I'm the sort of person who finds old people arguing in the street funny

While I was in town earlier I saw an old couple, and a I mean a genuine, in their eighties or more, old couple - bent over, shuffling along, pristine rain coats - break out into a massive row. Right there, in front of everyone and they didn't care who saw.

I laughed of course but I'm bloody well going to implicate my sister who encouraged me by laughing like Muttley watching a pigeon culling session. We share a cruelty gene.

Anyway, my point is, have you ever in your life seen anything like this before?! Because I hadn't. We're used to twinkly-eyed, loved-up stereotypes of oldies who have been together since the dawn of Last of the Summer Wine (or time, whichever came first) and still care. We like oohing and aahing over them as they hold hands and do nice things for one another. They're from another planet but hey, they show us that love can conquer warts and incontinence. We like them for that.

But alas, there is trouble in paradise and I have witnessed it. It turns out they're just like us. Please tell me I'm not the only one who suspects she got caught ogling some guy's arse?

A middle-aged woman, a cat and a wheelie bin. Stuff's gonna happen

I empathise with the cat who got dumped in a bin.



That fleeting moment seems to perfectly illustrate the story of my life.

Arse-staring etiquette

Gentlemen - when staring at a woman's arse, what's polite? To try and go completely undetected, lest your ogling cause offense? If spotted aim for a bashful but cheeky grin and a shrug of the shoulders? How about idly cycling past her, tipping your head back to prolong the last few moments her arse is in view, swinging round to check out the rest of her while your eyes slowly climb the object of your interest until reaching her face, where you continue to scrutinise her appearance in a detached and mildly curious fashion until catching the incredulous look on her face, jump to with a small intake of breath and cycle off with a casual, "sorry"?

Is this the latest in propriety? Or should I, for argument's sake, nonchalantly push him off his bike should I see him again with a coquettish, pouty, "oops"?

Answering nature's call

I believe in the power of nominative determinism and it's all thanks to Samantha Fountain. Who else could have brought us the Shewee - the device designed to help ladies go for a wee wee standing up?

Isn't that unbelievably brilliant?? Apparently it's being considered by Cambridgeshire Police so that female officers can...

"stand up at public toilets and avoid unhygienic seats, or use a convenient container when a toilet is unavailable."

...but we all know that means pissing up a tree.

Part of the sales pitch says that it means no more "embarrassing bare bottoms" but given that it's talking about a scenario where one gets caught I'm not sure how much less embarrassing being seen weeing through a plastic tube might be. Only one way to find out I guess.

But it's not just a practical item, in case you were wondering what else you might do with it outside of long car journeys and when you're walking home drunk and forgot to go to the loo in the pub. We are also blessed with an opportunity to brag - man stylee. If I was going to get one, I'd definitely go for a Shewee Extreme. And then I'd swagger around the place shouting about the size of my "longer length outlet pipe".

BBC cuts - let's not be foxed, we want real reasons

Right, the BBC - for or against? More specifically, BBC cuts - wotcha thinking? I'm going to nail my colours to the mast right away and say that I am enormously pro BBC. I love it, I want it to stay, it provides the vast majority of what I watch and listen to on TV and radio, I would consider it a blow to British culture if it was to go or be reduced in any way. So, I'm unequivocal.

So much so that I joined in with a sea of like-minded souls recently and emailed my MP with my concerns after Jeremy Hunt spoke of the proposed cuts to the licence fee. The reasons for this 'proposal' (thinly veiled threat to some) is that the BBC needed to "demonstrate the very constrained financial situation we are now in". Which at first glance, second glance and in fact with every glance so far, begs the question, why? How does cutting the licence fee directly help with the deficit? As far as I can make out, it doesn't but this doesn't stop Hunt and my MP from carefully wording it so that it sort of appears that it does.

But it's really doing no more than demanding that the BBC removes its hat when the funeral procession goes past. Fair enough in some respects but is this really the government's business? Are they here to piously observe the Beeb's manners? And given that they are making such a big noise about the economic state of the country, shouldn't they be getting on with something a little more productive?

I'm not blind to the BBC's faults and in fact agree that they've had way too many 'let them eat cake' moments over last few years. Paying outrageous salaries to the big wigs and some ill-judged broadcasts meant that they made themselves seem both arrogant and flippant - and to the fans amongst us wincing through our fingers, positively self basting . But it musn't be forgotten that the BBC is unique in the level of its scrutiny as a public broadcaster. Its private sector rivals wouldn't fare so well if the spot light were upon them but can rest easy that it's unlikely to have to endure it.

Another, and arguably more severe criticism, would be the criminalising of those who find themselves unable to pay for their licence. It does seem unfair on the very poorest in society and I'm not sure that, worst case scenario, a prison sentence could possibly be justified for something so trivial. But I similarly cannot see that £4 a week is beyond the reach of the vast majority of people. For entertainment, that's excellent value. Less than a bottle of wine, less than hiring a DVD, less than the starter at most restaurants. As issues go, I'm sure this is solvable without resorting to diminishing the BBC in general.

So given that we, the 'all sorts' of Britain, pay for a licence, the BBC is left in the very difficult position of having to juggle catering for all tastes (being populist) with being innovative and creative (lavish costume dramas mainly). Something I think it does rather well - Doctor Who seems to straddle both comfortably. Much as I may loath Total Wipeout, I don't consider it to be the be all and end all of their output and am happy to pretend it doesn't exist while I patiently wait to tune into the next installment of Sherlock or Just a Minute.

One of the points that my MP copied and pasted (I saw someone else had received an identical email) to me was his intention to ensure that cuts were not "capricious or wilfully damaging" but that he would also "support choices that return the BBC to its supposed guiding doctrine of 'Reithianism'". I agree. But whether a bias exists or not should be a matter for a truly independant body to decide. Who knows, maybe the BBC could emerge as one of the most impartial news broadcasters we have. And maybe the government may come across as having a somewhat petty and vindictive agenda. Maybe.

Of course, one of the main platforms that they have chosen to inform the public of their proposals is the BBC, who on this occasion have interpreted Reithian values as not making wanker hand-gestures behind Tory MPs when they're not looking. The whole spectacle has somewhat reminded me of the ungracious rudeness encouraged in Come Dine With Me. You know, that Channel 4 crap.

Shut up and get to my point

Seeing as watching David Mitchell talk about cunnilingus on That Mitchell and Webb Look blew up my set top box (this is not a euphemism, it actually happened) it looks like I'm going to have to blog for my entertainment this evening. 

And what could be more entertaining than writing about how I'm never wrong. Yes, that's right, I'm never wrong. Well, not according to other people anyway. Otherwise they would stick to the points or arguments I raise and not rely on hysterical diversions and departures to give them something to say, wouldn't they? 

Yeah, you do know what I mean. I'm talking about those instances when you say something like "I'm not actually opposed to immigration as a whole" and it somehow gets translated into "I'm oblivious to your situation, your life and your feelings. Please correct me in the most indignant manner possible because I'm an idiot for not talking about your circumstances in fine point detail". 

I can only assume that such people are in awe of my flawless logic and reasoning, left to scrabble around in the remains of the debate, trying to pick up scraps where they can find them. Pity the poor fools as they feed on morsels of hyperbole and misunderstanding for survival. I literally rock. 

Except I don't of course. Even the most cursory glance over my life will tell you that I am wrong 99% of the time so why the need to veer so far off the point in the first place? Why are people so incapable of listening and engaging? (And succinctly gunning down my argument, at which point I do actually shut up.)

Self-importance would be one answer. There's nothing like the thrill people get when approaching a chance to crap on about themselves, particularly if it means recounting tales of woe. The whole world doesn't understand them and you become its representative. Or at least you would be if you were listening. In reality all you can do is wonder whether to punch them or appease them. 

Another likely answer is that many people are only capable of holding a single concept in their minds at a time. They'll pluck out one aspect of what you said, attach a personal experience or viewpoint and then run with it. Whatever else you mentioned is a mere dot on the horizon by the time they've finished. Although I'm sure it can hear them shouting. 

But this is incredibly dumb isn't it? Most things in life are complex and variable. Even if your pesky opposition is right in what they say, it's hardly an achievement if you fail to include all other relevant facts or opinions. It's like boasting about building a house and then becoming ridiculously proud of having just one brick. 

My last stab at understanding would be that, particularly on internet forums and comments sections, binary thinking is often favoured. You're right or wrong, good or bad, left or right, in agreement or not. No shades of grey exist. If there's a system of rating or recommending comments on a site, check it out, you'll see how swayed readers are by this type of thinking. If ever there were a reason for keeping your opinions to yourself, you'll find it online. 

Maintaining the right to feel annoyance

I have mentioned my terrible neighbours before and will continue to do so because they refuse to go away. But I haven't mentioned the Friday night pest as yet I don't think. 

If I was to say to you that I really hate the sound of people laughing you'd think I was a meany old misanthrope. But if I was to say that my neighbour upstairs and her friends were like a bunch of cackling Essex girls* at happy hour in Ibiza would you sympathise and feel I had cause to be annoyed? My point is, I'm not horrible, I'm literally being forced to dislike these people! 

*I actually hail from Essex and so can indulge in stereotyping.