On reading Razorhead’s epistle to his boss, I wondered for a moment if he worked in the same company as I did, until I read in his next post that he worked in Dorset. It all sounded so familiar.

It must be pay review time again for a lot of people.

I don’t understand why the pay review process takes so long for most companies. Surely they must have a proforma letter that they use at times like this that gives some spurious excuse explaining why they can’t give you a pay rise but that they use that peculiar executive business jargon that nobody really understands but makes it sound quite plausible.

Then there’s the concept of “self-evaluation.” A demeaning act where are you asked to identify your “strengths” (For god’s sake I’m British! When will you get it into your stupid heads that we are incapable of saying good things about ourselves?) and “development areas” (because they can’t refer to your inability to get to work on time as a weakness). They make you jump through hoops and get down on your knees to beg and generally treat you worse than a government chemical weapons expert, all because of the slim chance that you’ll get that token salary increase and the empty promise of that most elusive of all benefits, the “Annual Performance Bonus”.

Razorheard mentions salary negotiations as a type of bartering. That almost makes it sound respectable. A civilised, open market why of trading something you have that somebody else wants in return for something that they have that you want. I prefer to think of it more along the lines of prostitution. They have money - you provide a service. They begrudgingly pay you the money and then fuck you. Then leave you feeling used, dirty and cheap having just humiliated yourself for the money that you need to put bread on your table and keep a roof over your head.

I should leave. I should find a job that I can do that I enjoy in a place where I feel valued and necessary. But, then again, I’m a mercenary, a corporate whore. I’m like Han Solo; “I’m not in this for your revolution and I’m not in it for you. I expect to get well paid for this - I’m in it for the money!” I have become accustomed to a certain standard of living and it’s a hard thing to give up. So I bite my tongue, bend over like a good submissive and let them stick their dick up my arse in the knowledge that I’ll be able to go home, look my wife in the eye and say “let’s go out for a nice meal and a good bottle of wine!”

It’s at times like this I wish I had some principles.

It’s a bit sick but I found this odd news story very funny. (Pictures not for those with a weak constitution!)

Thar she blows!

Lawrence Dallagio, captain of Wasps, has reclaimed his position as captain of the England rugby team. This is after a five year hiatus after stepping down from the captains position after the News of the World set up a sting which alleged that Dallagio had been involved in taking and dealing drugs and was accused of bringing the gentlemanly game of rugby into disrepute.

Not that anything’s changed! Have you seen the new McDonalds adverts that he’s in? Now that’s bringing the game into disrepute!

I have to do my Annual Returns for my company (Dragon’s Eye) and also file accounts. This is all well and good and under normal circumstances I’d have to pay an accountant to sort out the accounts. But I don’t feel kindly disposed to paying someone an extortionate amount of money to show that I have spent nothing and earned nothing (except for about 60p in interest) over the last year because I haven’t “traded”.

However, finding out how to produce a document that shows this is beyond even my internet searching skills (although I haven’t spent longer than about a minute on it). So if anyone can suggest how to approach this or knows of any informative sites that will help then I would be a very grateful person.

In the old days it used to be the Japanese who would take a good European product and make a not quite as good copy of it (I’m thinking motorbikes here).

Now it seems to be the Yanks who take ideas (or, to be more precise, films) and “Americanise” them, obviously so that they reflect the culture and sensibilities of their country. I’m thiking “Nikita” (remade as the awful “Assassin”), “The Vanishing” (remade as, er, “The Vanishing” with Keifer Sutherland) and who can forget the terrible, terrible idea of remaking “Red Dwarf” (as, um, Red Dwarf USA - but don’t even get me started on what a bad idea this was!)

So the news that they are remaking “The Office” for the USA is a bit, ah, disturbing. Although the choice for the role of David Brent apparently (coz I have no idea who he is) suggests that it might not be as bad as all that.

Which reminds me - did anyone ever see Office Space?

I’m delighted to see that more or less the entire House turned up for the vote on top-up fees tonight. At least they’ve got more interest in this than they had in the debate on how the issue of truancy.

There are many people who have been more eloquent on this subject than I could be (Adrian and Gert to name but two). Facetious comments aside, my own two euros worth are in line with their thoughts.

Top-up fees are the only way forward without increasing general taxation. The universities are in decline and to maintain them will cost a lot of money. And as Gert rightly points out, any increase in taxation would be better off spent on primary and secondary education.

I think top-up fees will focus students minds far more the is currently the case. Degrees, in my informed opinion, are ten a penny and relatively easy to come by. At the moment, going on to tertiary education is considered the norm for many people, as seen in the increase in student numbers over the last 10 years. It has gotten to the stage where students will put off entering the “real world” (i.e. one where you have to actually work for a living) for as long as possible while they dither about what it is they want to do with themselves. And they felt that this was their right, that they were somehow owed a tertiary education.

In my mind, all this has done has lowered the meaning of a degree and the standard of University education. But if students are faced with the prospect of leaving university in debt then they have a choice: either make sure they get the most out of it, work hard and achieve results in the knowledge they will have to work hard to pay off the debt when they leave OR forget about going to university and go straight to work.

To say that they won’t get as good a job without a degree as they would with one is tenuous at most. Sure you won’t be able to become a doctor without spending years of your life studying but if you want to seriously, earnestly want to become a doctor then you will find a way to get to university.

It was only when I left tertiary education in 1995 with a BA(Hons) in Philosophy that I had to decide what I wanted to do. I chose I.T. because it was either that or accountancy. I had limited skills and had to become an autodidact (not as rude as it sounds) to get anywhere. In my first job I met a man who was my age and did the same job that I did but hadn’t gone to university. He had a nice car, good clothes, a house of his own and money in the bank and all because he was 3 or 4 years further down the same path. I had a small rented flat and was up to my neck in debt. I really felt that I didn’t make the most of my time at university but had no-one to blame but myself. Eight years on and I’m better off than I was but I often wonder how much better off I would be still if I hadn’t pissed away four years of my life doing a non-vocational degree.

I do feel that if I’d had something to concentrate the mind a little more (like, say, the prospect of a huge debt) I would have studied harder and made more life affecting decisions earlier on. And I probably would have studied a totally different subject. That, of course, is the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

If I carry on with this I’m probably going to end up back at the conclusion that despite what anyone says, A-Levels are getting easier, more people are getting higher grades and everybody is going to Uni. Tertiary education is no longer the domain of the elite intelligentia and standards are slipping as a result.

However, having said all that, I can’t say that it’s going to affect me much. The tax man is still going to take his pound of flesh and it’ll be twenty years or so before any future children of mine are ready to go by which time it all could have changed again.

I am fortunate enough that while “working from home” *cough* yesterday, “The Third Man” was showing on Channel 4 yesterday afternoon. Being one of IMDB’s top 100 films that I haven’t seen, I popped a tape in the video and hit the button.

I am unfortunate enough that I have a wife who never notices when the video is recording and switches the power off at the wall.

The effect of boredom on a large scale in history is underestimated. It is a main cause of revolutions, and would bring to an end all the static Utopias and the farmyard civilization of the Fabians.

William Ralph Inge - 1948

The Shrub gave his third “State of the Union” address this week. I had no idea what one was until I heard his first post-9/11 speech while I was in Florida at a Lotus Geek conference. That was his first declaration of standing up against the so called “Axis of Evil” (one of the most cunning marketing phrases of the 21st century so far!) This year, amongst the usual ramblings about the War against Terror, the Invasion Liberation of Iraq, the ongoing struggle to be the only country in the world with WMDs and the Gay Marriage, Dubya spoke about the the all important, epoch defining issue of “Drugs In Sport”.

I had to do a double take when I reviewed the BBC’s key points of his speech. Drugs in sport? Why was that an issue worthy of a State of the Union speech, up there with Health Care, Economy, Tax Cuts and Immigration? And then I read the summary of his points:

The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message. I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to get rid of steroids now.

Erm, okay. That’s hit the nail on the head. Using drugs in sport is bad because they’re dangerous. Good point. Cuts straight to the heart of the argument.

Except for one thing - it’s total and utter bollocks!

The use of performance enhancing drugs in sport is cheating. That’s why it’s wrong. It’s as simple as that. It’s absolutely nothing to do with whether they’re dangerous or not. After all, high levels of caffiene is banned in sport, pseudo-ephedrine (the main consitituent of the common decongestant Sudafed) is banned in sport, artificial stimulants (as found in cold cures like Day Nurse etc.) are banned in sport. The doses as usually prescribed by doctors not dangerous to you but even a small dose is illegal in sport.

Because it’s cheating!

If you banned use of steroids because of the danger to the athletes taking them then shouldn’t you also consider banning dangerous sports? Look at the list of injuries to the England rugby team at the moment! Some of those players are going to be damaged for life. Should we ban rugby as it’s obviously dangerous? What about boxing? Look at the damage that it’s done to some boxers (Michael Watson is a good example). Surely boxing is a sport that can be classed as dangerous? So why not ban it?

In fact, if you’re going to go the whole hog, ban training! Extreme training at high levels can cause injury and I for one can testify to that. And not just sprained joints, pulled muscles and the rest, but injuries that plague you for the rest of your life. So why not ban people from training hard because although they might get healthier and fitter and excel in sport, it’s also potentially dangerous!

Talk about jumping on a bandwagon (which you shouldn’t do because if you miss you could hurt yourself and is therefore dangerous). What can I say? Bush has opened his mouth once more and again, absolute drivel pours out. This man, a convicted drink driver, has the audacity to raise the topic of drugs in sport, something which I doubt he knows anything about, and uses the same old ignorant arguments that seep through the tabloids and newspapers without anyone stopping to find out the facts.

I can’t say I’m surprised at all, although I’m still dumbfounded to know what he was doing talking about it in the first place, aside from trying to be popularist and interesting.

Knob!

I bought a set of bicycle lights the other day. On the back of the pack of one of the lights was the warning

Do not use flashing mode on public roads as this is a contravention of highway regulations

If it is illegal to have a flashing tail light on a bicycle why do manufacturers build in a flashing mode?

I also wondered this about cars. Apparently it is possible to limit the speed of a motor vehicle. So if the national speed limit in the UK is 70 miles an hour max (on motorways and dual carriage ways) why not limit the speed of all cars sold in the UK to the legal maximum?

And why are Starbucks allowed to sell coffee that is scaldingly hot? Apart from the fact that it makes the coffee taste crap (which happens when you put water that’s too hot onto freshly ground coffee. Any decent coffee should be made with boiled water that’s been left to stand for at least two minutes to cool), you end spending the day with a burnt mouth and are unable to taste anything, let alone be able to speak to voice your displeasure with the awful cup of coffee you had that morning. They also insist on serving their coffees in thin paper cups with a cardboard ring to hold the cup with rather than a second cup because it’s more “environmentally friendly” and less wasteful.

Hello? McFly? If you turn the heat of the water down then a) the cup will be hot enough to hold without the cardboard ring so you will be even more “environmentally friendly” and even less wasteful b) your customers will be be able to drink their coffee straight away rather than waiting for two hours for it to cool down to an agreeable temperature which won’t cause second degree scalding and c) not turning the thermostat up to 11 and keeping your water at a cooler (i.e. less than boiling point) temperature will, surprise, surprise, use less energy and be more enviromentally friendly and less wasteful!

Mind you, people who drink Starbucks coffee wouldn’t know a decent cup of the black stuff if it accosted them in the street, introduced itself, smacked them upside the head with a wild salmon caught in the river Teifi and then went back to their house to have intimate sexual relations with their pet dog.