I voted at about 7:35 this morning which felt veeeeeeeeery early. Still, it's done now and I'm feeling rather Meh about the whole thing. I voted because it's my civic duty and I believe very strongly that I should be exercising it because of all the people in the past who couldn't and campaigned for my right to do it.



But...

I had to hold my nose and vote for the least-worst option and that left me feeling rather dirty. I shouldn't come out of the polling booth feeling dirty because I had to vote and all the choices were pretty much equally dire. Let's take these decisions one at a time.

( Local council elections )

( AV referendum )

ETA: This is an example of what I mean. How could one not vote against a campaign that has posters like this?
( The last No to AV poster from Conservative HQ. No, really. WTF? )

Not updated this for a few days (a week?), owing to being very busy indeed. Ben arrived on Wednesday night and took me out to dinner (and was generally fabulous the entire time he was here), and we spent most of Thursday and Friday sorting stuff out for mum's birthday, doing various errands and helping mum celebrate her birthday, before getting back to Canterbury late on Friday night for the rest of our weekend. Mum had a passable few days that week, though had a huge headache on Friday night that necessitated calling the doctor for some stronger painkillers than she had been taking (uber co-codamol, as the Tramadol the hospital gave her makes her feel sick). The headache thing worried me a bit as it brought to the forefront of my mind my worries about what a highly aggressive tumour (the drs at the hospital said it was because of the speed it had caused symptoms and degeneration in function in her face, though as of yet, we still don't know what it is) has been doing in the weeks between the first diagnosis of a tumour and now. I keep worrying that the gap between then and now will mean that a treatable tumour will have become terminal in the meantime. Which is silly, because I'm worrying about things that a) I have no control over and b) haven't even come to pass yet.

The MRI is scheduled for today at 12:15 and I'm hoping I can get mum to the hospital and back without her being sick. Attacks of sickness and nausea are becoming more frequent and I think they may be related to the tumour(s). Of all the symptoms mum has, this is the one I struggle with most. I hate vomit. It makes me want to vomit. Yesterday mum was sick several times and it took me 10 mins and nearly losing the contents of my own stomach 5 or 6 times before I got it from the bowl into the loo. It was ok so long as I wasn't looking at it. No nausea or retching as long as I had my eyes shut or it in a different room, but it's hardly a valid strategy for anything other than getting vomit over the floor between the living room and downstairs loo. Once the bowl was cleared of vomit it was fine - no retching or anything while I cleaned it out with water and then dettol'd it. I know there's probably a good deal more vomit in my future and it's one of the things that worries me a lot. Rather pathetic I know. In the great scheme of things it's not really that bad, but I really can't deal with it. I assume that I will get better at dealing with it. I hope I do, for mum's sake anyway.

Mum saw the diabetic nurse yesterday for a routine review and asked some questions I'd asked her to ask and it seems that the diabetic nurse was about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Mum was diagnosed with type 2 just before the symptoms of the tumour became apparent, so the treatment of the type 2 features in the complicated mess of trying to get some calories in to mum. I've probably mentioned before that the tumour on her cheekbone makes it hard for her to eat, especially anything hard, and makes eating extremely slow and hard work. On top of this, which makes her disinclined to eat, is the nausea and vomiting, which makes it extremely difficult to tempt her appetite. She's losing a lot of weight, which I suppose is good from the type 2 diabetes POV but I don't think she's losing it in the right way. She's barely eating, sometimes not keeping down what she does eat and so it's just melting off her. I'm worried that she won't have the energy to deal with whatever treatment she has for the cancer and that she will get malnourished. Sometimes when she's been sick the only thing she feels like eating(or that she can eat) is something that is bad from a diabetes POV like carrot cake, which then gives her the energy to eat something better for her. The only fruit she can manage is raspberries, grapes and blueberries. It's not really ideal.

The diabetic nurse said that if that was all she could manage (the carrot cake type thing) then she should eat that, but it was better if she could manage something like soup and bread. Which is what we were doing, but I feel as much in the dark as to how to deal with mum's nutrition problems as I did before, and I'm angry and upset about that. I got more help from my Auntie Pat (type 2 for years and years) who said that mum was eating so little the sugars issue didn't really feature too high and I should just get calories in to her where and when I could. Really I shouldn't be getting more helpful and less wishy washy advice from my aunt, who is not a medical professional than from a nurse with a speciality in that area.

Gah, it's all so complicated :(

ETA: 12/07/11 No longer filtered

Since our holiday in Skegness in September I've increasingly noted younger and younger people in mobility scooters who do not appear to need them. Often I cannot confirm this suspicion, but I believe I did so tonight on the way back from the Eurostar IVT thing (we're home btw :D The last simulation ran on time. Still bloody knackered though and only got back about 10 mins ago - another two hour drive :(). Anyway, we were changing trains at East Croydon when a guy on a mobility scooter (and not a small economy model either) wearing a sort of shell suit tracksuit and a hat with lots of badges on it comes along, followed by a guy with a ramp who works for South Eastern or whatever they are this week. The guy in the scooter was youngish and looked like a bit of a waster TBH but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. The train came and he scooted on with the help of the ramp, blocking that whole entrance and parked himself there. Due to the size of his scooter that entrance bay was now unusable for the trip (at rush hour). Clearly at some point during the journey he realised he'd need to get out again so he sets to a million point turn to get the massive scooter pointing the other way. Eventally he backs himself into an impossible situation - he couldn't turn anymore because there wasn't enough space.

He didn't wait for or ask for help.

He got off the scooter and lifted it up and turned it around.

I was left with a dirty taste in my mouth and feeling rather disgusted at what I had witnessed. It's people like him who give people like my Father in Law who uses one because he can't walk a bad name/reputation.

Gragh.

Since our holiday in Skegness in September I've increasingly noted younger and younger people in mobility scooters who do not appear to need them. Often I cannot confirm this suspicion, but I believe I did so tonight on the way back from the Eurostar IVT thing (we're home btw :D The last simulation ran on time. Still bloody knackered though and only got back about 10 mins ago - another two hour drive :(). Anyway, we were changing trains at East Croydon when a guy on a mobility scooter (and not a small economy model either) wearing a sort of shell suit tracksuit and a hat with lots of badges on it comes along, followed by a guy with a ramp who works for South Eastern or whatever they are this week. The guy in the scooter was youngish and looked like a bit of a waster TBH but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. The train came and he scooted on with the help of the ramp, blocking that whole entrance and parked himself there. Due to the size of his scooter that entrance bay was now unusable for the trip (at rush hour). Clearly at some point during the journey he realised he'd need to get out again so he sets to a million point turn to get the massive scooter pointing the other way. Eventally he backs himself into an impossible situation - he couldn't turn anymore because there wasn't enough space.

He didn't wait for or ask for help.

He got off the scooter and lifted it up and turned it around.

I was left with a dirty taste in my mouth and feeling rather disgusted at what I had witnessed. It's people like him who give people like my Father in Law who uses one because he can't walk a bad name/reputation.

Gragh.

So the House of Lords have rejected the Government proposal to link ID cards to passports for the third time.

This means that the Government will potentially use the Parliament Act to force it through without the approval of the Lords.

I hope not, despite what Charles Clarke says ("passports were "voluntary documents" that no-one was forced to renew" - umm, except when you need to leave the country that is), the linking of ID cards to passports is creeping compulsion. If you are forced to get one when you renew your passport then eventually practically everyone will have one...except for your terrorists, the people they are designed to stop, because they may not have a British passport to start with, they probably won't be worried about them even if they do [after all, they didn't stop Madrid] and they probably have access to forgers who can make the sodding passports without the need for this ID card rubbish.

Best quote of the night came from the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords. From the BBC News article:

"The Liberal Democrat leader in the Upper House, Lord McNally, said the House of Lords must retain its right to say "no".

"There is the Parliament Act and that is the right of the elected House to have its way," he said.

"But this House must retain the right to say 'not in our name'.""

It's certainly not in mine.

(P.S. For those of you who don't read my teacher blog I have a job interview! :D)

So the House of Lords have rejected the Government proposal to link ID cards to passports for the third time.

This means that the Government will potentially use the Parliament Act to force it through without the approval of the Lords.

I hope not, despite what Charles Clarke says ("passports were "voluntary documents" that no-one was forced to renew" - umm, except when you need to leave the country that is), the linking of ID cards to passports is creeping compulsion. If you are forced to get one when you renew your passport then eventually practically everyone will have one...except for your terrorists, the people they are designed to stop, because they may not have a British passport to start with, they probably won't be worried about them even if they do [after all, they didn't stop Madrid] and they probably have access to forgers who can make the sodding passports without the need for this ID card rubbish.

Best quote of the night came from the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords. From the BBC News article:

"The Liberal Democrat leader in the Upper House, Lord McNally, said the House of Lords must retain its right to say "no".

"There is the Parliament Act and that is the right of the elected House to have its way," he said.

"But this House must retain the right to say 'not in our name'.""

It's certainly not in mine.

(P.S. For those of you who don't read my teacher blog I have a job interview! :D)

[Poll #688924]

Please post your own views in comments below

( This is why I posted the poll and want your views - I apologise for the gross generalisations that follow )

The BBC news story about last night's ID card vote.

It makes me really quite stompy, and I know that I am not the only one.

So now we get a seperate law before it is made compulsorary. Whoopdedoo. How is that going to help when from 2009 you will not be allowed to get a passport without also getting an ID card. If you cannot leave the country without a passport and you cannot get a passport without getting an ID card it will be a short time before everyone has one anyway.

As for the "it will stop terrorism" issue, don't even get me started. The Madrid bombers had valid Spanish ID, the July bombers were all UK citizens. I do not see how having ID cards would have stopped these atrocities.

It will stop identity theft? I don't think so. It will only be a short amount of time before this too will be forged, except now they will be supposedly fool-proof. If your identity is stolen with a forged card then how long will it take you to get it back - if someone has one of these pieces of plastic then they must be who they say they are.

Let's not even mention how little I trust this or any other government with biometric data on me, let alone data on me stored on one of those Oh-So-Reliable government IT projects.

Oh for pity's sake. How stupid do the Government think we are?

The report is full of little quotes from various organisations. Let's start with the one from Home Office minister Andy Burnham. Support, apparently is "Solidifying" and the majority of a whole 31 MPs means that "We think it gives the vote a very clear mandate going forward".

Let's now examine what "mandate" means a clear authorization or direction...the authorization to act given by a constituency to its elected representative (sourced from dictionary.com)

So the fact that a government, who a minority of the UK voted for, have won a vote gives them a mandate - we, the people, apparently support them.

Except, oh wait! We don't! Shock horror.

According to a poll by yougov if the scheme cost £6bn - "a figure that some ministers have talked about" - then public support for it was at "2 to 1 against", and when you move to the figures that the LSE* and others have been talking about, £10bn+ then we are at a figure of "8 to 1 against"

What this tells me is that the esteemed Home Office Minister has a different understanding of mandate. A slim majority of a government a minority elected into office voted for something that at least two thirds of the country are against.

Doesn't sound like a mandate to me.

*not even mentioning that the LSE now refuses to release another figure on the cost owing to the high levels of secrecy from the government about how the project will go ahead. Many officials from LSE have been scathing of planning for this project owing to "contradictions, guesswork and wishful thinking" on the part of the Government.

[Edit] This is quite interesting for looking at the views of the public on ID cards

The BBC news story about last night's ID card vote.

It makes me really quite stompy, and I know that I am not the only one.

So now we get a seperate law before it is made compulsorary. Whoopdedoo. How is that going to help when from 2009 you will not be allowed to get a passport without also getting an ID card. If you cannot leave the country without a passport and you cannot get a passport without getting an ID card it will be a short time before everyone has one anyway.

As for the "it will stop terrorism" issue, don't even get me started. The Madrid bombers had valid Spanish ID, the July bombers were all UK citizens. I do not see how having ID cards would have stopped these atrocities.

It will stop identity theft? I don't think so. It will only be a short amount of time before this too will be forged, except now they will be supposedly fool-proof. If your identity is stolen with a forged card then how long will it take you to get it back - if someone has one of these pieces of plastic then they must be who they say they are.

Let's not even mention how little I trust this or any other government with biometric data on me, let alone data on me stored on one of those Oh-So-Reliable government IT projects.

Oh for pity's sake. How stupid do the Government think we are?

The report is full of little quotes from various organisations. Let's start with the one from Home Office minister Andy Burnham. Support, apparently is "Solidifying" and the majority of a whole 31 MPs means that "We think it gives the vote a very clear mandate going forward".

Let's now examine what "mandate" means a clear authorization or direction...the authorization to act given by a constituency to its elected representative (sourced from dictionary.com)

So the fact that a government, who a minority of the UK voted for, have won a vote gives them a mandate - we, the people, apparently support them.

Except, oh wait! We don't! Shock horror.

According to a poll by yougov if the scheme cost £6bn - "a figure that some ministers have talked about" - then public support for it was at "2 to 1 against", and when you move to the figures that the LSE* and others have been talking about, £10bn+ then we are at a figure of "8 to 1 against"

What this tells me is that the esteemed Home Office Minister has a different understanding of mandate. A slim majority of a government a minority elected into office voted for something that at least two thirds of the country are against.

Doesn't sound like a mandate to me.

*not even mentioning that the LSE now refuses to release another figure on the cost owing to the high levels of secrecy from the government about how the project will go ahead. Many officials from LSE have been scathing of planning for this project owing to "contradictions, guesswork and wishful thinking" on the part of the Government.

[Edit] This is quite interesting for looking at the views of the public on ID cards

I meant to post about this last night but I went to lie down at 8pm and only just woke up. Oops ;)

I spent a lot of time in the car yesterday listening to the radio*, about 3 hours to be exact, and I got increacingly irate at the way the "final hours of George Best" and the "death of George Best" (or as the BBC put it "Fans pay tribute to legend Best") were played out by the media.

I don't think this man's death should be seen as anything special. He was an alcoholic and apparently also abused his ex-wife. He lived a life of excess, paid the consequences for it, though got another chance with a liver transplant that he then wasted.

A liver transplant that could have saved someone else. Perhaps a young person. Perhaps a young mother or father with children, people who wouldn't have wasted that liver.

Grr.

Who did this man think he was? He may have been a great footballer (dunno, he was well before my time), but to me he appeared a selfish old man who assumed that the rules didn't apply to him. His death should not be greatly mourned by anyone but his family. This is even worse than the fuss over Diana (who was not a saint, I don't care how many of you like to imagine she was, grr), who at least acted as a stronger role model than Best.

What really frustrates me are all the comments on the BBC's "Have Your Say" thread about the passing of "the legendary footballer".

So many of them run like this:

"Northern Ireland's finest son. George Best was the BEST!"
"George was simply the best!! He will be remembered as a lovely man who could play a mighty fine game of football. God go with you George xxx"
and
"George has gone and will be emensily missed he is a real legend and no one will be to the same standard as him. I will miss him and i'm sure everyone else will as well!! :-("

Grr. There are times I dispair of the majority of this country >.<

I at least take some solace in the fact that all the comments that have been "reader reccommended" are along the lines of:

"A genius on the football pitch? Yes. Someone who deserves to rest in peace? Yes. Someone who deserves to be reverred? Not necessarily. This man had the chance to change his life with his liver transplant, and yet could not overcome his addiction. He should be a warning to everyone."
"To anyone under the age of 35, he was better known as an alcoholic than as a footballer. The news coverage has been totally out of proportion to his death."
"I am sad at the loss of a life, but I can't believe the hype surrounding George Best's death. There have been other, more worthy people, whose demise has gone relatively unreported and who, if given the chance of an extended life as George Best was through his transplant, would have not wasted it."
and
"Sad as anyone's passing is, I've been most disturbed by the almost way ghoulish way in which his passing has been reported in the press - the hour by hour updates, the "in his last hours" headlines. In a world where thousands of people in the mountains of Kashmir, in Niger and elsewhere are dying early and preventable deaths, lets not make the self-inflicted passing of a great footballer the top story of the day."

Although these comments are by far in the minority they have been the most reccommended. Maybe the majority of people are silent and with me on my thoughts after all.

I hope so.

*This is because I went to a prize giving evening at Phil's old school - seperate entry about that later

I am at telehouse this weekend for a whole weekend and I must admit, it started rather badly.

( Rant about disorganisation )

Which is why I was very glad when Philip offered to buy me lunch. He came on the DLR from Greenwich and we went back to Greenwich for a 'spoons, then back to his room where I fixed his HTML a bit :) After that we wandered back to East India Dock where I am based atm because we thought the DLR route was silly. Well, it is silly, but I admit, it's quicker than walking and certainly quicker than walking the route that Phil and I did. It was, however, a lovely walk with excellent company, and a really nice time was had by all. Except for: ( Rant about the little shit in Greenwich )

Anyway, I had a lovely time with Philip and am thinking about accompanying him to the Cenotaph tomorrow. Depends if I can be arsed or not ;)

At the moment I'm back in Telehouse watching the battle of Britain on my lappy (already watched The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp and Apollo 13 (thanks no1typo and manyfacesofjase respectively) but I suspect that by tomorrow I will have watched all the DVDs I brought with me. Sucks. Feel all warm and glowy from my walk across Docklands. Yay!

ANyway, off for some more tasteless food now. BBiab to update my OtherJournal(tm) with my teacher training doings ;)

To the person with the very very loud Fireworks who is letting them off somewhere in the vacinity of Canterbury,

I hate you, I hate you, I hate you. I was trying to sleep. After the events of today your very loud explosion at 10:10PM was taken by a sleepy me to be some sort of terrorist attack on Canterbury Cathederal or something. I know this is completely irrational but I really was quite sleepy and not thinking straight and after today the terrorist thought was uppermost in my mind. Please die or be maimed by your stupid firework, or at least don't let any more off so I can go curl up in bed. You are an utter chav, you really really are.


Love

Lizzie

To the person with the very very loud Fireworks who is letting them off somewhere in the vacinity of Canterbury,

I hate you, I hate you, I hate you. I was trying to sleep. After the events of today your very loud explosion at 10:10PM was taken by a sleepy me to be some sort of terrorist attack on Canterbury Cathederal or something. I know this is completely irrational but I really was quite sleepy and not thinking straight and after today the terrorist thought was uppermost in my mind. Please die or be maimed by your stupid firework, or at least don't let any more off so I can go curl up in bed. You are an utter chav, you really really are.


Love

Lizzie

Those of you who get pissed off at politics would do best to ignore this one ;)

Today ex-MP Brian Sedgemore defected from Labour to the Liberal Democrats. I didn't really pay much attention to this story to begin with cos I didn't really care. Then metamoof pasted the link to his last speech in Parliament which was against Prevention of Terrorism Bill. I read it through and developed a whole hearted respect for this man. The speech is very strong stuff. It's certainly more than a little bit emotive.

( The text of the speech )

I was really surprised. At the advanced age of 21 I am incredibly cynical about parliamentary debates and get easily bored by them, but reading this speech made my hair stand on end.

He compares the system of justice in this country to being akin to the one that "found favour with the South African Government at the time of apartheid", but for me the most powerful connotations come from a paragraph further down the page where he states: "Many Members have gone nap on the matter. They voted: first, to abolish trial by jury in less serious cases; secondly, to abolish trial by jury in more serious cases; thirdly, to approve an unlawful war; fourthly, to create a gulag at Belmarsh; and fifthly, to lock up innocent people in their homes. It is truly terrifying to imagine what those Members of Parliament will vote for next.I can describe all that only as new Labour's descent into hell, which is not a place where I want to be."

For me this conjures up images of the Nazi state, possibly because of the things I have been reading at the moment (including Lawrence Rees' excellent "Auschwitz: The Nazis and the Final Solution"), but it brings up a theme that is touched upon by book after book, time after time. The erosion of the rights of the Jews in Germany were so gradual that it seemed that to ride it out and wait was the best course. It couldn't last, people told themselves, things would get better and they wouldn't get much worse. History tells us these people were wrong, but hindsight is a beautiful thing. I will admit the analogy is somewhat harsh, but it also shows us what a dangerous road we are starting on.

Our Human Rights are being chipped away at so slowly that we barely notice it in the name of freedom from fear. First this right is eroded, then that, and then another. If this continues one day we will have nothing left. I want to say, here and now, that the attacks on the 11th September 2001 made me no more afraid of the world around me than I was before. In the wake of all that has happened since I have become more afraid of the actions of our government, at home and abroad, and that of the US than I have those of terrorists.

Something in Mr Sedgemore's speech has touched a chord with me. I will be voting in this election and I will be voting against the party that has eroded my rights as a human and as a citizen. I will be voting against the party that took us into a war I did not support under the premise of a lie. I will be voting against the party that has time and again shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

I feel motivated to vote, and I will not be denied my oportunity to speak out, even if it is what others proclaim as "a wasted vote" or "a vote that will help the Conservatives win".

I will use my vote to make my stand.

This morning benc pointed me at an article he had read via his RSS feeds that had appeared in the Observer. This article is the account of a British man who was detained in Guantanamo Bay for 33 Months and it is truly horrifying. I don't usually quote from the bible and those who know me best will know that I'm in a very confusing place right now wrt religion, but I feel John 8:7 sums up perfectly what the attitude of the Coalition should be in all this. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Everyone knows that no person or country can be perfect but that they should try as hard as they can to be beyond recrimination. In their "War Upon Terror" the "coalition" is doing things that makes them as bad as, if not worse than the people who committed the September 11th atrocities. Do they really think that by performing torture and denying people their basic human rights they are going to gain support? All they are doing is turning more and more people against them as a country and Bush's regieme.

If this is the price of freeing the world from terrorism I want no part of it.

Not In My Name

This morning benc pointed me at an article he had read via his RSS feeds that had appeared in the Observer. This article is the account of a British man who was detained in Guantanamo Bay for 33 Months and it is truly horrifying. I don't usually quote from the bible and those who know me best will know that I'm in a very confusing place right now wrt religion, but I feel John 8:7 sums up perfectly what the attitude of the Coalition should be in all this. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Everyone knows that no person or country can be perfect but that they should try as hard as they can to be beyond recrimination. In their "War Upon Terror" the "coalition" is doing things that makes them as bad as, if not worse than the people who committed the September 11th atrocities. Do they really think that by performing torture and denying people their basic human rights they are going to gain support? All they are doing is turning more and more people against them as a country and Bush's regieme.

If this is the price of freeing the world from terrorism I want no part of it.

Not In My Name

Pissed Off

"why?" I hear you ask.

I'll tell you.

I have a 5k word essay due in on Friday at 12pm. I looked for the books in the library (of which there is generally one copy of each text for a class of 15 all of whom will be writing the essay) at the end of last term and found they were all out on four week loan and not due back until this Wednesday. I found the books I could and put reservations on the others and sent an email to my tutor for this subject explaining the situation and asking if he had any of these texts that I could borrow for the holidays, mentioning that I could collect them from anywhere in the Canterbury area.

The email bounced because his email box was full.

Today I found him to ask

1. Why the texts weren't in the short loans collection when there are so few of them and would clearly be in short supply


2. Why a certain text wasn't in the library at all


3. If I could have an extention in light of the fact that I could not get hold of a majority of the texts I needed to write the essay

He agreed at once to item 3 in light of the circumstances. In response to question 2 he said it was the History Librarian's fault and he had requested the book in 2003 and it still hadn't been purchased. This goes against everything I know of the History Librarian who when asked by my other history tutor always makes appropriate provision for the books of that module. To item 1 he said to me that I should have

1. started work on my essay when I got the title and book list in the middle of last term


2. appraised him on the situation of availability of books because he is "a very busy man who has to keep track of a great many things"


3. put a reserve on the items I wanted

Number 3 I did, but when the items aren't due back until two days before the essay is due in there is not a lot putting a reserve on an item can do. Number 1 is a fair point and I know I should have started sooner. However, I didn't and given the number of people who needed the books and the amount of time the chances are that without them being put into short loans not everyone would have had access to them anyway.*1 I believe point number 2 is him trying to excuse himself. It is not the task of the student to make sure that the texts they need are properly available from the library. Before he issued the book list he should have made sure that all items on it were easily available for the number of students who would need access to them. He is the lecturer and he should liase with library staff to ensure each book on that list has the relevant amount of loan time attached.

When I told him that I had emailed him during the holidays about it and the email had bounced he said "sweetheart, you need to be realistic about these things. Firstly I was in Suffolk*2 and secondly it's unreasonable for you to expect me to check my email on boxing day. Noone checks their email then".*3

After this I was far too pissed to speak any more so I thanked him for the extention after telling him once more that it was unacceptable and walked out.

I'm still livid. I know I probably overreacted, but I'm still rather angry. Just

GRRRRR

.

On top of this he was being all flappy all lesson about how the ten week term this term (usually 12 weeks - two weeks are carried over to the next term this year owing to an early easter). He told us he had cut some material because the shorter term meant he couldn't fit everything in. This is not true. The general understanding is that in this event the first two weeks are to be treated as the last two of the previous term. He explained that nothing like this had happened before. Bollocks had it - I know that at the University of Kent we used to run by a three terms of 10 weeks instead of the 12 12 6 system that we have at present, and this was not so long ago (though before my time ;)). Certainly during his. He's been here for years.

I give up with History Professors. I really do >.<

*sigh*

*grrrr*

*1 ordinary loan is 4 weeks. There are options available to tutors for soon to become high demand books to have them put to 1 week loan, short loan collection (a loan of overnight [from whenever the books is withdrawn until 10am the next day]) or even short loan four hour collection where the book is restricted to the library and only allowed to be used for a stretch of four hours at a time.

*2 may not have been Suffolk. I was a rather pissed at the time from him calling me "sweetheart". Was also very pissed for being patronised. I'm 21. There is no need to treat me as if I'm 6.

*3 I checked mine every day of the holidays including christmas day :o I wasn't asking him to check it then, or on boxing day, but at some point during the holidays was not too much to ask I feel.

..but today I was absolutely fuming. Livid or Furious are good words to describe the state I was in, and thinking about it logically I can't even work out why I was so very very angry over this incident.

Today I had my Museum and Heratage seminar thingy and there's a clique of three people who always sit together in the seminar and talk half way through. I don't like them and they strike me as unpleasent in not what they say, but how they say it. At the end of the seminar (which was quite dull in itself) Dr Ormrod was trying to work out who would do a group presentation on which subject. I volunteered right at the beginning to do the one for next week but noone volunteered to help and so I assumed one of the duds who never turns up would be assigned to me, which was bad enough. Anyway, the clique who had been talking very loudly in their corner lost the tussel for the presentation they wanted and immediately expressed interest in mine. Dr Ormrod said only two of the three could do it with me because of the number in the group as a whole. To be honest I was a bit angry already because they didn't want the presentation until most other options had been removed from them. Then I went to exchange email addys to find the other person telling me that *She* had to be in our group becasue the only things left were in the last two weeks and she couldn't do those cos she wouldn't be here. So for this presentation which counts for 20% of my final marks I will be dictated to by a clique of people I don't like and who clearly don't like me and it will all get screwed up. There are four doing a three people (max) presentation and Dr Ormrod doesn't even know. I know my personality isn't strong enough to assert my views and *win* any struggle ahead.

I'm angry. Less angry than I was, but that only means I don't want to really properly hurt people any more. I'm slowly calming down. I scared myself with how angry I was. *growl*

I just don't know what to do :(

..but today I was absolutely fuming. Livid or Furious are good words to describe the state I was in, and thinking about it logically I can't even work out why I was so very very angry over this incident.

Today I had my Museum and Heratage seminar thingy and there's a clique of three people who always sit together in the seminar and talk half way through. I don't like them and they strike me as unpleasent in not what they say, but how they say it. At the end of the seminar (which was quite dull in itself) Dr Ormrod was trying to work out who would do a group presentation on which subject. I volunteered right at the beginning to do the one for next week but noone volunteered to help and so I assumed one of the duds who never turns up would be assigned to me, which was bad enough. Anyway, the clique who had been talking very loudly in their corner lost the tussel for the presentation they wanted and immediately expressed interest in mine. Dr Ormrod said only two of the three could do it with me because of the number in the group as a whole. To be honest I was a bit angry already because they didn't want the presentation until most other options had been removed from them. Then I went to exchange email addys to find the other person telling me that *She* had to be in our group becasue the only things left were in the last two weeks and she couldn't do those cos she wouldn't be here. So for this presentation which counts for 20% of my final marks I will be dictated to by a clique of people I don't like and who clearly don't like me and it will all get screwed up. There are four doing a three people (max) presentation and Dr Ormrod doesn't even know. I know my personality isn't strong enough to assert my views and *win* any struggle ahead.

I'm angry. Less angry than I was, but that only means I don't want to really properly hurt people any more. I'm slowly calming down. I scared myself with how angry I was. *growl*

I just don't know what to do :(

Well I'm in the Library starting off a new Uni year (for me) in traditional style with procrastination from my reccommended reading.

So..um..what is going on with me I hear you ask.

Not a lot is the answer (now you see why I've not updated for a while ;))

I finished work at Andrew Reeves (the posh Belgravia estate agents) tho my last day was slightly marred by the people at Victoria trying to give me a penalty fare. I got on the train without a valid ticket cos otherwise I would have missed my train, fully intending to pay when I got to Victoria. When I got there and went to pay for my return ticket I got pulled to one side and treated like a criminal cos it's (apparently, tho I didn't know this) an offense to get on a train without a ticket if the ticket office is open. SO they said I needed to pay a penalty fare even though I tried to explain I would have missed my train and been late for work. They just carried on saying I'd need to pay the penalty fare and it got too much and I started to cry. The guy looked at me like I was putting it on...and then to cap the indignity I started to hyperventalate big time. My head started to tingle and I couldn't stand up so I sat down and all teh time he's watching me like I'm faking it. Eventually the two ticket barrier guys come over and ask me what's up and I try to tell them while not being able to breathe and one of them brings me some water (which I nearly choked on cos my breathing was so irregular by this point) and they argued with the Penalty Fare guy about it and eventually let me ppay just for my return ticket. Evetually, when I was sufficiently calm to stand again I started to go and the Penalty Fare guy looks at me, glares and says "that won't work again you know". Like I was doing it on purpose >.< I can think of better places to make myself look undignified, stupid and immature...

Beffan met me from work that day tho, so things started to improve :) We scandalised the carrage of our train with our talk ;)

Anyway, I saw Phantom of the Opera on Monday evening and it was absolutely magnificent. At the end I felt so sorry for the Phantom. I didn't have a great view from the balcony so I want to go again and sit in the stalls. Still, it took my breath away. It was brilliant.

Les Miserables was Tuesday's show and that was even better than Phantom, and very different. I saw this one from the stalls and had a wonderful view, and at the end the show had a standing Ovation. I didn't like the Older Cosette, but JVJ and Javert were great and Marius...*happy sigh* It made me cry more than once. It was overwhelming.

Came back to canterbury on Saturday and left behind a whole shedload of stuff :o(

Beffan is staying ATM and that is great :D

Rah cooked a lovely roast beef dinner yesterday which was *YUMYUM* :D and today is her 1st wedding anniversary - the weather a year ago today was much much nicer ;)

Speaking of weddings, ben and I have talked to the Vicar who will marry us on Friday and booked the wedding for the 3rd September 2005 at 3pm. The most complicated question of the whole thing for me was "Are you baptised" which ellicited the response "yes, no, possibly, not sure, maybe?" (see my history as a mormon for further explanation ;))

Mum found something to stop herself getting bored over the weekend - taking piccies of piccies and putting them up on her site. These include baby pics of me and pill, which is the reason the link will *NOT* be included here ;)

Ben and I watched Battle of Britain yesterday - top film :D

Umm...I'm sure there's other stuff I ment to include and forgot, in which case I may add it later :)

( obligatory LJ quiz )

Was having a jibbly nice day. Went back to bed, slept till 12, went on irc for an hour then went to Sutton to arrange payment for my pc and do some christmas shopping. Sorted the money and Phil's presents, also got Chris' but copped out with him and got vouchers...

Picked Philip up from school and met his deputy headteacher who is my old moosik teacher and discussed joke we're playing on him then went and got 6ft Christmas tree from a local farm. Dumped Phil and tree at home, played on irc for 5 mins where i noticed one of my friends being off with me but figured it was nothing. Went and picked mum up, stopped at post office for her widows pension then went to asda for shopping, esp cat food. (Flippin' cats! Why must they eat?!) Got home at half 7. Mum and Phil then started to sort out the tree while I went and slept for half an hour cos my back was killing me what with all the driving and ircing.

Came downstairs to piles of sawdust and Philip's cut finger where they'd been trying to make the tree fit the base. Mum was annoyed and that gradually infected everyone in the house. Anyway, we decorated it and had tea. Got a few mins on irc in which my friend was infuriating to say the least tho the words rude and upsetting figure in places. If said friend wanted to be left alone should have just said "leave me alone" rather than outright ignoring me. Fucking bastard men.

Anyway, curled up with my james herriot underneath the christmas tree but felt altogether very sad. Clarie heard from creature which was nice cos hadn't heard from him yet. Miss all the minkees but am looking forward to time with Chris and Laura tomorrow. Going to see lotr ttt at 7! Yay!

All in all tho, not a good day. I miss minkees, especially my pete and Christmas tree has had me thinkin' of daddy. Fook it. I'm going to bed now. Or to get very drunk. Atm, I don't care which.