Guest Post (ie article stolen from news paper and posted on this blog) time!
Because we've all been thinking it: Come London 2012 time, what the hell is the rest of the world going to think of the infamous British customer service?
Take it away Simon Kelner...
I was in Manchester last night, on an intensely private matter. Oh, all right, I was at a football match. Anyway, I was staying at the city centre hotel where I am a regular visitor. In the relatively short time I have patronised this establishment, it has changed names – and, I assume, ownership – three times, and in its latest incarnation it went from a hotel with a short, memorable name – just four letters – to one with a cumbersome, Americanised moniker – three words, 18 letters.
But no matter. It is clean, efficient, friendly and good value. There is nothing special about it, apart from the fact that, in my experience, British hotels are generally found wanting in at least one of those four categories. And that's before we even talk about the overheated rooms with windows that don't open, key cards that don't work properly (sorry to be a parody of a grumpy old man, but how I long for the days when you'd check in to a hotel and be given a key that was actually a key), staff who don't understand the meaning of service, and a dining room where everyone talks in a conspiratorial whisper.
It is a truism that comedy works best when it is rooted in reality, so the success of Fawlty Towers was in some part due to the fact that we had all had experience of similar establishments. The truth is, I think, that the British are not very good at the service industry. Servility doesn't come naturally to us.
Compare the way, in America for instance, you are treated at anywhere from a hotel or restaurant to a dry cleaners. My favourite story of the British service industry happened early one morning at Gatwick airport. I was having a cup of tea in one of the terminal's restaurants and I heard raised voices from the serving counter. I looked up to see one of the staff with his arms round a customer's neck, dragging him across the counter. "If you do that once more," he yelled, "I'll [expletive deleted] kill you, you [two expletives deleted]." The customer skulked off, and when I went to pay my bill, I noticed that the member of staff was wearing a badge. It read: "My name is Michael. I'm here to help you."
I remember a conversation several years ago with Tessa Jowell, then a Cabinet minister who had responsibility for tourism, telling me at a Labour Party conference that she'd just had a deputation from British hoteliers wanting government help. She said they might have had a more sympathetic hearing if she hadn't been paying an extortionate amount for a tiny room at a hotel where she was unable to order a cup of tea on room service.
It does make me wonder what visitors who come for the Olympics will make of it. The overcharging, the inefficiency, and the fact that many hotels seem to be run for the convenience of the staff. How many times I've heard that triumphant message, delivered with unfailing good cheer: "Sorry, the kitchen is closed for the evening." Whatever else, don't expect Team GB to qualify for the final of the 100 metres hospitality.
Text courtesy i Paper
Showing posts with label current events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label current events. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
What's with that briefcase?
Tomorrow is Budget Day in the UK, the day where the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the guy who looks after the economy, currently George Osborne) presents the budget plan for the nation to the House of Commons. I've got a few things to say about what George is expected to announce in the budget, but we'll save that for another day.
More importantly for now, chances are if you live in the UK, you have seen a photo or news clip that looks similar to this:
Have you ever wondered what the deal is with that crappy old briefcase and why the Chancellors always like to show it off?
It's called the budget box or the Gladstone box. Basically, its just a briefcase that holds the budget papers, but that old one in the photo above is special because it was used from 1860 by William Ewart Gladstone until 1965 when James Callaghan decided it was time for an upgrade and used a newer but basically identical briefcase. In 1997 Gordon Brown upgraded the box again, but in 2008 Alistair Darling went back to using the very original box (trying to earn some points with some people maybe?). George Osborne kept using it when he took over, but has since retired the original 1860 Gladstone box due to its fragility. Tomorrow, you'll see him with a shiny new briefcase full of budget papers and when you do, you'll know all about the history of the budget box! You're welcome.
Did you know?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is allowed to have an alcoholic drink whilst he presents the budget. This is the only time alcohol is allowed during speeches to Parliament.
According to Wikipedia, previous Chancellors have opted for whisky (Kenneth Clarke), gin and tonic (Geoffrey Howe), brandy and water (Benjamin Disraeli), spritzer (Nigel Lawson) and sherry and beaten egg (William Gladstone). Boring old Osborne apparently just has water. What a waste!
More importantly for now, chances are if you live in the UK, you have seen a photo or news clip that looks similar to this:
Have you ever wondered what the deal is with that crappy old briefcase and why the Chancellors always like to show it off?
It's called the budget box or the Gladstone box. Basically, its just a briefcase that holds the budget papers, but that old one in the photo above is special because it was used from 1860 by William Ewart Gladstone until 1965 when James Callaghan decided it was time for an upgrade and used a newer but basically identical briefcase. In 1997 Gordon Brown upgraded the box again, but in 2008 Alistair Darling went back to using the very original box (trying to earn some points with some people maybe?). George Osborne kept using it when he took over, but has since retired the original 1860 Gladstone box due to its fragility. Tomorrow, you'll see him with a shiny new briefcase full of budget papers and when you do, you'll know all about the history of the budget box! You're welcome.
Did you know?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is allowed to have an alcoholic drink whilst he presents the budget. This is the only time alcohol is allowed during speeches to Parliament.
According to Wikipedia, previous Chancellors have opted for whisky (Kenneth Clarke), gin and tonic (Geoffrey Howe), brandy and water (Benjamin Disraeli), spritzer (Nigel Lawson) and sherry and beaten egg (William Gladstone). Boring old Osborne apparently just has water. What a waste!
Monday, 23 January 2012
Ascot Gets Tough on Fashion Crime!
Remember when I busted the myth that Royal Ascot is posh? Well, it appears I wasn't the only one who has noticed the drastic decline in standards. The racecourse has tightened their dress code for the Royal Enclosure (at the Royal meeting), Premier Enclosure (at "regular" meetings) and the Grandstand (at all meetings).
Royal Ascot: Fascinators have now been banned in the Royal enclosure and those in the Grandstand MUST wear a hat or fascinator (head wear was previously optional). We now will be spared the dreaded boob fat spill-over because strapless dressed have been banned in the Grandstand (they were never allowed in the Royal enclosure), but unfortunately, they did not go so far as to demand that dresses "are of a modest length" as is required in the Royal enclosure, so we will probably still have to deal with loads of orange cellulite on display. For the men in the Royal enclosure, a morning suit, complete with waistcoat and tie, will be mandatory and cravats have been banned. A suit and tie will be required for the Grandstand.
"Regular" Ascot: Men in the Premier enclosure must wear a jacket a tie, but more casual trousers or even "smart jeans" can be worn in place of the suit trousers. If it is an especially warn day, they will make an announcement that men's jackets can be removed. Ladies should dress "for a smart occasion" and hats are encouraged, but not mandatory. In the Grandstand, the standards remain low - basically, you can wear whatever you want, but you may not go bare chested. Thank god for that.
The new dress codes were put into effect last weekend when a "regular" meeting was held at Ascot. So, what did they do to the people who didnt meet the dress code? Turn them away? Pass them a leaflet explaining the new rules? Of course not. They actually tagged the offenders with orange stickers to mark them as a rule breaker! Secretly, or not so secretly since I'm telling all of you, I think this is awesome, but the stickered racegoers didn't seem to appreciate it. In true British style, they whinged about their mistreatment and embarrassment and now will be given a refund of their ticket price. For the record: Ascot officials say they chose to sticker people so that they wouldn't be reprimanded multiple times by different members of staff.
If you're planning a visit to Ascot in the future, the official dress code guidance can be found here.
Royal Ascot: Fascinators have now been banned in the Royal enclosure and those in the Grandstand MUST wear a hat or fascinator (head wear was previously optional). We now will be spared the dreaded boob fat spill-over because strapless dressed have been banned in the Grandstand (they were never allowed in the Royal enclosure), but unfortunately, they did not go so far as to demand that dresses "are of a modest length" as is required in the Royal enclosure, so we will probably still have to deal with loads of orange cellulite on display. For the men in the Royal enclosure, a morning suit, complete with waistcoat and tie, will be mandatory and cravats have been banned. A suit and tie will be required for the Grandstand.
"Regular" Ascot: Men in the Premier enclosure must wear a jacket a tie, but more casual trousers or even "smart jeans" can be worn in place of the suit trousers. If it is an especially warn day, they will make an announcement that men's jackets can be removed. Ladies should dress "for a smart occasion" and hats are encouraged, but not mandatory. In the Grandstand, the standards remain low - basically, you can wear whatever you want, but you may not go bare chested. Thank god for that.
The new dress codes were put into effect last weekend when a "regular" meeting was held at Ascot. So, what did they do to the people who didnt meet the dress code? Turn them away? Pass them a leaflet explaining the new rules? Of course not. They actually tagged the offenders with orange stickers to mark them as a rule breaker! Secretly, or not so secretly since I'm telling all of you, I think this is awesome, but the stickered racegoers didn't seem to appreciate it. In true British style, they whinged about their mistreatment and embarrassment and now will be given a refund of their ticket price. For the record: Ascot officials say they chose to sticker people so that they wouldn't be reprimanded multiple times by different members of staff.
 |
| Photo: Daily Mail Online |
If you're planning a visit to Ascot in the future, the official dress code guidance can be found here.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Awesome New Thing of The Week: Week 2 - Running Couriers
I've always said I would never drive in London. It's a snarreled mess of cars, trucks too large for the streets, pedestrians reading books while they walk, tourists who don't know which way to look for traffic and the worst of all: cyclists and motorcyclists darting in an out of traffic. No thanks, streets of London.
Today's post is not a boasting annoucement that I have mastered driving on these fearsome streets, but to give props to Addison Lee who has come up with a genius idea of using runners as couriers. Yes, the baguette machine from last week is still a better idea, but what a fab way to get a few of the often used bicycle and motorcycle couriers out of the way.
Clearly this blog is not important enough for Addison Lee to have paid for my endorsement of awesome-ness, but the next time you need something couriered around London, do your bit for those of us who are annoyed by cyclists and motorcyclists and book a runner!
Today's post is not a boasting annoucement that I have mastered driving on these fearsome streets, but to give props to Addison Lee who has come up with a genius idea of using runners as couriers. Yes, the baguette machine from last week is still a better idea, but what a fab way to get a few of the often used bicycle and motorcycle couriers out of the way.
Clearly this blog is not important enough for Addison Lee to have paid for my endorsement of awesome-ness, but the next time you need something couriered around London, do your bit for those of us who are annoyed by cyclists and motorcyclists and book a runner!
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
The post in which I applaud the UKBA
Not that you would have noticed since the media is wall to wall coverage with "Hackgate" ( I am so over it personally), but there have been two rather interesting news pieces regarding immigration in the last week.
It started with the UKBA's consultation on family migration which laid out suggestions (only suggestions at this point) for some changes to the family migration path (spouse visas, family visitor visas, dependent children, elderly depenedent visas, etc). The document is wordy, but you really should read it. The following suggestions stood out the most to me:
1. The creation of something that resembles a UK Bill of Rights which will superceed ECHR article 8. The consultation reads: This government believes in human rights. Everyone has a right under ECHR Article 8 to respect for their private and family life, but it is not an absolute right. It is legitimate to interfere with the exercise of that right where it is in the public interest to do so, and in particular where it is necessary for public protection or for the economic well-being of the UK, which includes maintaining our immigration controls.
2. The consulation also appears to suggest that the maintance requirements will be increased and that the sponsor in the UK shall not be reliant on public funds. Family migrants must have access to enough money to support themselves, without their British citizen or UK-resident spouse or partner seeking, or needing, help from the taxpayer. We do not want to see migrant families struggling to get by, living in overcrowded housing or dependent on welfare. If as a British citizen or a person settled here, you cannot support your foreign spouse or partner in a reasonable way of life in the UK, you cannot expect the taxpayer to do so for you. This consultation paper sets out how we propose to change the maintenance and other requirements for those sponsoring a spouse or partner to ensure that this is so.
It goes on to quote the maintenance requirements for other countries including Denmark which says that all sponsors be able to maintain spouse and the sponsor cannot have claimed benefits in the three years prior to a marriage application. But the Danes don't stop there - the sponsor must also post a bond of around £12,000(!) against any future claim on public funds.
3. There is also a suggestion to extend the probationary period before spouses and partners can apply for settlement (ILR) to five years. I have to say that eventhough I am just about two weeks away from being able to apply for my ILR, I totally agree with this suggestion. In the instance of a sham marriage or "marriage of convenience", two years is not long enough to test the genuiness of the relationship. Nor, in my opinion, is two years long enough to have "earned" access to all state benefits (especially if the migrant has never worked in the UK). The consulation futher explains: Access to the labour market, to the NHS (including maternity services) and to schooling will be unaffected by this change. Family migrants in work will continue to have access to contributory benefits (for example contribution-based jobseeker‟s allowance, statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance and widow's benefit) once they have made at least 2 years National Insurance contributions, and the entitlement of the spouse or partner who is a British citizen or is settled here to child benefit and child tax credit will be unaffected.
4. In the instance of a spouse visa, the couple should be in a relationship for at least 12 months before applying and the applicant should have an "attachment" to the UK. Where the couple cannot meet this criterion, for example because theirs is or will be an arranged marriage and they have not yet been together as a couple for that period, we could grant 12 months‟ initial temporary leave to enable them to meet this criterion, and ask them to apply for further leave after 12 months. This would enable a further assessment to be made at that point of whether theirs is a genuine and continuing relationship. The document again quotes the Danish system re: the "attachemnt critera": In order to meet the attachment requirement, the applicant for a marriage visa must have visited Denmark at least twice and the sponsor must have resided legally in Denmark for 15 years. The attachment requirement is not applicable if either party has held Danish citizenship or resided legally in Denmark for at least 28 years.
I won't bother too much with my own opinion since it matters very little, but bravo, UKBA, bravo.
In other news: An American woman apparently thought it was ok for her to come to the UK on a visitors visa, settle permanently and start a family and is now arguing that she should be allowed to stay without ever being granted a settlement visa. Tragically, she lost her baby, which is very sad, but I am glad that the UKBA don't appear to be ready to allow her to use the baby's death as reason why she should be allowed to skip all the proper steps of immigration. I think she should consider herself lucky that all they are asking is that she return to the US to do things the proper way.
There.. now don't you feel very well informed? :)
It started with the UKBA's consultation on family migration which laid out suggestions (only suggestions at this point) for some changes to the family migration path (spouse visas, family visitor visas, dependent children, elderly depenedent visas, etc). The document is wordy, but you really should read it. The following suggestions stood out the most to me:
1. The creation of something that resembles a UK Bill of Rights which will superceed ECHR article 8. The consultation reads: This government believes in human rights. Everyone has a right under ECHR Article 8 to respect for their private and family life, but it is not an absolute right. It is legitimate to interfere with the exercise of that right where it is in the public interest to do so, and in particular where it is necessary for public protection or for the economic well-being of the UK, which includes maintaining our immigration controls.
2. The consulation also appears to suggest that the maintance requirements will be increased and that the sponsor in the UK shall not be reliant on public funds. Family migrants must have access to enough money to support themselves, without their British citizen or UK-resident spouse or partner seeking, or needing, help from the taxpayer. We do not want to see migrant families struggling to get by, living in overcrowded housing or dependent on welfare. If as a British citizen or a person settled here, you cannot support your foreign spouse or partner in a reasonable way of life in the UK, you cannot expect the taxpayer to do so for you. This consultation paper sets out how we propose to change the maintenance and other requirements for those sponsoring a spouse or partner to ensure that this is so.
It goes on to quote the maintenance requirements for other countries including Denmark which says that all sponsors be able to maintain spouse and the sponsor cannot have claimed benefits in the three years prior to a marriage application. But the Danes don't stop there - the sponsor must also post a bond of around £12,000(!) against any future claim on public funds.
3. There is also a suggestion to extend the probationary period before spouses and partners can apply for settlement (ILR) to five years. I have to say that eventhough I am just about two weeks away from being able to apply for my ILR, I totally agree with this suggestion. In the instance of a sham marriage or "marriage of convenience", two years is not long enough to test the genuiness of the relationship. Nor, in my opinion, is two years long enough to have "earned" access to all state benefits (especially if the migrant has never worked in the UK). The consulation futher explains: Access to the labour market, to the NHS (including maternity services) and to schooling will be unaffected by this change. Family migrants in work will continue to have access to contributory benefits (for example contribution-based jobseeker‟s allowance, statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance and widow's benefit) once they have made at least 2 years National Insurance contributions, and the entitlement of the spouse or partner who is a British citizen or is settled here to child benefit and child tax credit will be unaffected.
4. In the instance of a spouse visa, the couple should be in a relationship for at least 12 months before applying and the applicant should have an "attachment" to the UK. Where the couple cannot meet this criterion, for example because theirs is or will be an arranged marriage and they have not yet been together as a couple for that period, we could grant 12 months‟ initial temporary leave to enable them to meet this criterion, and ask them to apply for further leave after 12 months. This would enable a further assessment to be made at that point of whether theirs is a genuine and continuing relationship. The document again quotes the Danish system re: the "attachemnt critera": In order to meet the attachment requirement, the applicant for a marriage visa must have visited Denmark at least twice and the sponsor must have resided legally in Denmark for 15 years. The attachment requirement is not applicable if either party has held Danish citizenship or resided legally in Denmark for at least 28 years.
I won't bother too much with my own opinion since it matters very little, but bravo, UKBA, bravo.
In other news: An American woman apparently thought it was ok for her to come to the UK on a visitors visa, settle permanently and start a family and is now arguing that she should be allowed to stay without ever being granted a settlement visa. Tragically, she lost her baby, which is very sad, but I am glad that the UKBA don't appear to be ready to allow her to use the baby's death as reason why she should be allowed to skip all the proper steps of immigration. I think she should consider herself lucky that all they are asking is that she return to the US to do things the proper way.
There.. now don't you feel very well informed? :)
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Summer Solstice (and something much better)
Today is the Summer Solstice - the longest day of the year, the day the Earth's and the moon's axial tilt is most inclined towards the sun, and the day a select group of people (druids/pagans/whatever they wish to be called) gather to watch the sunrise at Stonehenge.
Here's some photos of this year's celebration, but truthfully, I really couldn't care less about the Solstice or Stonehenge, I just needed an excuse to tell you about this place that is much much cooler...
 |
| Carhenge Photo: Wikipedia |
Behold Carhenge! A Stonehenge "replica" in Alliance, Nebraska built using 38 vintage American cars painted grey and errected in exactly the same positions as Stonehenge's stones. Oh and unlike Stonehenge, its absolutely free to visit.
Totally Awesome.
Saturday, 18 June 2011
The Next Big Thing
In honour of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012 (a celebration of 60 years on the throne), a current town in the UK will be crowned a city. This may sound a bit odd to those of who not familiar with the idea of city status in the UK, but to the cities who have applied this is a big deal.
As you may know, historically, a place in the UK could only call itself a city if it had a cathedral, but now there are a variety of factors (including, but not limited to population) that determine whether a town can be called a city and city status isn't handed out willy nilly. There are actually only 66 cities in all of the UK (A full list can be found here). The newest additions to the City Club are Brighton and Hove, Inverness and Wolverhampton which were given the status in 2000 to mark the new millennium, and Preston, Stirling and Newport which were awarded city status in 2002 for the Queen's Golden Jubilee In total, only 14 new cities were created during the 20th century.
Twenty-six towns are in the running for the Diamond Jubilee City Upgrade (it's not really called that, but seriously, what else do you call it?) including Chelmsford, Milton Keynes, Coleraine, Perth, Doncaster, Croydon, Bournemouth and Reading.
My money is on Reading - literally. They are the odds-on favourite according to Paddy Power at 11/2, followed by Doncaster and then Bournemouth. Wait... Whats that? You didn't know you could place bets on this kind of thing? You're telling me you've never been in one of the millions of betting shops you see in every town and probably pass by multiple times a day? Well, listen up - I'm not normally one to advocate potentially addictive activities such as gambling, but you really haven't lived until you've placed a bet on the colour of the Queen's hat at her next public appearance or the nationality of the next Pope.
But back to this city thing - what will the winner get? Well... nothing really, except I suppose they could do a "nanny nanny boo boo" dance in front of the lowly towns, and probably more importantly, I think they can then have a city council which gives them a bit more power which apparently can even usurp the power of the county council (surely another reason to do a "nanny nanny boo boo dance"!).
Go Reading!
As you may know, historically, a place in the UK could only call itself a city if it had a cathedral, but now there are a variety of factors (including, but not limited to population) that determine whether a town can be called a city and city status isn't handed out willy nilly. There are actually only 66 cities in all of the UK (A full list can be found here). The newest additions to the City Club are Brighton and Hove, Inverness and Wolverhampton which were given the status in 2000 to mark the new millennium, and Preston, Stirling and Newport which were awarded city status in 2002 for the Queen's Golden Jubilee In total, only 14 new cities were created during the 20th century.
Twenty-six towns are in the running for the Diamond Jubilee City Upgrade (it's not really called that, but seriously, what else do you call it?) including Chelmsford, Milton Keynes, Coleraine, Perth, Doncaster, Croydon, Bournemouth and Reading.
My money is on Reading - literally. They are the odds-on favourite according to Paddy Power at 11/2, followed by Doncaster and then Bournemouth. Wait... Whats that? You didn't know you could place bets on this kind of thing? You're telling me you've never been in one of the millions of betting shops you see in every town and probably pass by multiple times a day? Well, listen up - I'm not normally one to advocate potentially addictive activities such as gambling, but you really haven't lived until you've placed a bet on the colour of the Queen's hat at her next public appearance or the nationality of the next Pope.
But back to this city thing - what will the winner get? Well... nothing really, except I suppose they could do a "nanny nanny boo boo" dance in front of the lowly towns, and probably more importantly, I think they can then have a city council which gives them a bit more power which apparently can even usurp the power of the county council (surely another reason to do a "nanny nanny boo boo dance"!).
Go Reading!
Friday, 17 June 2011
Mythbusting: Royal Ascot is Posh
I went to Royal Ascot last year and I think if I'm honest, I expected something very high brow, very proper and very British. What I experienced was indeed very British, but to say it was proper or posh would be a lie. I'm sorry to any of you who think otherwise, but unless you are in the Royal Enclosure, the truth is that Royal Ascot (even in the Grandstand) is a glorified piss up. It's usually good fun and the best reason to buy a new dress and head piece of your choice, but posh it is not.
I didn't go this year, which is probably for the best because a) it rained heavily the morning of Ladies Day and that would have totally ruined my hair and b) THIS happened:
I'll leave it to the Daily Mail to fill you in on all the details, but basically some drunken hooligans got in a huge fight, at least one person was arrested for Class B drug possession and the organizers of the event have introduced a "drug honesty box", asking racegoers to deposit their drugs in said box before entering the gates. Yes, seriously.
Sure, there's a dress code, so most people are dressed in their best (a highly subjective term), and the Queen is usually there, but contrary to popular belief, it is not an event reserved for the poshest of the posh.
I think an older gentleman I met at last year's Ladies Day summed it up best when he glanced at the woman next to us with her orange skin and poorly fitting dress, shoving a sausage in her mouth and said "its true what they say - you can't polish a turd".
I didn't go this year, which is probably for the best because a) it rained heavily the morning of Ladies Day and that would have totally ruined my hair and b) THIS happened:
 |
| Royal Ascot Brawl Photo: Daily Mail |
Sure, there's a dress code, so most people are dressed in their best (a highly subjective term), and the Queen is usually there, but contrary to popular belief, it is not an event reserved for the poshest of the posh.
I think an older gentleman I met at last year's Ladies Day summed it up best when he glanced at the woman next to us with her orange skin and poorly fitting dress, shoving a sausage in her mouth and said "its true what they say - you can't polish a turd".
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Scampi vs. scampi
I am sure there is some psychological term for this, but ever since I heard the news that there is a looming scampi shortage, all I want is scampi; and lots of it.
As I was munching on some last night, I remembered the first time I ordered scampi in England and thought I might be kind enough to save any other American newcomers the potential confusion.
British scampi are equally delicious, breaded, fried, fishy bits... maybe sort of comparable to large popcorn shrimp, but they arent shrimp at all. British scampi is supposed to be meat from the tail of the Norway Lobster (sometimes called a langoustine) and if you see it sold as "whole tail scampi", this should be what you get, but otherwise it could be any form of breaded and fried fish/shellfish chunks. Tip: Stick to the whole tail stuff if you can. They are usually served with chips (french fries) and peas if you are unlucky enough to not get a substitute (I hate peas!). Dip them in tartar sauce and they are tasty tasty!
As I was munching on some last night, I remembered the first time I ordered scampi in England and thought I might be kind enough to save any other American newcomers the potential confusion.
When most Americans think of scampi, they probably envision a heavenly dish of shrimp/prawn in a cholesterol busting garlic butter sauce maybe with some white wine and possibly served over some pasta or with a hunk of bread to soak up all the buttery goodness. This is what I wanted when I ordered scampi in a pub (ok, it was a Harvester restaurant if I'm honest, and probably an early bird special if I'm really honest):
 |
| American Scampi; Photo: Jon Sullivan |
Talk about a school girl error! This is what I ended up with:
 |
| British Scampi; Photo: FishFanatics |
Do you think I can clear out enough space in my freezer to stock up on scampi to get me through the pending shortage!?
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Introducing: Prince Philip
So, he's not exactly an obscure pseudo celebrity as the other people featured in my Introducing series, but on this day before his 90th birthday, what do you actually know about Prince Phillip?
Best Scandal: He has a bit of a loose tongue, to put it mildly. I'll let the Daily Mail recap some of his best gaffes. Don't skip this bit! Trust me.
That's a Bit Strange: Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are actually third cousins through Queen Victoria.
Coming to America? Somehow I doubt it.
Happy Birthday Old Chap!
 |
| Photo: Daily Mail |
Vitals: Official title - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. He was born 10 June 1921 in Greece as Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, but does not consider himself Greek (he says he's Danish) probably because his family was exiled from Greece following the Greco-Turkish war. Philip spent his early years in France and attended an American school in Paris before being sent to England at the age of seven.
Relationships With Other "Celebrities": You may know his wife, The Queen of England. They've been married for 64(!) years and have four children... You may know them too - Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward. In order to marry Liz, Philip denounced his Greek and Danish titles, converted to Anglicanism and naturalised as a British citizen. He also adopted the surname Mountbatten from his maternal grandparents. (learn more about royal surnames here)
That's a Bit Strange: Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are actually third cousins through Queen Victoria.
Coming to America? Somehow I doubt it.
Happy Birthday Old Chap!
Monday, 21 March 2011
Let's get royalized
With the news that Wootton Basset will become the first town in 100 years to be granted the "royal" title, making it known officially as Royal Wootton Basset, it got me thinking what other places have done to deserve their royal titles.
There are only two other towns in England (although there are more elsewhere in the UK) with the "royal" title - Royal Leamington Spa (1838) and Royal Tunbridge Wells (1909). Both of these recieved their titles "in recognition of their history and royal patronage of their facilities", so basically they are old places that some royals liked the visit. That's it? Boor-ing!
So what about the Royal County of Berkshire? Why does it get to be royal? It was given the title simply because it is home to Windsor Castle. But there is a bit (a tiny bit, yes I'm stretching here in a desperate effort to make this a semi-interesting post) of drama surrounding this Royal County: Apparently, the county has been using the "royal" since before the 19th Century, long before it was actually recognized by the Queen in 1958. How dare you, Berkshire!
There are also a few royal boroughs in England, including what is now knowns as The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London (or RBKC to those in the know), which was granted the right to use the royal title by Queen Victoria who wanted to honour her birthplace. The newest addtion to the Royal Borough Club will be Greenwich in 2012 in honour of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.
And then there are all those random places with the suffix "Regis" after the town's orginal name. What's this about? Well, Regis is latin for King and this title is bestowed on towns frequented by royalty mainly as a holiday destination (how this is different from Royal Leamington Spa and Royal Tunbridge Wells is beyond me). I know I shouldn't judge(its so insulting!), but I'm beginning to question the Royal's choice in holiday spots. I've only ever been to Bognor Regis, and surely it was entirely different back when it was Regis-ized in 1929, but I really can't see why members of the royal family would have wanted to spend time there (royals don't go to Butlins, do they?)... surely Brighton Regis would have been a better choice?
On the off chance you're actually interested in this, here's a full list of towns/cities/counties/boroughs in the UK with royal patronage.
There are only two other towns in England (although there are more elsewhere in the UK) with the "royal" title - Royal Leamington Spa (1838) and Royal Tunbridge Wells (1909). Both of these recieved their titles "in recognition of their history and royal patronage of their facilities", so basically they are old places that some royals liked the visit. That's it? Boor-ing!
So what about the Royal County of Berkshire? Why does it get to be royal? It was given the title simply because it is home to Windsor Castle. But there is a bit (a tiny bit, yes I'm stretching here in a desperate effort to make this a semi-interesting post) of drama surrounding this Royal County: Apparently, the county has been using the "royal" since before the 19th Century, long before it was actually recognized by the Queen in 1958. How dare you, Berkshire!
There are also a few royal boroughs in England, including what is now knowns as The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London (or RBKC to those in the know), which was granted the right to use the royal title by Queen Victoria who wanted to honour her birthplace. The newest addtion to the Royal Borough Club will be Greenwich in 2012 in honour of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.
And then there are all those random places with the suffix "Regis" after the town's orginal name. What's this about? Well, Regis is latin for King and this title is bestowed on towns frequented by royalty mainly as a holiday destination (how this is different from Royal Leamington Spa and Royal Tunbridge Wells is beyond me). I know I shouldn't judge(its so insulting!), but I'm beginning to question the Royal's choice in holiday spots. I've only ever been to Bognor Regis, and surely it was entirely different back when it was Regis-ized in 1929, but I really can't see why members of the royal family would have wanted to spend time there (royals don't go to Butlins, do they?)... surely Brighton Regis would have been a better choice?
On the off chance you're actually interested in this, here's a full list of towns/cities/counties/boroughs in the UK with royal patronage.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
The Many Excuses of National Rail
If you live in England, you most likely have heard jokes about "the wrong type of snow" which was a phrase coined by the Evening Standard after British Rail (now known as National Rail) said "we are having particular problems with the type of snow" when asked for the cause of major service disruptions following heavy snowfall. The phrase is now humorously used to refer to any lame excuse, implying that one doesn't believe it.
It will therefore come as no surprise that National Rail has received a bit of flack after issuing another hard-to-stomach weather related excuse following disruption in the South East yesterday - get ready for it - dew on the tracks.
Dew? Yes, like morning dew. Oy Vey.
Other unlikely weather-related excuses include:
Leaves on the line - It happens every Autumn without fail and National Rail says (and I'm not saying I don't believe them) that "leaves, compressed by passing trains create a thin, black ‘Teflon’ like layer on the rail, which compromises train braking and acceleration. The best way to describe the effect is to compare it to black ice on the road".
Sun - In September 2010, the Office of Rail Regulation and National Rail blamed the balmy temperatures that summer for delays and disruptions saying that a rise in temperature means that some equipment – including cabling, signalling systems and electrical items are subject to overheating when temperatures rise above 30C (86F). Apparently, overhead power lines can sag and rails buckle, meaning that speed restrictions have to be imposed to prevent a train coming off the track.
Happy Commuting!
It will therefore come as no surprise that National Rail has received a bit of flack after issuing another hard-to-stomach weather related excuse following disruption in the South East yesterday - get ready for it - dew on the tracks.
Dew? Yes, like morning dew. Oy Vey.
Other unlikely weather-related excuses include:
Leaves on the line - It happens every Autumn without fail and National Rail says (and I'm not saying I don't believe them) that "leaves, compressed by passing trains create a thin, black ‘Teflon’ like layer on the rail, which compromises train braking and acceleration. The best way to describe the effect is to compare it to black ice on the road".
Sun - In September 2010, the Office of Rail Regulation and National Rail blamed the balmy temperatures that summer for delays and disruptions saying that a rise in temperature means that some equipment – including cabling, signalling systems and electrical items are subject to overheating when temperatures rise above 30C (86F). Apparently, overhead power lines can sag and rails buckle, meaning that speed restrictions have to be imposed to prevent a train coming off the track.
Happy Commuting!
Monday, 7 February 2011
Whats Wrong with the Words You Already Know (Pt. two)
I've mentioned before that one of my biggest pet peeves is when Americans move to the UK and on day two are already injecting British vocabulary into their everyday speech. One does not wake up from jetlag with an entirely new vocabulary. We agree on this, yes?
Ok, lets move on to something more important -
If we believe Delaware University professor, Ben Yagoda, it appears there is an even more cringe worthy group of Americans adopting Britishisms... non-expat Americans. There are apparently people in America using British vocabulary in place of their perfectly reasonable "American" counterparts.
Professor Yagoda, a man after my own heart, has set up a website* which tracks British words making their way into American speech. He's grading words on a "pretentiousness level", with advert (instead of commercial or ad) earning a speaker three points, and saying someone "got the sack" when they were really fired hopefully earning the full four points.
Yagoda seems to object mostly to words which have "perfectly good American equivalents, like 'bits' for 'parts' and 'on holiday' instead of 'on vacation', saying that they are "purely pretentious". (here here!)
Not surprisingly, the author of the the article which brought this to my attention doesn't really understand why Yagoda is irked by this, claiming that "Americans are angry with us for polluting their language" and even writing "After mangling our language for years, Americans are complaining about their own dialect being polluted by 'Britishisms'". In typical British fashion, the news is being presented in a way which puts the emphasis on the British side of things and becomes slightly competitive without realizing that Professor Yagoda is not accusing the Brits of brainwashing Americans to use their lingo, he's actually attacking Americans with this website, not Brits or their vocabulary. He's saying that Americans who are adopting the vocabulary are pretentious twits making a concerted effort to sound "cool" and they are who he is angry with, not the British people.
Keep Calm and Carry On.
*Sadly, I do have work to do today and have not yet been able to find the website. I would be incredibly grateful if someone can pass the link if they are able to uncover it.
Ok, lets move on to something more important -
If we believe Delaware University professor, Ben Yagoda, it appears there is an even more cringe worthy group of Americans adopting Britishisms... non-expat Americans. There are apparently people in America using British vocabulary in place of their perfectly reasonable "American" counterparts.
Professor Yagoda, a man after my own heart, has set up a website* which tracks British words making their way into American speech. He's grading words on a "pretentiousness level", with advert (instead of commercial or ad) earning a speaker three points, and saying someone "got the sack" when they were really fired hopefully earning the full four points.
Yagoda seems to object mostly to words which have "perfectly good American equivalents, like 'bits' for 'parts' and 'on holiday' instead of 'on vacation', saying that they are "purely pretentious". (here here!)
Not surprisingly, the author of the the article which brought this to my attention doesn't really understand why Yagoda is irked by this, claiming that "Americans are angry with us for polluting their language" and even writing "After mangling our language for years, Americans are complaining about their own dialect being polluted by 'Britishisms'". In typical British fashion, the news is being presented in a way which puts the emphasis on the British side of things and becomes slightly competitive without realizing that Professor Yagoda is not accusing the Brits of brainwashing Americans to use their lingo, he's actually attacking Americans with this website, not Brits or their vocabulary. He's saying that Americans who are adopting the vocabulary are pretentious twits making a concerted effort to sound "cool" and they are who he is angry with, not the British people.
Keep Calm and Carry On.
*Sadly, I do have work to do today and have not yet been able to find the website. I would be incredibly grateful if someone can pass the link if they are able to uncover it.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
In Defense of the American Superhero
A while ago, I made a list of things that annoy me about British people and now, at the risk of being a bit offensive, I'd like to add to that list.
6. They personally piggyback on any British person's international success
Case in point... I am sure you have heard by now that Superman is the latest American superhero to be played by a British actor in a major motion picture. ....Wait, what's that, my non UK readers? You havent heard about this? Have you been living under a rock??... No, you simply have been living anywhere other than in the UK where this has been a major headline on every radio programme, TV station, newspaper and news website I have heard or seen today.
And why? Who cares?
The Brits (or atleast the British media) care. They care anytime something like this happens, and they act as if it's a victory for the whole country. Colin Firth (continually refered to as British actor, Colin Firth) winning the Best Actor Golden Globe was top news, delivered with undertones of patriotism and national triumph, but did anyone care which film won Best Picture? Of course not, because it wasn't British (even though there was one Britsh actor in it). I dont blame British people for not caring about meaningless American entertainment award shows, but either care or dont care. Why the cherry picking? Do they actually think it reflects positively on Britian for a British actor who has left traditional "British" arts such as the theatre for the bright lights of Hollywood to win a silly award?
When Natalie Portman won her award, did the American media continually refer to her as "American Natalie" and wave the stars and stripes behind her?
And back to Superman - Telegraph journalist Andrew Lowry took this "big news" even futher saying that Henry Cavill (the next Superman) and Andrew Garfield (the next Spiderman), both born in 1983 are young but somehow don't "feel" young - whatever that means - and goes so far to say that Jesse Eisenberg (who he seems to think is the only young American actor around) is "a fine actor, but not a man you’d expect to hit the gym to get some bullet-repelling abs, or swing around on the elaborate rigs needed to simulate Spiderman’s powers, or to wield the authority needed to take all Gotham’s troubles on his shoulders," and continued to ask "what does it say about young American men that the avatars of their iconic heroes need be imported in from the UK?"
And he's not done yet... His article concludes: "Nerd culture has taken root across the Atlantic far deeper than over here, and while fumbling, awkward boy-men are ideal for The Social Network and Scott Pilgrim, when it comes to men of steel, casting agents seem to be forced to cast their net wider, to somewhere where dorkery is not seen as an aspiration for a young man."
So, let me get the straight (and try to act surprised by this predictable response)... a member of the British media has taken the casting of a British born actor in the role of an American superhero to imply that all young American men are "dorks"?
Nice one, mate, but the truth is that superheros are supposed to be "the boy next door". That's part of their appeal. Lois Lane didnt know that Clark Kent was superman becuase all she saw was that "dork" in glasses and that whatever-her-name-Kirstin-Dunst-character didnt know Peter Parker was Spiderman cause he was that "dork" that lived with his Grandma. So, if a well-known American actor like Zac Effron or (my personal mini-crush) Chase Crawford was cast as a superhero, this image of a relatable, everyday, normal young man would be harder to get across. Very few people will look at Henry Cavill and say "oh yeah, that was that guy from the Tudors". No one will recognize him without his period costume and, so with a good American accent, he can easily be your (very!) handsome boy next door turned flying superhero. His British-ness will not even feature and is a non-issue.
You got me?
Oh, and by the way, there will always only be one real Superman.
6. They personally piggyback on any British person's international success
Case in point... I am sure you have heard by now that Superman is the latest American superhero to be played by a British actor in a major motion picture. ....Wait, what's that, my non UK readers? You havent heard about this? Have you been living under a rock??... No, you simply have been living anywhere other than in the UK where this has been a major headline on every radio programme, TV station, newspaper and news website I have heard or seen today.
And why? Who cares?
The Brits (or atleast the British media) care. They care anytime something like this happens, and they act as if it's a victory for the whole country. Colin Firth (continually refered to as British actor, Colin Firth) winning the Best Actor Golden Globe was top news, delivered with undertones of patriotism and national triumph, but did anyone care which film won Best Picture? Of course not, because it wasn't British (even though there was one Britsh actor in it). I dont blame British people for not caring about meaningless American entertainment award shows, but either care or dont care. Why the cherry picking? Do they actually think it reflects positively on Britian for a British actor who has left traditional "British" arts such as the theatre for the bright lights of Hollywood to win a silly award?
When Natalie Portman won her award, did the American media continually refer to her as "American Natalie" and wave the stars and stripes behind her?
And back to Superman - Telegraph journalist Andrew Lowry took this "big news" even futher saying that Henry Cavill (the next Superman) and Andrew Garfield (the next Spiderman), both born in 1983 are young but somehow don't "feel" young - whatever that means - and goes so far to say that Jesse Eisenberg (who he seems to think is the only young American actor around) is "a fine actor, but not a man you’d expect to hit the gym to get some bullet-repelling abs, or swing around on the elaborate rigs needed to simulate Spiderman’s powers, or to wield the authority needed to take all Gotham’s troubles on his shoulders," and continued to ask "what does it say about young American men that the avatars of their iconic heroes need be imported in from the UK?"
And he's not done yet... His article concludes: "Nerd culture has taken root across the Atlantic far deeper than over here, and while fumbling, awkward boy-men are ideal for The Social Network and Scott Pilgrim, when it comes to men of steel, casting agents seem to be forced to cast their net wider, to somewhere where dorkery is not seen as an aspiration for a young man."
So, let me get the straight (and try to act surprised by this predictable response)... a member of the British media has taken the casting of a British born actor in the role of an American superhero to imply that all young American men are "dorks"?
Nice one, mate, but the truth is that superheros are supposed to be "the boy next door". That's part of their appeal. Lois Lane didnt know that Clark Kent was superman becuase all she saw was that "dork" in glasses and that whatever-her-name-Kirstin-Dunst-character didnt know Peter Parker was Spiderman cause he was that "dork" that lived with his Grandma. So, if a well-known American actor like Zac Effron or (my personal mini-crush) Chase Crawford was cast as a superhero, this image of a relatable, everyday, normal young man would be harder to get across. Very few people will look at Henry Cavill and say "oh yeah, that was that guy from the Tudors". No one will recognize him without his period costume and, so with a good American accent, he can easily be your (very!) handsome boy next door turned flying superhero. His British-ness will not even feature and is a non-issue.
You got me?
Oh, and by the way, there will always only be one real Superman.
 |
| American Actor, Christopher Reeve |
Friday, 21 January 2011
George v Cheryl
Disclaimer: I am not at all implying this is a cultural, UK v US difference, just a Cheryl Cole v George Clooney difference.
Pop Quiz: What do George Clooney and Cheryl Cole have in common?
No, George hasnt punched a bathroom attendant and been charged with racially aggravated assault, and "The Nation's Sweetheart", Cheryl certainly hasn't won any humanitarian awards, but they both have contracted malaria and spoken to Piers Morgan about it.
After seeing George's interview, I couldn't help but notice the juxtaposition between their (and Piers') very different reactions ... Pick up Cheryl's interview at 6:25 for the malaria bit.
Get well soon George.
Pop Quiz: What do George Clooney and Cheryl Cole have in common?
No, George hasnt punched a bathroom attendant and been charged with racially aggravated assault, and "The Nation's Sweetheart", Cheryl certainly hasn't won any humanitarian awards, but they both have contracted malaria and spoken to Piers Morgan about it.
After seeing George's interview, I couldn't help but notice the juxtaposition between their (and Piers') very different reactions ... Pick up Cheryl's interview at 6:25 for the malaria bit.
On a related note: On behalf of the British people, I would like to apologize to the American people as word has it that Cheryl (Geordie accent and all) is about to "break America".
Get well soon George.
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Long Live the Pint
I love beer.
I miss Old Chicago Beer Tours; drinking beer after beer with my best friend surrounded by other beer lovers.
I remember first moving to the UK and suddenly feeling self concious about drinking beer in pubs - all the other girls were drinking wine and beer seemed like such a "boy" drink. I quickly got over this silliness and appreciate at every opportunity that drinking a pint in a pub is (to me) such a wonderful "British" thing... which is why today's news that you can now buy beer and cider in a size other than a pint or half pint is some how distressing.
You see, before today there were very strict rules which said a publican (a pub owner) could only sell beer and cider in a pint or a half pint (although apparently a third of a pint was also ok, but very rare, so I'm ignoring it). The rules were put in place to protect pub-goers to ensure they were served the same amount of beverage in every pub they visited, allowing them to accurately compare prices. Sounds good, right? Well, today the UK government has decided to toss tradition aside and and bring in the "schooner", which is 2/3 of a pint and a typically Australian measurement. Why do our pubs need a schooner!? Where is the respect for tradition?
Government will tell you they are waging war against binge drinking, but I say they need to keep their turned up noses out of my pub. Don't they have more important things they should be sorting out, anyway?
Long Live the Pint!
I miss Old Chicago Beer Tours; drinking beer after beer with my best friend surrounded by other beer lovers.
I remember first moving to the UK and suddenly feeling self concious about drinking beer in pubs - all the other girls were drinking wine and beer seemed like such a "boy" drink. I quickly got over this silliness and appreciate at every opportunity that drinking a pint in a pub is (to me) such a wonderful "British" thing... which is why today's news that you can now buy beer and cider in a size other than a pint or half pint is some how distressing.
Government will tell you they are waging war against binge drinking, but I say they need to keep their turned up noses out of my pub. Don't they have more important things they should be sorting out, anyway?
Long Live the Pint!
Monday, 3 January 2011
I Love Immigrants?
I've just been invited to join a group called 'I Love Immigrants' on Facebook...
This group says they are "a place for people who welcome immigrants and believe they contribute positively to Britain" which sounds well and good and clearly, as an immigrant, I would seem a likely candidate to be one who might "love" immigrants, but I have graciously declined the offer to join this group.
In addition to this invitation, due to the major changes taking place re: UK immigration regulations, I have been asked many times to sign petitions and write letters to my MP to urge them to keep paths of immigration open. I have rejected those requests as well and am feeling strangely guilty about not feeling guilty. Even though I am an immigrant, I am of the opinion that immigration is not a right or even a privilege which can practically be extended to everyone who wishes to live in the UK and that restrictions are necessary.
I feel increasingly uncomfortable that as an immigrant, I am somehow expected to be an advocate for other immigrants. Surely, I am not the only one who feels this way? Or am I....?
This group says they are "a place for people who welcome immigrants and believe they contribute positively to Britain" which sounds well and good and clearly, as an immigrant, I would seem a likely candidate to be one who might "love" immigrants, but I have graciously declined the offer to join this group.
In addition to this invitation, due to the major changes taking place re: UK immigration regulations, I have been asked many times to sign petitions and write letters to my MP to urge them to keep paths of immigration open. I have rejected those requests as well and am feeling strangely guilty about not feeling guilty. Even though I am an immigrant, I am of the opinion that immigration is not a right or even a privilege which can practically be extended to everyone who wishes to live in the UK and that restrictions are necessary.
I feel increasingly uncomfortable that as an immigrant, I am somehow expected to be an advocate for other immigrants. Surely, I am not the only one who feels this way? Or am I....?
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
You Tell 'Em, Emma!
As you may have gathered from my post on September 15, I have great respect for proper grammar and Standard English, so you will not be surprised at my delight when I came across this interesting article posted on the Daily Mail's (dont judge!) website regarding young poeple's poor grammar.
Emma Thompson (aka Nanny McPhee and Karen from Love Actually) has taken a well-deserved swipe at teenager's use of words like "innit" (isn't it) and "ain't", and of course, it's caused an uproar in the comments which follow the article. I say it's about time someone put aside their fear of being labled pretentious simply for pointing out consistently poor use of the language. From one lover of English to another - thank you Emma!
Even if you do think Emma and I are pretentious snobs, you may still be interested in a piece of research cited in the article which says some teenagers are becoming unemployable because they limit themselves to a working vocabulary of only 800 words. (over-dramatic plea begins) I beg you, if you are a parent or responsible in any way for the upbringing of a child, please remember this the next time you think its not necessary to correct or even just suggest improvements to said child's grammar and/or vocabulary. Don't be responsible for the death of the respectable English language and your child's future. (over-dramatic plea concludes)
Emma Thompson (aka Nanny McPhee and Karen from Love Actually) has taken a well-deserved swipe at teenager's use of words like "innit" (isn't it) and "ain't", and of course, it's caused an uproar in the comments which follow the article. I say it's about time someone put aside their fear of being labled pretentious simply for pointing out consistently poor use of the language. From one lover of English to another - thank you Emma!
Even if you do think Emma and I are pretentious snobs, you may still be interested in a piece of research cited in the article which says some teenagers are becoming unemployable because they limit themselves to a working vocabulary of only 800 words. (over-dramatic plea begins) I beg you, if you are a parent or responsible in any way for the upbringing of a child, please remember this the next time you think its not necessary to correct or even just suggest improvements to said child's grammar and/or vocabulary. Don't be responsible for the death of the respectable English language and your child's future. (over-dramatic plea concludes)
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Make that "meow" in every language!
It seems I underestimated my fellow Americans (and others!) when I assumed it was only the English who were in an uproar over Mary Bale's. It seems that she has actually become the most hated woman in many parts of the world, not just in England. I recieved an email from my mother last night spouting (well deserved) contempt for her and this story has apparently made the headlines in Australia, China, New Zealand, Denmark, Turkey, Canada, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Spain and who knows where else!
Although, to make it look like I still had a valid point in my previous post, I still maintain that the English are more animal-friendly than the Americans. Watch this space for a better illustration of my theory..... Oh wait.... Dogs in pub. So there.
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
The Outcry! Meow!
It would be wise to mention, before anyone gets the wrong idea and thinks the country is only filled with Americans who pretend to be English, that there are native English people in England (!) and while we have already learned you can't make generalizations about the entire population, I am prepared to say that on the whole, the people of England are a pretty animal-friendly bunch. The queen loves her Corgies, dogs are allowed in many pubs, trains and on the Tube, pet-friendly hotels and B&Bs are not hard to find, and my adorable dog gets a friendly smile anywhere she goes.
Of course, there are always exceptions. Meet Mary Bale. Last week, Mary, from Coventry, thought it would be "funny" to put a cat in a wheelie bin. She was caught on a security camera petting the cat (who was just minding her own business sitting on a wall), then picking her up by her scruff and quickly dropping her in the bin. The cat was finally found by her owners 15 hours later. Obviously a vile woman, but that is not the point of this post. The point is the surprisingly angry outcry which came from the public when this story made the headlines of almost every news outlet. Take a look at this article from the Telegraph....
Now I'm not condoning the death threats and sincerely hope that no harm comes to Mary Bale, but I honestly am happy to see the reaction (one I am not sure would be mirrored in America), no matter how over-the-top it might be. People who mistreat animals are bullies (the definition of a bully being a person who badgers and intimidates those smaller or weaker than himself) and I don't stand for bullies. I am glad to see I am not the only one.
Of course, there are always exceptions. Meet Mary Bale. Last week, Mary, from Coventry, thought it would be "funny" to put a cat in a wheelie bin. She was caught on a security camera petting the cat (who was just minding her own business sitting on a wall), then picking her up by her scruff and quickly dropping her in the bin. The cat was finally found by her owners 15 hours later. Obviously a vile woman, but that is not the point of this post. The point is the surprisingly angry outcry which came from the public when this story made the headlines of almost every news outlet. Take a look at this article from the Telegraph....
Now I'm not condoning the death threats and sincerely hope that no harm comes to Mary Bale, but I honestly am happy to see the reaction (one I am not sure would be mirrored in America), no matter how over-the-top it might be. People who mistreat animals are bullies (the definition of a bully being a person who badgers and intimidates those smaller or weaker than himself) and I don't stand for bullies. I am glad to see I am not the only one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)