margin for error and over-reliance on mathematical assumptions in stating in absolute certainty how old the world actually is.   For instance, carbon dating is a well-known and acknowledged way of dating the age of a relic, measuring the half-life (the rate of decay) of Carbon isotopes (or something like that).   However, no matter how large a period of time the half-lives are measured, there is an increasing inaccuracy in age estimation as the time gap between present and past increases.   The dinosaurs might have been around 65 million years ago, but the 95% confidence interval is huge there is not grounds to proclaim gospel truth over this.   It is the duty of scientists to always been open-minded and their prerogative seek the truth and develop theories according to new evidence.

There are other books in the Bible, which simply do not allow you to take the Bible as a textbook.   For instance, how is Song of Songs, a piece of erotic love poetry containing no mention of God or even marriage, related to life in a literal sense?   What about a line in the book of Psalms where the psalmist prays for the Israelites’ enemies’ babies to have their heads dashed against rocks?   How can we reconcile one of the books of Moses teaching us “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, with Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek”?   The Bible requires us to interpret it and we have to take context into account, otherwise we can get extremely contradictory messages within this text.   All the books are written by men, not God himself, but inspired by Him.   The sole reason that the Bible continues to be such an influential and important book to this day therefore is because it contains the truth and something divine, maybe akin to that which Percy Bysshe Shelley describes.   The Psalms speak of human experiences of relationship with God, Ecclesiastes is an outpouring of despondent cynicism and the Song of Songs is not only a metaphor in part to how God loves us, but also a celebration of secular love, sex does not need to be smutty.   The Bible is not an entirely literal book: the accounts of Jesus are historical in form and written to the greatest accuracy possible by use of eyewitnesses and other evidence, but good portions of the Old Testament are of stories and poems, whereas Revelation is heavily metaphorical.   However, such is the truth within all the books of the Bible that it plays an essential role in nourishing the soul, teaching us about life as it really is and giving us a purpose with which to live.   It’s not about “How” as Science is, but “Why”.

There is a lot to commend in rational scientific thought.   Unlike religion, which gives us guidance for our spiritual life, the intangibles that no scientific theory can adequately test, science concerns the search for objective truth and shows how the Universe functions and began.   However, it is worth noting that it is a work in progress.   Everyday science grows nearer truth, we have evidence of this in the result of a great many things (that your computer works is testament to a great deal of understanding about electricity) but that is not to say that it already has all of the answers and certainly cannot be used to disprove the idea of a God, which is simply beyond its scope, just as Religion cannot disprove Science, though it can affect interpretations of how the celestial world interacts with the secular one.   There was lecture at my University on the relationship between Quantum Physics (the most conceptual science regarding the origin of the Universe) and Religion by Professor Keith Ward.   It was interesting to hear that those scientists with studies most related to the paranormal do not tend to be atheists to the same degree as biologists.  I am no expert on the subject so I will refrain from going into physics, but the two main hypotheses as to our existence are as follows: firstly the existence of an infinite number of universes existing simultaneously to ours (i.e. chance) or design and a God, or gods existing outside of time who created our Universe.   As for which one is true, both could be, but no one can know (at least for the moment) for certain, which makes arguing the toss slightly pointless.   There is a good chance that, as beings that can only exist within time and space, there is a good chance that we will never find out which is true in our lifetime until we die.

I believe in evolution and the Big Bang, I do not believe that the world was made in 6 days, but I do believe evolution is the means by which God our Creator made the world.   No logical person should disregard the best explanation Science has to offer regarding how our world came to be.   It’s like all the evidence in a murder case pointing to the prime suspect and then arresting the butler!   Science and religion can be reconciled.   The choice between theism and atheism however is the real binary here; a choice that can only really be based on personal feeling and experience.   I have met a mix of atheists: some who have considered the question of life and sorrowfully declared that they can’t believe in it given their experience of the world, and others who are clearly angered by religious people and need the intellectual high of proving them wrong.  Would it not make perfect sense to let the deluded believe as they please and not to spoil their hopes, given that we are all doomed anyway?  Why the latter atheists aggressively assert their views and refuse to take the moral high-ground in this conflict is puzzling, though I suspect it’s either due to bad religion related experiences (and I can definitely understand this if my experience is anything to go by, church can be corrupt in many ways) or simply satisfying the ego (there’s nothing more satisfying than telling someone else that they’re wrong).  Thus, as many people ignore, many atheists are just as biased as theists.

Ultimately, the crunch question for a believer in God, and the main weapon of atheists is this: if there is a God, why does the world contain so much suffering?   Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, Christians wrestle with this biggie all the time and there are many theories from a religious context.  For instance, one possible explanation is the impossibility of freewill in a world without evil (which I would subscribe to) and another popularised by some is the concept of divine judgement (which I feel is on very dodgy ground).   ”Sh*t happens” is the plausible atheist theory (watch “The Knowing” with Nicolas Cage for a good film, which hinges on this principle (it has a dodgy ending though).  However, atheists would be wrong to consider religion as a  delusional safeguard against bad circumstance, Jesus’ teachings make it crystal clear that as Christians, we should expect persecution and suffering and that there will be no guarantee of justice in our time.   The book of Job is fully focussed on the question asking why bad things happen to bad people.   Ultimately, there is no full answer I can provide to the mystery of evil in a Universe with a good God question as a Christian, only fragments.  But we live in hope that although we do not yet have full understanding, that one day we will.  We live with a guarantee that there is a purpose and that we can trust in God, who will judge the world at the end of time.

This will seem a cop-out for those of a non-religious background, but there is firm reasoning for Christians to hope and have faith as well, which can be found in the life of Jesus and indeed today.   There is, for instance, much evidence considering the time period that a) Jesus lived and taught, b) Jesus performed miracles, c) he rose from the dead.   I’m not going to go deeply into this evidence, as that would take another 2000 words, but read The Case for Christ  by Lee Strobel for more information.  I will just summarise the three main arguments: a) Documented in a variety of records from the period, b) why did alternative accounts that cite Jesus’ miracles not deny them?   Most anti-Christian records suggest that he had the devil’s power, it seems as though the accounts saying that he’s a fraud would be more plausible, but they don’t, c) why did apostles martyr themselves for Jesus’ cause otherwise (especially after by and large running away at Jesus’ crucifixion)?   The most prominent evidence for God however, in my opinion, is in the fullness of life that believers receive in living the life that Jesus talks about.   Derren Brown would have something to say about this given his insistence that believers in anything take any evidence to affirm their faith, but I would challenge him that everyone has a belief system of some sort.   If you do not believe anything then you believe nothing, which is logical, because nothing is certain in the strictest sense, but it is impossible to function believing nothing.   However, getting back to the point, I believe in God, because I have felt Him at work in my life, I have experienced His intangible Holy Spirit and I am filled with the utmost joy when I put others before myself, which I believe is my calling in life.   This is of course not concrete proof, it is just experience and I would be foolish to expect anyone to believe me and change their minds as a result, but this is what I consider the truth based on my heart and mind and I am willing to accept looking foolish and losing your respect, accepting that you will have your own opinions on the matter.   However, it may well be the case that no amount of logical argument will convince others beyond doubt of the relationship you can have with Christ today, nor any miracles or signs (would you really believe a miracle if you saw one? I would be skeptical), indeed nor could new scientific evidence create hordes of disillusioned disbelievers.   All I know is that I have thought about my faith, I have been enthused by science, I have tackled and am tackling doubts head on and I have come to a conclusion.   I believe in Science and I believe in God.   Science is knowledge, an insight into the functions of the Universe, God is my meaning.   After all, a Universe without a God is a Universe without a purpose.

Anyway, I’m New Zealand-bound on Saturday!   I’ll post details on this blog, so make sure you follow me!   As always, anyone willing to post their perspective can do so in the comments below, as I like to hear any opinions or counter-arguments.   Until next-time!

I should start by noting, with regards to my last post that the World Cup seedings have now been announced and  my predictions were indeed right apart from one team: Netherlands have been seeded instead of France.   So I’ve re-edited my blog, for accuracy’s sake.   This has, of course, completely changed my prediction of the draw, so have another view to see if I still think Spain will win!

Anyway, I’m sure you’re wondering how I ended up leaving my job from the last chapter (actually I’m not really very sure you are at all).   Well, from where I left off, I had decided that I probably wasn’t cut out for teaching (more on that another time), and my wife and I had decided that we wanted to go to Peru (again, I’ll probably post up details of these adventures another time).   I decided, therefore that it would be most ideal to work up to the proposed holiday and then leave my job.   The amount of notice I needed to give as a temp was one week, so my wife thought that I should just drop them in it and tell them at the last-minute, especially as she suspected they may well just decide to get rid of me early.   However, I thought it best to give them more time to recruit someone and leave in good grace, so planned to give one months notice instead.   My wife finally booked the tickets around a month and a half in advance of the trip and it was just simply up to me to let my manager know.

However, as the month neared I began to get seriously frost-bitten feet and started worrying about my secret.   Something told me that my manager wouldn’t be likely to take the news well.   This was further highly pressurised when it transpired that the NHS had booked my work colleague an operation around the time I was planning to leave, which meant a new temp would be needed and I would be the most experienced person in the office!   I felt the pressure mounting.   Furthermore, I couldn’t rush and tell my manager first, because that could result in my work colleague being refused her leave for an operation she needed.   The result of telling her after my work colleague would lead to the situation being even more dire for me.

It was at this point I decided to ask for advice, as to how to approach this delicate situation by talking to my recruitment agency.   They seemed fairly disapproving of my actions and pretty much suggested that as a long-term temp I owed the company more loyalty (despite the fact that the company could turn to me at any moment and eliminate me in the space of a week).   They didn’t really even see the problem with simply talking to the manager, but I decided that I did not have the guts to say what I meant, so would give her a letter instead.   I wrote the letter that night and resolved to give it to my manager the next morning.

Ultimately, however, I bottled it!   I stood and prepared myself a number of times to give her my letter, but in the end decided to regroup and do the deed after lunch.   I didn’t get a second chance.   My manager rang my recruitment agency for someone to replace my work colleague for her operation time and they had spilled the beans about me in that conversation.   Cue the manager storming into the room and boiling underneath a barely restrained exterior calling me into her office.

Her disgust was tangible.   She implied that I was a mercenary and my actions were unprofessional and disgraceful.   She was, to put it in her words, “livid”.   She made me wait, while she told the director, and told me that he found my behaviour disgusting also.   Furthermore, I was told never to ask for a reference from her because the only thing she could say would be that I worked there.   Needless to say, it wasn’t a pleasant meeting, but I felt strangely good overall.   I felt a kind of freedom that I hadn’t experienced for a long time.   I was happy that my time at the company was coming to an end.

The aftermath was predictable: cue lots of gossiping, highlighting a huge misinterpretation on their part.   The story seemed to be that I was expecting to be able to return after my time off, rather than calling time.   I later cleared this up with my manager, who strangely seemed in a better mood, and suggested that we just moved on from the incident.   However, to this day, I have always been too scared to ask for a reference (I always ask for one from those I worked well with in a separate department).   Two weeks later, having trained everyone filling in my job, I was gone, as my wife feared, but the last two weeks were strangely serene and pleasant.   I even seemed to get on well with my work colleague and manager.   Needless to say though, I was happy to leave.   The two extra weeks also proved essential for moving house and planning the holiday.

Ultimately, though, I am still unhappy about how my time ended.   I really wish I had the courage to give my manager the letter myself and feel I let myself down.   I was lucky that everything worked out so well, but it would’ve been good to come out with my head held high and I think I compromised my honesty, an attribute I assured my manager of in my initial interview.   However, I think I learned a lot about myself and the working world through this experience.   It’s surprising to think how much you don’t know yourself before you’re tested.   If anyone else has any stories about bad ways of leaving a job, please post a comment below (it makes me feel interesting).  As for me, Happy Birthday (as of yesterday)!  Speak next week!

Well we finally know which teams will be going to the World Cup.  The less said about France’s progress the better though (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/8367418.stm).   All I will say is “What ever happened to sportsmen showing sportsmanship?”  What I’m saying is, no Thierry, it’s not the referee’s responsibility to be omniscient and to call a hand ball, the players have a responsibility to be honest and to play within the rules.   Henry handling the ball deliberately was understandable given the circumstances; after all, who would honestly not succumb to temptation of trading a goal-kick for a goal in that kind of high-pressure situation (he probably even thought there was no way the referee wouldn’t spot the incident), but to avoid admitting it was simply irresponsible, cowardly and an all-round terrible example for aspiring young footballers.

Anyway, putting France’s controversial winner against Ireland aside, there will be 32 teams vying to win the World Cup in South Africa and 2 very important questions to ponder over: who will win (Spain are my bet, though Brazil are always dangerous) and, more importantly, what groups will the World Cup draw in December yield!?   You may think the second a curious question, or, on the other hand, if you’re like me, you’ll have already be pondering over all the different combinations of teams England could possibly draw.   But how do they decide the groups?   Well, you didn’t actually ask, but I’m going to tell you, so you can make your own World Cup (even one where England win)!   Enjoy.

The teams are divided into four pools: the first containing the 7 seeded teams and the host nation, South Africa, the second containing the rest of the European teams, the third containing teams from the remaining African and South American qualifiers and the fourth containing the Asian and North American qualifiers, as well as New Zealand.   The way the seeds has now finally been chosen as of the 2nd December (just 4 days before the draw).  Assuming this the pools should list as follows:

Pool One: South Africa, Germany, Brazil, Italy, Spain, England, Netherlands, Argentina

Pool Two: Denmark, Switzerland, Slovakia, Serbia, France, Portugal, Greece, Slovenia

Pool Three: Cameroon, Nigeria, Algeria, Ghana, Cote D’Ivoire, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay

Pool Four: Australia, South Korea, Japan, North Korea, USA, Mexico, Honduras, New Zealand

(For completeness sake please note that you can find the World Rankings on the FIFA website (http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html) and the top 7 teams on World Cup form are Italy (Winners, 2nd Round, 2nd Round), France (Finalists, 1st Round, Winners), Germany (Semi-Finalists, Finalists, Quarter Finalists), Brazil (Quarter-finalists, Winners, Finalists), England (Quarter Finalists, Quarter Finalists, 2nd Round), Argentina (Quarter finalists, 1st Round, Quarter Finalists), Spain (2nd Round, Quarter Finalists, 1st Round).

Okay, so you have the pools.  The final step is to make 8 groups of 4 by picking them out in the following way:

1. Put each of the pool 1 teams in each of the eight groups A-H.  South Africa will be in the first group and the rest of the team are randomised (at least this is true following the method in the last World Cup, Fifa, the World Football Association, may yet change this rule).  However, Argentina and Brazil cannot be on the same side of the draw (i.e. if Brazil are drawn in Groups B-D, then Argentina have to be in Groups E-H and visa-versa).
2. Draw the 8 Pool 2 teams randomly into each of the eight pools.  Easy!
3. The Pool 3 teams are also drawn at random.   However, be careful!  No South American teams can be drawn in a group with Brazil or Argentina and no African teams can be drawn with South Africa.   In addition to this the number of teams on each side of the draw must be as even as possible (including South Africa, there are 6 African teams, so three must be between A and D, whilst the other three must be in Groups E-H).   This is the easiest step to make a mistake.
4. Draw the final 8 pool 4 teams into the remaining groups.   The only thing to watch out for here is that the Asian teams (including Australia who play Asian qualifying, but NOT New Zealand),  are distributed evenly.

Behold!   Using this helpful website for random numbers (http://www.random.org/sequences/) here is my official World Cup draw made following these steps!

Group A: South Africa, France, Paraguay, South Korea 

Group B: Germany, Greece, Uruguay, North Korea

Group C: Netherlands, Switzerland, Ghana, USA

Group D: Brazil, Serbia, Ivory Coast, Mexico

Group E: England, Denmark, Chile, Australia

Group F: Argentina, Slovenia, Cameroon, Japan

Group G: Italy, Slovakia, Nigeria, New Zealand

Group H: Spain, Portugal, Algeria, Honduras

Voila! A possible South Africa 2010 draw.   If the order of matches follow the order in the last World Cup, the order matches would be played would correspond to the following: 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4, 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3, 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4.  Now the next important question is who would win if this was the World Cup draw?   I think it would go, a little something like this:

Group A would see South Africa opening their campaign with a gallant draw against a talented Paraguayan side, whilst France would only muster a draw against the enthusiastic South Koreans.  Draws in the second round of matches would see things go to the wire, where the French woud break South African hearts in a tense contest to finish runners-up on goals scored with Paraguay winning the group with a tight win over the Koreans.

In Group B, two comfortable wins against North Korea and Uruguay would see Germany through, whilst Greece require tight barely deserved draws and a victory other the group communist state to squeeze ahead of Uruguay for second.

Ghana and the Netherlands dominate Group C, both beating the US, whilst drawing with each other and Switzerland.  Switzerland, however, finish bottom with an opening defeat to the USA, who also crash out.   The seeded Netherlands qualify as group winners by merit of goal difference. 

In the “Group of Death”, a thrilling last-gasp Brazilian win against the Ivory Coast is toned down by a turgid 1-0 win for Serbia against Mexico.   The Ivory Coast and Brazil win their remaining games to qualify 2nd and 1st from the group respectively.

In England’s group, our heroes put themselves within a game of winning the group following a win over Chile and a tough draw with Australia.  Denmark meanwhile are level on points, whilst Australia are two behind and hoping for a positive result in the last match.   England beat Denmark 2-0, but Australia cannot find a winner as Chile pick up a first point and go out.

Argentina suffer a huge scare in Group F, as they can only pick up draws with the Cameroon and Japan, who both beat Slovenia.  A last-gasp winner for Argentina, however, ensures their progress as Cameroon beat Japan in an entertaining encounter to finish the group 1st.

Italy and Nigeria comfortably progress from Group G, however in a rather dull group.  Italy and Nigeria share a rusty draw first off, whilst Slovakia and New Zealand play out a low quality 0-0 draw, which the Slovaks should have won.  Nigeria and Italy beat Slovakia and New Zealand respectively before Nigeria win the group by beating New Zealand, whilst Italy can only draw against the Slovak Republic.

In the final Group H, world-beaters Spain and Portugal have more trouble than would be expected from two wins and qualification with a game to spare.  The 1st,2nd place showdown between the two rivals ends with a bore draw, whilst Algeria manage to get the better of Honduras in the other match.  Spain win the group on goal difference.

So the 2nd Round would see the group winners play the runners-up from each of the opposite groups:

Paraguay vs Greece, Germany vs France, Netherlands vs Ivory Coast, Brazil vs Ghana, England vs Argentina, Cameroon vs Denmark, Nigeria vs Portugal, Spain vs Italy.

First up, I suspect that Greece would lose out in a tight contest against Paraguay, Germany would be nudged out of the competition by a France side who get their act together, the Ivory Coast would be edged out by the Netherlands in a goal-laden thriller, Brazil would beat the Ghana just like the previous year, England would edge out Argentina in a passionate, dramatic game, Cameroon would knock out Denmark, Portugal would need extra time to break Nigerian hearts, whilst the World champions, Italy, would frustrate Spain only to be beaten in extra time.   The quarter finals, based on 2006, would thus be:

Paraguay vs Netherlands, France vs Brazil, England vs Portugal (not again!) and Cameroon vs Spain.

This is where prediction gets very subjective, but I’d go for an easy win from the Netherlands over Paraguay to cruise into the Semis, Brazil to struggle against France before crashing out to the odd goal, England to triumph against a lacklustre Portugal and Spain to be given a great game by the Cameroon, but still squeeze through.   The semi-finals would then be a disappointing all European affair:

Netherlands vs England and France vs Spain.   Netherlands vs England should be a thriller, but I’d fancy the Netherlands to perhaps just outmaneuver England and win by the odd goal (on the plus side, the Netherlands are the only team to have as bad a penalty shoot-out record as England).  Meanwhile, Spain would get revenge for their defeat in the previous World Cup by winning a tight combative game against France to reach the final.

The 3rd Place Play-off would be a good win for England against a slightly demoralised French side.   The final between Netherlands and Spain would be excellent for neutrals (except those, who like me, wanted the African teams to do well), but here, I think Spain could finally lose and the Netherlands could take their first World title in three finals.  So to summarise:

1. Netherlands
2. Spain
3. England
4. France

(Note: Before the Seeds were announced, I predicted the order would be 1. Spain, 2. England, 3. Brazil and 4. Ivory Coast, its amazing how the position of two teams can change the complexion of the tournament).

I should note that every time I make a prediction the result changes, but then that’s mainly because the groups are different every time I make a prediction!   I’d be interested to see anyone else’s draws or winners predictions if anyone else wants to have a stab.   Until then, bring on the 6th of December for the actual World Cup draw!

My last note on jobs ended with a sense of foreboding, but it certainly didn’t start out that way.   I sent my CV to a recruitment agency that I found in the advertised in the post, they seemed to like me and I got a call the next week informing me that I had an interview the following day.   However, this one didn’t go so well.   The interview was in a village near Wallingford for an environmental research company and my strategy, having not been filled in all that well was to ask “lots of questions” to look interested.   The result was that I came across as not having a clue about what the job entailed!   I didn’t feel too comfortable at the interview besides, there seemed to be a lot of high flying professional young women, so I would have stuck out badly.   The following week, however, I soon had another interview, this time at a not-for-profit publishing company that used its income to fund grass-roots projects in developing countries around the world.

My first impressions were good.   The grounds seemed pretty and in the interview the manager seemed to be talking to me as if I already had the job and I seemed to get on with her well.   Sure enough, I was soon told that I would be starting on Monday.   I had only been out of work a month, and that during the Christmas holidays.   The next six would be decidely mixed in terms of happiness.   When I started I was trained by a girl who was off travelling to Australia next week and none of my future co-colleagues were present.   I really enjoyed the quiet, the manager did her best to make me feel welcome (there was a break for breakfast in the morning) and the staff in the other departments were welcoming too.   By the second week, I was alone, but I felt as though I was impressing with my work-ethic and the speed at which I acquired independence.   By my eighth day I was training a new member of staff, who I got on well with initially.   She was Polish and older than me, but seemed hard-working enough and we could relate to each other as far as experiencing the miseries of unemployment when you have a partner who is working.   The job seemed glove-fitting for the first three weeks; I even made known my intentions at wanting to stay on permanently (though this was partially because I didn’t want to be stuck without a job again).   However, things changed when a previously absent co-colleague returned to work at changed the dynamics for the worst.

She was surly, middle-aged, complained almost all the time and was the most thoroughly depressing person to be around I’ve ever met.   She had just come back from having an eye-operation (laser corrected vision), because she was sick of wearing glasses and contact-lenses, and now she was back she seemed intent of asserting her position as office leader, having had a couple of upstarts branching out without her guidance.   The other temp whom I had trained could adapt to this change, but, to put it simply, I simply didn’t get on with this woman.   She irritated me by constantly complaining about her workload, gossiping and acute sensitivity to any noise that wasn’t her own voice, and I similarly think that she was, in some way, threatened by my dynamism and efficiency.   Further, she didn’t play the game where any mistakes were dealt with and allowed life to go on; she very much made you feel like a small and terrible person for having not performed an administrative function in “her” way, using sniping comments and harsh words.   Moreover, she would make sure our manager knew about any mistakes, large or small, and I was on occasion blamed for things that weren’t my fault.

Our manager, on the other hand, I soon discovered had quite a temper.   She had massive mood-swings and at points was fairly lewd and childish in humour and at other point “livid” as she would put it.   The other temp, who I initially got on well with, also grew to dislike me.   To this day I don’t know why.   We had a personal conversation once, which she instigated, but might resent me because she disclosed information to me she was not comfortable with me knowing.   Also, I was certainly aware of her and my colleague gossiping about me, when they thought I wasn’t in earshot.   Maybe when it came down to it, she shared more in common with the rest of the office than me.

How did I fall so out of favour?   I should start off by saying that I wasn’t the perfect employee, as I’ll often forget in this splurge of experience.  There was effectively a snowball effect, which happened two months into the job.   It started with my colleague telling me not to get up when filing journals.   I responded by simply saying that I don’t mind getting up each time.   She countered that it was noisy, so I did as she said for the rest of the day and thought that was the end of it.   It wasn’t.   She must have regarded the incident as an “act of defiance” and told our manager, so she took me aside and asked about the incident and told me, to quote her words, “if she tells you to jump, you jump”.   My response was to work as hard and as quickly as I could to show that I was actually a good employee, but out of the blue a couple of weeks later I was called into my manager’s office, or her “den of iniquity” (I wonder if she even knows what this means), and told that the amount of mistakes I was making wasn’t acceptable and if I didn’t sort it out, I would be out of a job.   I tried to deal with it by working more slowly and writing an apologetic letter to my manager, but from this point on, I pretty much worked in fear, scared of making mistakes and went to the other extreme of working slowly and feeling horrible about coming into work each day.   A couple of months passed and there was a separate incident, in which to my shame, I was 10 minutes late.   This was a cue to be given my final warning.   My attendence was fairly good, other than this, I never missed a day of work (even amidst the snow-storms) and was always willing to work overtime (although I seemed to be “banned” from doing this, because my colleague didn’t like it), but I can only admit that I was in the wrong and corrected this subsequently.   There was further fall-out when I was caught checking another colleagues work.   Again, this went straight to the manager and at this point I decided that I wanted to leave.

It was a shame because it started out well, I got to see a number of interesting journals, I got on really well with people outside my department (I still play football with some of them to this day) and I always looked forward to the work I did with another department on a daily basis, if only as an escape from my work-colleagues.   The work, furthermore was fairly easy apart from exceptions to the rule, which made us reliant on my senior colleague.

Overall, though it was hellish.   I was given a telling off for asking questions that “I should already know” having been told it once.   I was made to feel afraid for making errors that were actually not to difficult to amend and bar the first few weeks never really given any positive feedback, no matter how hard I worked.   There was a horrible gossip culture, which I hated, in which everyone and anyone was criticised and speculated about at some point (it makes you wonder what they were saying about me when I wasn’t there).   It seemed as though the management only existed to police me and make me feel like some kind of convict.   I have no problem with work being stressful in terms of workload, but this work was stressful because it pushed me to my emotional limits.   I lost a lot of confidence and self-esteem and the job made me miserable.   I think my use of hyperbole and my bias towards myself has skewed this article, but this is only because the whole experience made me feel so low.   I acknowledge that I might be too fragile too, after all, there are always plenty of others worse off who have had worse experiences in work.  I even wondered whether I was cut out for the working world at all and if any company would ever employ me.   I felt like a failure and that I was letting people down when all I ever wanted to do was to be a big help and always worked as hard as I could.   My time thriving at Thames Valley University certainly seemed a long time ago then.   And my unceremonious exit would be another source of disquiet.

I always used to find Boxing terrible to watch; I couldn’t help but find myself rooting for neither boxer to get seriously hurt.  And yet there is something deeply engrossing about it at the same time.  In most sports that I can think of (bar athletics, which are more a comparison of singular basic attributes such as strength and speed), you could describe the action as a battle on a symbolic level, in which you are simultaneously attacking an opponent area, whilst simultaneously defending your own.  Imagine for instance a game of tennis, where the tennis ball is a fist flying at a large torso which is the at the end of each side of the court, or a game of football substituting the tennis ball for a football and the end of the court for goals.  Fighting and competing is in our blood and sport is merely a safe manifestation of this instinct whereby we can enjoy the glory of victory and the adrenalin rush of competing, without the consequences of injury (at least most of the time) or the risk of death.  If you don’t believe me, witness the goading and fascination surrounding a fight between a pair of schoolboys at a school, before they conditioned and taught to channel this competitive streak into other avenues (business and finance for example).  This is partially what makes sport so compelling to watch too; a battle of wills against two determined, strong-willed individuals/teams that both have various strengths and weaknesses leading to an unpredictability in a result.  Much like ancient war there are heroes, villains and legends, in addition to incredible stories wrapped around to pad out sport, making it a distinct and essential entity in civilised society.

Boxing is a far more physical manifestation of this theory than most and overall has a distinctly primal feel about it, which is offensive to many, yet strangely engrossing.  I started off watching Amir Khan get Silver at the Athens Olympics, before watching his professional career blossom.  I was starting to experience the awful thrill of empathising with the winning boxer and seemed to mentally shelve the guilt associated with seeing the opponent being knocked out.

Then came the Bredis Prescott defeat, which if you haven’t seen yet, you can see here (it doesn’t last long): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjBEj6yC-VQ.  I seem to have become m0re and more desensitised every time I see this clip, but I remember seeing this for the first time and feeling a sense of what can only be described as horror, and yet I felt compelled to watch the knock-out moment again, and again, and again.  Why?  It was almost as if my human empathy was weeping for Khan and my primal human urge for violence was baying for blood.  These two sharply contrasting emotions provoked a deep fascination in me, which meant that I couldn’t stop viewing it.  I had to analyse the way Khan reacted after a left-hook to the temple from Prescott left him seeing stars and wobbling like a bowl of jelly on an unstable Jenga tower.  Similarly, Ricky Hatton’s defeat at the hands of Manny Pacquiao renewed this feeling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY_77yAUkxw&feature=related.  The way that Hatton falls unconscious at the end is just terrible to watch and yet brutally compelling.

Since then I have somehow got caught up in the legends and great stories of boxing folklore.  It started looking up Muhammed Ali’s profile of wikipedia to try and find out why he is known as “The Greatest” and has resulted in watching endless youtube videos of classic fights.  And now it’s turned into a general wondering of which boxer was the greatest.  For my money, in case you’re interested, it was Iron Mike Tyson between 1986 and the end of 1988.  His poise, defence, speed, technique and raw punching power on both sides would have been a match for anyone in my book.  You only wonder how universal this opinion would have become were it not for Tyson firing Kevin Rooney in late 1988 (largely credited with helping to hone his skills following Cus D’Amato’s death) and his vast quantity of personal problems.  In his next fight following this event, he was wobbled for the first time (by Frank Bruno) and the second fight after that he was beaten for the first time (by James “Buster” Douglas).  His record in the Rooney years was 35-0, post it was 15-6.  Here’s a clip of Tyson at his peak, against a former heavy-weight champion (in 87, the fight was in 88) who had not lost up to that point and who had never even been knocked down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2cOtzA64ns.  Note, the “peek-a-boo” hand action, which means that he can defend or attack quickly on both sides, fearsome attacking strength and excellent hand-eye co-ordination.  Having said all that, I did tip Valuev to beat Haye on points last Saturday (based on watching fights containing the two and reading extensively rather than simply the size discrepancy), so my prediction skills aren’t quite up to scratch yet.

I’m ashamed to admit it, but I seem to have become a boxing fanatic.

Yay! Another trip down memory lane in another useless blog series?  Why on earth do I put you and myself through it?  Because, well, if I suffer amnesia then it will all be online ready for me.  Unless, of course, we run out of electricity due to a lack of renewable energy sources and have to revert to a feudal existence.  However, I think mainly it’s because I’m perverse and have to finish something I start no matter how much suffering is involved for reader and writer alike.  So, just in case you’re interested, here is the rest of my concise history on the job front since last year.

It was very much of a case of good cop, bad cop in a job context as far as my career went.  I bumbled about equipped with my paper-thin CV and visited every recruitment agency in the Reading area.  There was a common theme: very frequently there was the response, “We’ll get back to you soon and invite you to an interview”, before the subsequent lack of response and an apparent amnesia as to my existence on returning with queries; there was also commonly a reply of the much more honest “sorry, no work at the moment, get lost!”.  Applications, at least the few I sent out, were also unsuccessful, mainly because I struggled with the “selling” myself part.  I’d always adopted the policy of never being absolutely certain about anything, as much of what we declare is true believed is based solely on assumptions that we make that don’t necessarily have a basis in reality (think “the Matrix” – and if you haven’t seen it you really should, unless you find brilliant action films distasteful for whatever reason).  How do we know “reality” is reality, when “reality” is all we’ve ever known?  How do you know who you are and how you’d react to a situation having never been faced with it?  How do you know when flipping a coin that it won’t land on its side and be neither heads nor tails?  Okay, you’re more likely to win the lottery (assuming it’s real) than the last of these possibilities, but my point is that none of these things are certain and yet we all assume many things such as these.  I am a believer in some kind of progress (in scientific and technological if not moral terms) and that ideas can be built on to gain further understanding in the world, but the universe is limitless and I do not consider it totally impossible that a coin could explode in a flash of green light on flipping in due to a phenomena that no one understands.  Please note I do not have a phobia of flipping coins, nor have I ever betted on a coin landing on its side when asked “Heads or Tails”, but my point is that I am a “L-O-Loser”(copyright 2009) that thinks deeply before telling a prospective employer in an application that I am a “hard worker” and would be “the best man for the job”.  After all, how do I know the company wouldn’t be better off employing someone else?  Anyway, you probably get the point at why someone like me might struggle writing applications so I’ll stop digressing…

Anyway, by chance I saw a recruitment agency in Reading and decide I’d chance my arm.  It resulted in me getting temporary work at Thames Valley University in the Admissions Department for Faculty of Health and Human Sciences.  In basic terms, I was recruiting and enrolling future nurses for TVU in the London Area (though I worked in the John Betjeman utopia that is Slough), specifically in the field of Adult Nursing.  I really enjoyed this work: it was a good commute, always frantically hectic and hands-on and gave me a lot of information very quickly.  It was admin combined with a lot of student contact and it made me feel really involved.  The fellow staff were all of a different generation (bar one fellow graduate from the University, which I now study at, who I made good friends with), but they were really lovely and looked after me (maternal instincts maybe!) and the manager was the best I’ve ever had too.  The other student referred to her once as an “authoritarian pixie”, due to her diminutive size and no-nonsense attitude, but she always made me feel good about myself and bailed me out of trouble when I made inexperienced mistakes, without making me feel terrible.  I think she could see that I came into work with my heart on my sleeve everyday, really worked hard and cared about my work and vitally knew how to get the best out of me.  There is no better feeling in the world of work than feeling you belong and that you are fulfilling a function and it’s an experience I won’t forget.  There was also a unity between the group caused by the fact that almost everyone else that we encountered in the company seemed to mess us around and transfer all of their queries to our department.  We were understaffed and underappreciated, but at the same time I relished it.  I knew it wouldn’t last though and unfortunately it didn’t even last as long as I’d hoped (though longer than I was initially contracted for).

Two months into my work (though it felt a lot longer) I was told that I couldn’t stay on beyond the end of the next week because a suspended permanent member of staff (who opened up the temporary position in the first place) was returning.  Apparently, they had fought to keep me, but as has become familiar during my time there, the department’s requests were turned down, so I had to go.  It was a real shame and it took me the Christmas holidays to pick myself back up to the task of finding work (yeah, I’m definitely pathetic, I know).  Judging by the next six months of 2009 though this proved to be the golden age of my working career and has set a high standard for the future to come.

You’ve got to love a nice gloomy title.  Mind you, I do have a strangely morbid sense of humour.  Whenever I visit my parents I usually counter their wishes of a safe journey home with the old “well, I’ll try not to die” line, or alternatively if they hope that I have a good time doing something then I’ll usually respond, “well I’ve got to get there first, I could die on the way!”  As you can tell, I’m not really a very good son, but hopefully, if I can channel my morbidity like Anthony Horowitz then I should do fine out of life!  However, I am pretty serious about the topic that I’m thinking about today.  I was watching “Age of Stupid” at a Green Week event at University on Friday.  It’s a film based in the future and looking back on the present, an era in which we set in to motion our future annihilation because of our hedonistic, corrupt capitalism and our blaze attitude towards the health of our planet.  The central cause is, of course, global warming, the taboo that people love to hate.

I wrote a blog on Global Warming briefly called “Fairweather Weathermen” (link here: http://thegreatsaundini.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/fair-weather-weathermen/), highlighting that it is often used as a scapegoat for many random things in our country, such as “abnormal” (what on earth is “normal”?) weather.  However, this was never to deny that Global Warming is highly likely to be true.  We may not be feeling the effects of Climate Change in our country yet, but in various countries around the world, (think Australia, parts of Africa and South America) there are clear signs of this (i.e. it hasn’t rained for two years).  Also, there is the melting of the Ice Caps.  Yes, this is partially down to some other factors (soot for example), but still mainly due to CO2 and other greenhouse gasses trapping heat into our Bio-sphere.

Another common argument against the Greenhouse Effect is the natural warming and cooling cycle of the Earth throughout history, which suggests that such phenomena are natural.  In addition to this, it is well-documented that the majority of CO2 emission of our world is created by natural causes such as forest fire (yes, these are natural and in some cases even cyclical), as well as water vapour being a greater source of climate change (36% as opposed to 26). While this is true, the real question is balance here.  Extra Greenhouse gasses that are in the atmosphere as a result of human activity upset the natural balance and cause an acceleration of natural warming, to the extent that we are registering this substantial increase.  In addition to this, extra warming mean more forest fires, as well as more water vapour (which is still the most prominent greenhouse gas, though it would be inadvisable to get rid of it) and when the global temperature increases by 2°C, the ice caps (predictably a cooling agent) will melt, resulting in the temperature shooting up by 10°C.  It’s a case of buy 2 get 8 free in consumeristic terminology.  In fact there are many other positive feedback relationships that I haven’t even mentioned.

So what’s the problem with this?  Firstly, the sea level will rise resulting in various coastal areas being flooded.  I’ve done Statistics long enough to know that Exponentially rising population divided by Shrinking Land Mass will give an increasingly discouraging result.  Secondly, it will (obviously) be a lot hotter causing chaos to agricultural industries (which are, though much maligned by the West in favour of useless number crunchers, the bedrock and foundation of all modern society) and also ecological change (bees dying etc) and the spread of diseases that are not native.  Some areas will become inhospitable adding further chaos to the first statistic.  Once all this starts it will only get hotter even if we cut energy usage completely, due to feedback and eventually we’ll all have to cram into to the Antarctic, Siberia and other currently inhospitable areas to survive.

Most devastating of all, however, is the one fatal assumption that all businesses and institutions seem to make.  That everything will remain the same.  In Statistics, in order to make estimates on certain populations or financial markets, you need to make these kind of assumptions.  The problem is a change in weather should cause a change in productivity, which is undeniably linked to a country’s economic well-being (a country is only as rich as its industry, money is simply a physical representation of this wealth).  If trade collapses, which it will do in parts of the world most susceptible to climate change, then Britain will too, as it simply no longer has the capacity to be self-sufficient.

You’d think given the amount we hear about climate change that we’d be preparing for the worst.  Well, actually it doesn’t make economic sense to do that, we should probably just ignore it and hope it goes away!  The recent chaos caused by flooding in the UK is testament to how screwed we would be if our weather patterns suddenly change.  Transition towns have popped up, but we need further growth of these and alternative methods of producing electricity must be utilised now.

Many scientists among the 99% who believe in man-caused Global Warming (a true statistic) have agreed that we need to stop increasing production of Greenhouse gasses by 2015 to bring climate change to manageable terms.  This may sound simple, but when you have countries such as China and India who are aspiring to the American dream and massively increasing CO2 emissions everyday and a highly apathetic US (who incidentally produce the greatest CO2 emissions in the world) this is a nightmare scenario, and this isn’t even taking into account what would happen if African nations came together politically and tried to bridge the economic gap between them.  No one seems to be taking the first steps to cutting emissions either, as it would put anyone at an economic disadvantage.  Oil companies always seem to find a way to quash planet friendly opposition, such as the electric car, and seem to have a hold of governments around the globe and of course no one is willing to give funding to disparagingly titled “green” (I personally think “code red” is more justifiable now) projects in the midst of a Credit Crunch.  More and more airports and planes are being built every day (flying is one of the greatest contributors of greenhouse gasses from humans) and more cars being built to save the flagging car industry.

Even at a local level things are hopeless.  Local councils are rejecting the prospect of Wind Farms being built, because they “spoil the view” and decrease house prices!  People moan about how confusing it is to have so many bins for recycling and won’t vote for the only party to enact any significant change essential for saving the country (i.e. the Greens) because they “don’t have a chance of winning in the next election” and are a “bunch of hippies” anyway.  Added to this, the obvious human tendency to be reactive rather than proactive, blame other people and leave things to the last-minute and you’ve really got to question whether people can save themselves.

To survive I believe we need to transfer funding and staff from power stations to renewable energy companies (I haven’t even mentioned the future oil crisis, I wonder how oil companies will make a living in 40 years time), to create as much of our electricity as possible, we also need to create extra funding for agriculture, put controls on immigration and build less housing.  Most importantly, we need to develop clean cars that run on renewable energy.  This technology surely exists, but is probably unreliable at present, but people need to understand that something needs to be sacrificed in order to save the world.  We, Britain, need to stop finger-pointing to big bad America and start acting.  If we lead by example, the world will follow.  Many people will argue that this is undemocratic and anti-capitalist, but I am not arguing ethics, this is simply what I think needs to happen.  Will this happen?  Emphatically no.  People will wait until Climate Change starts affecting us before taking action and by then it will be too late.  How hollow will some of our present-day arguments seem then.  I will feebly do my bit until then (vote green, recycle and use public transport), but I am sceptical.

If you think this is gloomy, I haven’t even touched on various other threats in the Universe, such as meteors, a fatal solar flare or black holes and frankly we do not even have a clue about how, if or when these things could happen!  But when everything is said, done and happens ultimately the biggest question is what do you think?  Is it the end of the world or the beginning of a new one?  How does this affect the way you live?  There is too much needless change and not enough necessary change in this world.  What can you do to change the world in the latter way?

I apologise again for letting my argumentative tone get the better of me (I like a good argument), I’d appreciate any other (even polar opposite) opinions and arguments and suggestions as to what you think needs doing to save the planet. Peace out.

I was watching Question Time last night and as many will know Nick Griffin of the British National Party was one of the panelists.  Though it’s not a Wednesday I feel obliged to offer my two pennies’ worth, despite the fact that no one asked for it, as I feel like a juicy controversial blog.  Here’s the BBC story if you please:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8322322.stm

There was a large objection to Griffin even being invited on the show because of his party’s well-documented “racist” views, and protesters seemed to go out of their way to prevent the BNP leader from being heard, some getting themselves arrested and shouting abuse.  Now, I have been on the BNP website and (unlike many uninformed opposition who believe that the true axis of evil the Daily Mail and Sun are the source of all truth) read their policies and vehemently disagree with them, but the fact is, and you may not like it, hundreds of thousands fellow countrymen feel otherwise.  That’s three times less than the estimated population of homosexuals in Britain (Observer 2005) and 0.7% of the popular vote in the last general election.  By silencing Nick Griffin we marginalise a large number who follow the party and, as a result, put our democracy in serious trouble.  What these people are advocating is “yes, we allow freedom of speech, but only if you agree with us!”  This is discriminating against them, the very thing we are ironically accusing them of.  Nick Griffin represents a small and controversial section of society, but one that has been elected by the people and thus deserves not to be censored just because the vast majority disagree with their policies.  I applaud the BBC on this count for standing true to its journalistic principles of free speech for all.

However, the “debate” was unfortunately heavily biased against Nick Griffin and most of the time we didn’t even get to hear the BNP leader argue his points because he kept getting interrupted by the rest of the panel mid-sentence.  The BNP are often criticised for inciting racial hatred (and rightly so), but the only people last evening displaying any kind of prejudice were the panel and clearly biased audience who seemed to have already made their minds up about the party and came on only to give the leader a hard time.  As it happens, I’m not sure whether Griffin would have had much of a comeback to many of the questions thrown at him in malice and personally I would have preferred to have watched him expose himself, rather than having angry politicians stopping him from doing so, desperately trying to deliver a knock-out blow with all the guile of Mike Tyson in his late career.  This was bullying and it comprised of its largest three elements: insecurity, anger and hate.  I personally felt really sorry for the guy and think he did well to last the show and keep a calm that shamed many of the others in that studio; many weaker characters would have either brutishly stormed out in fury or a girly fit of tears, such was the hostility.  Credit should go to the host, David Dimbleby, for ensuring that the show wasn’t even more biased, at least ensuring that Jack Straw was made to sweat when immigration policy came up.

Another interesting issue was how Nazism was frequently brandished in Nick “That’s a misquote” Griffin’s direction because of the fascist nature of the party.  Griffin denied this on the program and, though I wouldn’t read too much into this (the man is a snake and liar who has already admitted that he is trying to wiggle his way into a position of influence with which to carry out his White’s only Britain agenda), it wouldn’t surprise me if he was telling the truth on this occasion.  It seems to me that anything that is Nationalist is therefore Nazi and therefore Pure Evil that should be destroyed by hellfire.  Don’t get me wrong, I do not believe the BNP are fair in their policies, but do not deserve to be brandished Neo-nazis as a result.  Another interesting fact is that we seem to place Hitler and Nazis as the epitome of evil.  This proven by the fact that when anyone even makes a slightly complementary comment about the regime, such as Bernie (“they got things done”) Ecclestone, it’s blasphemy to our narrow perspective that there could be no undertone of merit in a regime that committed such atrocities.  I’m not going to discredit myself by denying the holocaust that obviously happened, but what is certainly true is that there are many countries and factions also guilty of similar race hate and genocide that are not regarded with the same level of disdain by the general public.  Also, just because the ideologies and actions of the Nazis were clearly evil, doesn’t mean that Nationalism is inherently wrong in all circumstances, or that Hitler mistreated his pets (as popularised on a BBC program) and I think it is important to recognise this.  He was a man like any of us, with good and bad qualities, but still committed evil atrocities.  Let’s not demonise him too much as Satan personified that we lose perspective that this same evil can be committed by any human being regardless of name, colour, nationality or creed.  The BNP would be walking a fine line if they got into power in going the same way (so don’t vote for them, I’m going for Green), but nationalism and national pride should not be stamped out as invariably leading to the murder of millions of innocents either.  The government needs to know that we need some nationalism, in addition to equality, to unite us, just as much as lower taxes and higher wages.

The largest thing that stuck out for me when watching the show however was how maligned you were to have an unpopular viewpoint.  We are essentially hypocrites.  We say “Be yourself” and then we villainise those who stand up for their beliefs.  We say “We should respect everyone’s point of view”, but there are different rules for those who disagree.  I’m a Christian and I’ve had experiences like Nick Griffin, of people ganging up on me at school, because of my religious convictions.  Like the panel and audience, they weren’t genuinely interested in my answers, they simply wanted to get every atheist argument off their chest to prove what was most important to them, that I was wrong and they were right.  I’m not a Christian because I want to win an argument, that would certainly be counter-productive, but I’m guessing that they hadn’t even thought about the implications of themselves being right and their own convictions, but for the present.  It still happens today to some extent, I am considered a fool for being married at 22 and for believing that something so important and spiritual should only be enjoyed in a strong committed relationship.  I’m not saying that I disapprove of others for thinking something different, but that’s what I believe for me and I stand by my life decision in this aspect whether others understand this or don’t (and they usually don’t).

Anyway, lots of controversy there.  Here’s a summary of the main questions: Should Nick Griffin have been on Question Time?  Do you think the bullying approach from the BBC panel and audience was fair?  Do you think it will dissuade voters from going BNP?  Do you think we are indoctrinated to make a link between Nationalism and Nazi Germany?  Are we really allowed to form our own opinions or do we have to conform to the majority view?  I’d appreciate it if any arguments showed humility and were well-reasoned instead of abusive.  I’m more than happy to learn from other people, change my mind and even humbly apologise if I offend anyone with my opinions.  Till next time.

I quit the latest in a long time of jobs a few days ago (and “no” it wasn’t because I was consistent late, you shouldn’t read too much into me being a bit lazy with posting up new blogs).  It was only part-time work at a pub, as a bartender/waiter in my local area, but I can’t help, but feel slightly upset about how the whole situation resolved itself.  I only worked 10 shifts, and generally worked well and hard, but in the end I couldn’t get any structure with the work and they started to ask me to work on Sundays, even though I had made it fairly clear when applying that I wouldn’t work then because it is my wife’s only day off in a week (she works six days per week as a teacher by the by).  When I decided to have a spine for once and told him that my marriage came first over the phone I was pretty much fired on the spot, as he put it, ”well I need someone else who works when I need them. Don’t work then. Bye!”.  I managed to ask him about being paid for my over 40 hours of unpaid labour before he hung up, but I have to admit, I’m still a mite concerned that I won’t get paid at all, and am even entertaining conspiracy theories that I was exploited.  After all, it was a casual arrangement, no contract, just word of mouth.  It’s a shame as I was starting to become really skilled and also enjoyed the experience when I was abruptly acquitted.  I have a natural love of serving others and it felt good to be part of someone else’s great night out.  However, counter-balancing this, it was slightly annoying how the pub manager, who was an odd camp oriental spindly fellow, seemed to adopt a policy of scapegoat until proven innocent with me (i.e. I kept getting blamed for things I didn’t do) and never gave me any reassurance that I was doing anything correctly.  After a whole year of it, I’m more than a little tired of being a work whipping boy.  To top it all off, I didn’t even learn any good bar jokes, at least not any without me in the punchline.  A man walked into a bar, worked 10 shifts and didn’t get paid…  Personally, I don’t find that one too funny.

I’ve never seemed to have much longevity in jobs so far and good experiences overall have seemed few and far between.  I suppose it is this that has lead me to pursue further study, a new qualification, with the green pastures afoot promising a new job in which I am respected for having some specialised knowledge.  How did I end up doing Statistics though?  It was quite a journey, particularly remembering that this blog was set up as a part of my English and Creative Writing qualification.  As it happened, that qualification has, so far, done me few favours: my writing has dried up like a dying river and it has offered me no specialised avenues, except publishing (in which you have to do free work experience just to have a chance of getting a position, am I interested in it enough to do that? Not really) and journalism (I’ve always had a thing against journalism).  Moreover, my inherent unambitiousness, relentless honesty and modesty and weakness in speaking has pretty much ensured that I’m automatically out of the running in a lot graduate positions (not that I want to do many of them anyway, another problem).  Ultimately, I’m not going to be able to write all of my experiences here, so I may just write a fortnightly series on my experiences in a working credit crunched world.  First of all though, better get back hunting for some part-time jobs!

It’s amazing how much fun and pointless training can be nowadays.  Recently I applied and was successful in getting a job.  Having got the job, I was sent a letter through the post, which gave me a website which would “complete my application”.  With a groan, I reluctantly found time to do this, as the job sounded really interesting.  However, I was convinced that upon flicking the site up onto my computer that I would be drowned in online forms, particularly when the letter stated that it would take “about an hour” to complete!

To my surprise though, the whole experience was quite fun in a strange way.  This enrolment process was basically online training, which had to be sat through in its entirety, or not be paid, but included videos, quizzes and pictures to keep it tolerable and at times highly amusing.  For instance, at one point, there was a question that ran, “Who is your customer? A – The guy you are serving food too,  B – Your colleagues,  C – Your manager,  D – Other miscellaneous positions in no way related to the actual job”.  Too my surprise the answer was “Everyone is your customer”.  Now I appreciate the sentiment of being generally polite and helpful to everyone you come across, but I couldn’t find myself agreeing.  I mean, can you imagine a world where everyone treated everyone else as a customer?  Here’s a scenario, a friend meets someone who adopts these principles by heart for a coffee:

Mr Everyone’s your customer: (Wearing a broad smile) Hello, how can I help?

Friend: (Slightly puzzled) Err… hi.  I’m fine thanks.  It’s a bit cold out here. Let’s go inside shall we?

Mr E: (enthusiastically) Good idea sir!

[they walk into the coffee shop and begin to queue]

Mr E: (politely) Would you like to reserve a table, sir?

Friend: You mean save us a table?  Okay.

Mr E: Would you like something to drink?

Friend: Well, generally that is the idea of going for coffee…

Mr E: Would you like the Chi Tea Latte?

Friend: (calmly) No, no.  A Cappuccino would be good, thanks.

Mr E: For an extra 20p you can go large.  Would you like to do this, sir?

Friend: (firmly) No, just a Cappuccino, thanks.

Mr E: (with a sickeningly gleeful grin) And that will be 5 pounds please.

Friend: (astonished) But the price up there says 3.20!

Mr E: A generous service charge is included in the price.

Friend: (disgruntled) What are you talking about?  Look, you save us a table and I’ll buy the drinks.

Mr E: (deeply pained) Are you dissatisfied with your service, sir?

Friend: (apologetic, but still irritated) You could say that, yes, but it’s me, I’m fairly meticulous and I prefer doing myself, you see?

Mr E: Are you sure you don’t want to issue a complaint?

Friend: (firmly) No, that’s okay.

Mr E: (with a smile again) Good, because I’m not sure where my manager is.

Friend: (bemused) Manager? Anyway, what can I get you?

Mr E: I’m sorry sir, I’m not allowed to have drinks while I’m on duty, company policy.

Friend: (shakes head in astonishment) ?  (hesitantly) Um… oh… I forgot… something.  I’m really sorry about this, but I need to go back to the office, work to be done, you know.

Mr E: (Exaggerated astonishment) Wow, you must work hard.  It’s Sunday!

Friend: (feigning honesty, but fairly desperate to leave) Well… you know… a Postman’s job is never done!

Mr E: (mock-curious) Oh, I didn’t know the post went on Sundays?

Friend: Bye!

Mr E:  (Wearing a cheesy smile) Thank you sir!  Have a nice day!  Who’s next please?

Sickening.  That’s the only word I can use.  I’m guessing that Mr. E wouldn’t have much of a social life, love life and probably wouldn’t even be very popular with his co-workers, but should be excellent in any customer-service related field, but then I can relate to him in that way (except in terms of love life of course)!

The rest of the form, getting back to topic, wasn’t much different to this, if I’m honest.  It was all so straight forward that you probably didn’t even need to be literate to get through the program.  Other highlights, included hearing the company “values” in the form of watching a strange video, in which certain key words cropped up over the dance tune “Children” (is it me or do these company values all say the same thing with different wording?), learning that it’s probably not hygienic not to cover an open wound whilst handling food, despite the fact that it heals more quickly and blood looks like a kind of seasoning and contains iron, and of course the mandatory fire safety, which takes me to most of what I wanted to talk about this blog…

As in many other fire safety training schemes I have ever done in my entire life I was told, “Do not use escalators”, “If you see a fire, press the fire button and calmly vacate building” etc.  The trouble is, these aren’t particularly useful instructions when faced with a real fire.  I remember, when I was 17 I was using the hair-dryer and through some freak of physics, the hair-dryer caught aflame.  My response?  Well, first I stood in amazement as it started to burn my mum’s carpet, then I remembered what I’d learned at school to do in such a situation: vacate the building calmly, do not take anything with you or attempt to fight the fire.  So, I got my brother (14) and sister (9) and calmly told them about the fire and how we needed vacate the building immediately.  My younger sister wanted to get her favourite teddy from her room, but applying the school rules rigidly, I, of course, didn’t let her do so (despite the fact that the fire was really small) and told her to accept that her teddy was lost.  In the end, I took my brother and sister to my next-door neighbours to tell them about the fire and they were able to sort out the problem for me.  In the end, I only needed to turn off the electricity and smother the flame.  At least I wasn’t stupid enough to throw water onto an electric fire I suppose (probably thanks to the education of a variety of cartoons).  It seems ridiculous that people are rarely taught how to fight fires though, just to escape them.  Maybe it’s a sign of our society nowadays: too much insurance and too many lawsuits, not enough straight talking or practical honesty.

And another thing?  Why on earth are we told not to run for our lives in the event of a fire, as would be our natural inclinations?  That’s never made sense to me.  I mean, surely in a crisis situation, you’d want to get out of danger as quickly as possible, especially when there’s apparently “no time” to reclaim any belongings and the seconds count!  Maybe, it’s a Victorian throw-back.  In practice, I’d be surprised if anyone followed this instruction when faced with a this situation.  Does anyone else know any strange safety rules that do not make much sense, or maybe even rules that no one follows?  I’d like a good read, so post them below if you have any.  My future self appeared to me yesterday evening and informed me that next week’s blog will feature a flashback that I will have at some point this week, so tune in next week to test your time-travel theories (will the fact that he came back and told me the future now change the future or is it fixed?)!