That’s how many hits (unique per day) this page has had over the last year. I put the counter on on Dec 25th 2003 at 17:00, expecting to get maybe a couple of dozen a week. Actually, in November I was wondering if I’d make 5000 by xmas. From somewhere I got a sudden deluge and passed 6000 before the start of December!
Believe it or not, in the UK this paltry dusting of frozen water classes as a “white xmas”. At least, it does if the snow falls on a certain area at any point between midnight and midnight. In London, it’s a 3′ x 3′ concrete square on top of the weather centre that’s only checked once per hour. I assume therefore that if there isn’t someone up there at the right time and the snow doesn’t lie, then it doesn’t count.
Anyway, as I type this up there is the slightest of flurries outside. I suppose it counts as a flurry as I can see more than two flakes at once, but only just. So the first white xmas I can recall since I was a kid and there’s not even enough to make a snowball, let alone bury a corpse in to keep it fresh for a few days. I just hope it doesn’t get too bad and make my drive to Blackburn tomorrow too troublesome.
Actually, maybe missing the match would be a mercy.
One quick picture of a co-gift from Sharon and her mum. Mrs Sharon Senior is one of the world’s leading exponents in making very nice xmas cake indeed. Sharon iced it. The cheeky cow.
On a xmasy theme… another two-question poll. The BBC Magazine has an article about the use of “xmas” and the reasons for/against it. What are your views? The second one’s a simple one – how festive are you?
For the record, I use “xmas” because I’m not religious and, partly in deference to those who are, prefer not to refer to something I don’t believe in. I’d not expect a practising Christian to yell “Oh, mighty ALLAH!” if they banged their thumb with a hammer, for instance! Also, it’s less typing and I’m lazy.
I’ll let you all guess as what I put for question 2.
And finally, the results of the previous poll about home security and how violent we should be allowed to get with the filth who wander in and think they can nick all our stuff, rape our dogs and piss in our hollowed-out skulls. Basically, you lot seem to be closet psychopaths, but are less likely to go ahead and kill a thug even if you feel they deserve it.
You’ll learn… I can help.
As promised, here’s a pic of the present Sharon made me for my birthday. I’m sure most of those who know me know I don’t like a fuss made (I’m like Scrooge, only I do it for all celebrations. I’m a miserable ****** at heart) but how the hell could I not like this? It’s now mounted on the wall at the top of the stairs. If you click on the piccy to the left, you’ll get a larger one to admire. But I have the original so 😛
Roll up, roll up. Your results are in. With more of a spread than in the previous poll, it seems that most of you side with me in saying that this stuff should be left on the shelves, but a slightly larger proportion of you think that at least some action should be taken about it.
And now for a new poll. In the news recently has been home security – that’s security of the household rather than some kind of fascist policy that removes all of your citizens’ human rights. That one’s homeland security. Just ask George “The Chimp” Bush about his PATRIOT act.
Anyway, in the UK it’s generally been the accepted rule that if someone tries to break into your house and you do anything other than hand them old aunt Maud’s jewellery collection, your stash of DVDs and the stereo then you’ll end up in court. Hell, if they strain their back hoiking your widescreen TV into the back of the van they nicked for the job, you can expect to find youseld on charges of neglect or assault.
The poor dears.
Anyway, after recent court cases someone has decided that wouldn’t it be a good idea if we were actually allowed to protect our homes, family and property without worrying about the consequences of giving some thieving chav a broken jaw. The Tories started it, the mostsenior police officer in the ocuntry voiced his support and then Labour spotted the bandwagon about to leave town without them on it so jumped aboard.
What’s reported so far is a moderately simple change: to alter the fact that you can defend yourself “with reasonable force” to the fact that you can do what you want to the toerags as long as there is no evidence of “gratuitous violence”. I take this to read “as long as they don’t find the corpse” but I may be twisting the words in my favour somewhat.
Anyway, the poll – what would you decide is gratuitous? Where should the limit be? Or do you feel we should leave it on the basis that if scum know they’re more likely to get a fight then they’re more likely to come armed?
On the same subject I was watching Crime Scene Academy from last night and heard a great story set in America. Two scum broke into a guy’s house and held him at gunpoint demanding “the money”. They knew he had a safe in the house and made him lead them to it. They stepped aside and demanded he open it, which he did. They demanded he reach in and give them what was in there.
He did. It was a gun safe and contained, among other things, a 50mm semi-auto which was loaded and ready to use. A swift turn and a spray of bullets saw the two guys run off, one already mortally wounded with a nicked artery in his neck. The homeowner chased them through the house and put two bullets in the chest of the other. Both died.
Police verdict? Completely innocent. All the evidence backed his story up and they adjudged him to be protecting his property and himself. For once I am in awe of – get this – Americans with sense. Will wonders never cease?