It's NOT big, and it's NOT clever,

When I was about 15 or 16 I smoked.
Only a bit, maybe one or two a week if I was lucky (should that be unlucky?) I was strictly ‘other peoples’ in what brand I smoked.
Once I was 18 and living outside of home I occasionally bought my own cigarettes. I still rarely smoked more than one or two a week, mostly I smoked when friends did on a Friday or a Saturday night. Peer pressure, yep, it was both big and clever. But it was also ‘cool’.

I usually smoked exotic and enticing brands like Black Russians, More Menthol or Multicoloured cocktail cigarettes with gold coloured filters ...it was all about the glamour. Packaging and presentation had a direct effect on whether I would buy a brand, I was beyond excited to discover a brand called DEATH that was sold in Brighton that came in a suave black coffin shaped box, too naïve, and too stupid to care about the irony it was quickly my favourite.
I never became addicted to cigarettes, I never smoked more than a couple a week and after the age of 24 rarely smoked at all. I haven’t smoked now in over 20 years.

 I wish smoking wasn’t cool. A smoking ban in public venues has done a lot to stop smokers, it is not so chic to huddle out in the rain to catch a quick puff. Lack of advertising has also helped to stop children and young adults starting the habit and of course you now need to be 18 to even begin. But I think another great preventative would be plain boring non-trendy packaging (think the classic TESCO VALUE campaign!) which is why I’d be happy to see all cigarettes sold in plain white cartons.
 I know all the arguments about cigarette taxes helping the country. I’ve heard things in favour of an outright ban (I’m not in favour mainly as it would only serve to make it cooler!) I think the best way to ensure that less people risk their health is to make smoking a real decision, based on proper information and not ‘oooh look – how cool is that packet!’ or ‘how handsome is that cowboy smoking!’

I am secret Agent G

How neurotic are you about safety and security?

      I have written before about my neurotic parenting with DD and how I try very hard not to be Nemo’s Dad. But today I was thinking about online security.
     You all know I live online. I have a real feeling that it’s my ‘home’ I love to tweet and to blog. I like email, instant messages, apps to check things via phone, websites, the lot. But I am also very wary, and I like to think, security conscious.
      I do not bank online (except Paypal) so I am not easily swayed by Bank Phishing emails. And I’m amused rather than taken in by the ‘You’ve won the lottery’ emails (except once I had – it was only £10 though) and most of the “Dear friend I need your help with £1000000 I have in a bank in Nigeria” go straight to my Spam folder so I’m rarely troubled by them. (Oh and I don't post pictures of my credit card online either! Seriously people!!)
      But I hope I’m not complacent, I’m wary of all emails, I’ve sent money to people online (as either gifts or payment)  and only once have I been let down (a small item I paid for was never sent).
      I use Ebay, Etsy and Amazon and like most of you (I suspect) I’m pretty neurotic about passwords and password strength. I use a different password for each site, I follow advice from Sophos and test password examples at PassFault (go and give it a go! Though I’d use a ‘similar to your password’, not your actual password – just in case!) I use Gmail’s ‘Two Step Authentication’ and I have a phone lock on my mobile.
      I also try and remain fairly anonymous online. Partly because a quick google search for my name reveals……just me. I’m fairly unique it seems, ditto DD. So I rarely use my name online, nor an exact location. I realise a keen stalker could probably find most of it but why make it easy.

      I don’t play ‘What’s Your Porn Star Name?’ and the like since I realises that most of the questions were aimed at finding your ‘often used questions for when you lose your password on a website’ eg First pet, name of your road, a school.
      I don’t post my birthday online – why tell everyone I’m 45 TODAY when that reveals my date of birth – same for DD – after all she will be online long after I am and why leave a data trail for her to worry about.

 So, am I neurotic or sensible? And do you protect yourself on line or assume that the risk is small and not care. Any other tips you think I should know?

Ranting about sex and children

This morning a news story made me have a quick twitter rant. (just look at the poster ad!)

The rant was only a few tweets long. 

Rant mode engaged 

Free contraception for 13 year old girls to prevent teen pregnancy! Really? Not free condoms? Not any sort if support? 

Because of course, GIRLS getting pregnant is obviously GIRLS fault. No boys involved. No young men. And if 13 year olds don't get pregnant.. 

We can then ignore the fact that children are having sex. Having sex might be fun, but it's not a game. Pregnancy is not the only risk 

But hey, we can vaccinate GIRLS against hpv, we can give GIRLS drugs so they don't get pregnant...GIRLS are not sex toys 

 End rant (thanks radio 4) 

And then the more I read in replies and saw on twitter the more rage I felt. And while 140 characters is too short to express my rage I think maybe an unlimited blog is too many. I will waffle and go off the point (see I’m doing it already) So I shall attempt to briefly explain my concerns. 

I am not anti contraception for people that are going to have sex and don’t want to get pregnant. 

I am keen that children are allowed to be children and that they are not growing up to see sex as something that is ‘normal’ to do at an age that is illegal and physically (in many cases) dangerous. 

I do not want to see young girls controlled by boys who use sex as a way of dominating while declaring ‘love’.

I want all children, young adults and adults to have access to safe and reliable contraception and sexual health advice and treatment. 

I want the world at large to stop implying that ‘getting pregnant’ is the ‘teen mum’s’ fault. That girls are the only ones that need ‘watching’ and ‘controlling’. 

I want young women and young female children made aware that hormonal contraception carries a risk and won’t protect against many of the other dangers of sex. 

I want children to learn that sex is ace, but that it is a responsibility as well as fun and that waiting for the right person (or people) is not silly – it’s nice. 

I want young women and men to know that penetration is not all it’s about. And that sex and love are not the same thing. 

I want roses round the door and blue birds to sing when you meet ‘the one’ and I’d like hearts to appear in your eyes when you are looking at the one you love. 

That’s not too much to ask surely? 

Voting

9 friends are off to the cinema. (Adam, Brian, Colin, David, Ethel, Freda, Geraldine, Hilda, Isobel) and they can’t decide which of the 4 movies to see. They have a choice of Horror, Comedy, a 3d Cartoon or Romance.

Adam, Brian, Isobel and Colin all want to see the horror, David and Ethel want to see the comedy, Freda, and Geraldine want to see the Romance, Hilda wants to see the cartoon. They all want to go and see a movie together though (even though it’s a multiplex). Adam, Brian, Isobel and Colin say that their votes are the most so everyone should see the horror. But the others argue that that would mean that 5 of them would watch a movie they don’t want to see! It’s obvious that Hilda is on her own, so they ask her what would her 2nd choice movie be. Hilda picks the comedy. The others are annoyed now – there is still a split, although romance is now the clear runner up. So they ask Freda and Geraldine too for a 2nd choice. Freda picks comedy too, and Geraldine ums and ahs but finally plumps for the horror.

There are now over 50% of the friends wanting to see the horror. They go and see it. Geraldine and Freda agree it was rubbish, next time Geraldine will vote for comedy. If things are the same next time, her vote will swing it for the comedy.

We use the alternative vote all the time, we usually don’t even notice.

They argued about the popcorn too – but luckily there was only a choice of salty or sweet, and in a choice of two, the majority vote works fine, and even though Adam didn’t want popcorn, it turned out that most people wanted sweet……

Last night I got out of bed and padded into the tiny room we call the library...

I went into the box room (grandly titled 'The Library' due to it's being floor to ceiling shelved and filled with books) because one of my author friends(?) heroes(?) crushes (?) all of those(?) @AndyStantonTM had asked a question about grammar in the George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, and I knew I had a copy and could check.

I checked and then of course I lay in bed and read a little, and found myself thinking of the recent riots (which I have trouble sorting in my mind, are people rioting for *more* state involvement in their lives?) when I read this...

Ignorance is Strength

Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other --
.

'Julia, are you awake?' said Winston.

'Yes, my love, I'm listening. Go on. It's marvellous.'

He continued reading:



. The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters.


I went to bed sad, I'm still sad. Sorry folks, what sort of crappy blog post is this! I'd ask for your money back if I were you.

If you want to read more, the entire novel is online here for free