Watched this earlier, and as it kept me looking at the TV, it can’t have been all bad. There was one part, a sentence in fact, that struck me as very odd.
They were debating whether or not to shoot down a passenger plane, and Amanda Platell (former Labour Party Spin Doctor) said “… but there are innocent women and children on that plane”. Errr.. excuse me ?
No innocent men on the plane then ?
And why, in this age of ‘equality’, are we saving the women and children first ? Or even thinking of them first ? Was not the original purpose of saving women and children more to do with continuing the lifeline and ensuring the continuation of families ? Why was someone who was supposedly more in touch with public opinion than most saying this ? Was it her ‘spin doctor head’ that was talking ? Or her ‘female head’ (Can they be separated ?). If you were on board a ship, and it started sinking, do you honestly think that a ‘Women and children first’ order would be listened to ? Hell no.
There are too many people on this planet for us to start worrying about which gender gets out in a situation like that. I hate hypocrisy, and if a woman were to turn around and say that she deserved saving over a man, I’d honestly just see that as blatant gender manipulation, nothing more, and in just the same way that if a man said he deserved it instead. Okay, so I’m not going to be faced with that, but here we are in 2004, and an almost Victorian value is being expressed on national TV.
What she did not get the opportunity to say, was what her opinion would have been had the plane just been carrying male passengers. And if she would have said something like ‘Those poor innocent men’, then why did she not say that at the time above ? Her get-out would be that it’s better to say what she did as it’s more emotive, but in the situation generated in the programme, emotions like that were totally misplaced. (Actually, come to think of it, the nature of the passenger’s gender was not revealed, so she made an assumption. That’s even worse.)
On something entirely different, Custard (hamster) was nipping around his cage, and I commented that we ought to get him a cage that made more use of his space. After all, most hamster cages have 90% empty space as far as the hamster is concerned. Then of course, the subject of lifespan came into it – not the most long-lived of furballs are they ? And I had a thought……….
There’s a scene in a Pratchett book (I’ve forgotten which) involving thousands and thousands of supermarket trolleys. Lots of kids have pets, lots of those lots of kids have hamsters (and gerbils and other similar sized creatures), and all those hamsters need somewhere to live, so a lot of cages must be bought.
Where do all they go ?
I had visions of a huge pile of discarded hamster cages, with the noise of a lone squeaking wheel (all hamster wheels squeak – especially at night (around 4am) it’s THE LAW) and the hamster-cage-making baron rubbing his hands with glee as he keeps making thousands of cages for all these beasties.
Anyway, we may yet get Custard a new cage. And wouldn’t it be SO much simpler if two hamsters could live together in some sort of truce ? Biscuit and Custard could not only have company, be able to have speed contests on the wheel (“Oi, ratface – gerroff, it’s my turn”) and have something warm to snuggle up against at night – oops, make that day – but it would be cheaper too. 2 hamsters+ 1 cage=better.
That is all.