mattp: (Default)
Friday:
Went out drinking in Printworks with some non-LJers Russ and Matt (who stayed in the same halls as me at uni) and other fellow Linux geeks. It started off quiet, but by 8 or 9 it was actually had music bleating out at a stupid volume. Depsite this place being chosen because it was a Wetherspoons, we since discovered that it is part of the Lloyd's chain. I'm wondering how long after the smoking ban comes into effect that bar workers will start asking for music to be lowered, lest their hearing be damaged. It's not the fact that it was music I didn't like (I'd object if it was music that I did at such a volume, because it makes group conversation impossible, and one-on-one conversation almost impossible), but also that it was needlessly loud, and too loud for the equipment - I could hear the sound distorting.

We sought refuge down the road to the nearby Sir John Oldcastle and had a fab night. I might even have found a place to live as one of the people present is selling their place in Burnt Oak in order to move to Japan. It's a little further out than I'd like, but not a complete deal breaker.

Saturday:
Went ringing for a wedding at St. Bartholemew the Great in Smithfields. I since learned that this is the oldest Anglican church in the country not to have had strucural work done on it. The bells are also the oldest peal in the country, offically dating from 1510. On top of that, it is the fourth church to appear in the film Four Weddings and A Funeral :-)

Evening was a fabulous meal in Mildred's in Soho. FOr such an avid carnivore, I really enjoyed the meals put on by a vegetarian restaurant. We were in the function room upstairs as there were a large number of us. Best thing was the "interesting" artwork on the walls. I wonder if anyone got any photos. I forgot, annoyingly. Pondered going to a house party afterwards, but decided against it due to having a headache.

I got home and worked out the probable cause - I'd not had any caffeine that day. Oops. Maybe I should take this as a hint to cut down.

Sunday:
No morning ringing, so I had a well needed lie-in. Instead we rang a quarter peal for evensong, thus completing 79. Ring a quarter peal on my 101 in 1001 list. 3 parts of Parker's 12-part Grandsire Triples, for those who care, of which I suspect there'll be 3.

Today:
Stupidly busy at work - it's not suprising I feel I'm nearing burnout at times. This evening I'm viewing the house in Burnt Oak. *fingers crossed* Well, later, otherwise I won't be able to type very well:-)
mattp: (bi flag)
Finally got to went to bed after 0330 and just woke up now. Had a funky dream which involved a game of football made with a ball made from recently-chewed gum. I forget who I was playing with though.

You know you've had little sleep when, despite have 220 people on your flist, only 7 new entries appear between sleeping and waking.

I meant to post this the other day:
As a result of the Civil Parnership leglislation coming into effect, many other Acts are going need to be modified in order to include them. Going back over 125 years, some of the amended Acts include:

Explosive Substances Act 1883
Law of Distress Amendment Act 1908
Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act 1945
Statistics of Trade Act 1947
a few more )
More reading at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/40033-bb.htm

Disclaimer: From the outset, I want to make it clear that I'm very happy with the huge steps towards equality, and I don't want to come across as ungrateful, but...
This is now another reason why I'm not happy with the Civil Parnership as it stands. For starters different-sex couples are not eligible so it creates an Us-Them divide. "You can't have proper marriage, but we'll give you something else to shut you up". One of the reasons given against allowing same sex couples to have a Marriage (under the Marriage Act of 1949) was the alleged arduous task of rewording the legislation. The fact that so many other Acts have been amended thus far blows away that argument.

How's that for a dramatic thing to see on Christmas Eve morning? :-)
mattp: (parliament)
Who Should You Vote For?

Who should I vote for?

Your expected outcome:

Liberal Democrat


Your actual outcome:



Labour -11
Conservative -28
Liberal Democrat 32
UK Independence Party -7
Green 11


You should vote: Liberal Democrat

The LibDems take a strong stand against tax cuts and a strong one in favour of public services: they would make long-term residential care for the elderly free across the UK, and scrap university tuition fees. They are in favour of a ban on smoking in public places, but would relax laws on cannabis. They propose to change vehicle taxation to be based on usage rather than ownership.

Take the test at Who Should You Vote For

Whilst on the subject of politics, I had a conversation recently which concerned me a little. (I'll not name the subject to protect identity but feel free to speak up if you read this and want to make yourself known). Basically, this person had decided not to vote with the justification that the parties were all as bad as each other, and no one party stood out well enough to warrant a vote. Part of the conversation went something like:

Me) Would you vote if there was a RON option?
X) Yes
Me) Have you written to your MP to state that much, asking if they're going to campaign for that or some other way to register dissatisfaction with all candidates
X) I don't even know who my MP is
Me) *stunned silence* It's Anne Coffey.

I'm trying to place why I felt surprised. Maybe because someone who has political awareness and seems to have at least some strong views
(OK, so you won't know who I'm talking about here, but bear with me)
hasn't found a political affilliation. Perhaps it's because I view a non-vote as wasted. I don't know.

[livejournal.com profile] sofrfruit and I spoke earlier this evening about this and explained a few things I didn't know about. Instead of spoiling a ballot paper e.g. by marking each possible vote (which is the only solution I had previously known of), you can scrawl a message such as "Re-open nominations" on the paper. This is because non-standard votes are examined by all sides to see if they can argue that is should go on to their own party, or shouldn't go to that of an opponent. This also means that those who do have a party in mind can also elect to vote for that party and also write such a message without the paper being treated as spoiled. I've now decided to do this, because though I'm in favour of a RON option (or better still STV), I'm not happy enough to sacrifice my vote to that effect.


To the (I suspect) few of you who weren't planning on voting in the forthcoming UK general election (assuming you're eligible to), what are your reason(s)?

mattp: (yellow lisa)
ICANN is 6 today
Today I worked 9-5 - but it's my last ever Saturday for my current employer. *happy dance*
Tonight we went out for birthday drinks and a meal at Taurus with [livejournal.com profile] voodoopussy et al.

Coversation was littered with topics I'll not mention in a public post to save causing offense, disgust, hatred or a combination of all 3 ;-) Afterwards there was talk of clubbing (3 choices) or a houseparty. Sad as it is, we used STV to decide what to do. We ended up going to [livejournal.com profile] jillys and am glad we did. It took a while for me to get into the clubbing mood, having not been for a while and despite the packed atmosphere a good night was had by all.

Saw a few people I knew from uni back in 2001, but was particularly embarrased not to have recognised [livejournal.com profile] catharsisqueen. Sorry about that.. Still, 'twas good to catch up if only briefly in the noisey setting of a club.

Oh, and something I meant to post about when it arrived last week. I received a letter from the house of commons. I wrote to them on Tuesday evening about the civil partnership bill and stressing the importance that it be passed through the opposition. The letter itself didn't promise much (though this doesn't surprise me, as the govt. wouldn't want to commit to anything) but it did hint that they expected Michael Howard will be in support of it.

Clicky
G'night

*gibber*

Mar. 15th, 2004 02:07 pm
mattp: (Default)
I don't often put political rants in my journal, but I've just had my attention directed to this: http://www.sundayherald.com/40592

I am absolutely outraged by this man. He's essentially charging people for the mistake of the legal system. Polite words cannot portray my hatred towards such vile disrespect of fellow humans.

October 2010

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
1718192021 2223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 13th, 2025 01:46 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios