Hedges and Children

(not necessarily in that order!)

I've just spent one of the less enjoyable weekends of my existence trimming the hedge at the side of my house. It was one of the ones planted by the developers and builders when they put up the estate. I can see why they wanted fast growing plants to improve the green environment of the estate, in which they did a reasonable job. My problem is that the plant they used is the spiniest, thorniest, most viscious bush I have ever seen (or more to the point, felt and been attacked by). I did spend several summers doing some gardening work and have had to clear vast swathes of rambling roses and other such plants. I a reliably informed that the bush is a Pyrocanthus but I have no great knowledge of botany or the technical side of gardening. The problem is that the bush does not look pretty, nor it does not give wonderful vibrant flowers each spring or summer; it has only one function, that of security. Every house on a corner has the plant protecting the fence to prevent anyone climbing over and into the garden. Again, this in itself is fair enough, except that the plant has only been planted along half the fence. Am I to believe that a determined burglar, faced with the probabiity of being ripped to shred if he climbed my fence, but being perfectly all right to climb it 3 feet further along, would decide not to risk it? I think not, in which case the whole reason for using such a nasty plant is spurious and Sam and I have just had our arms ripped to shreds, with thorn splinters in our hands, for no reason whatsoever!

And for my next rant, children.

While we were outside there were various of the local children around, doing what local children do, i.e., playing in the road, tormenting their new kitten by chasing it into the road, crawling around on their bellies in the dirt and generally acting like brats. To a large extent, most of that is not my business, and I would be the first to complain if other people were pushing themselves into my business. However, I do not have children. Do I therefore have any right to complain or even have an opinion on how other people bring up their children, or what are the "correct" way(s) of bringing up children. Is this one of those areas where I should just allow that those people who have experienced children at first hand are the only ones who can have legitimate views on childrens' upbringing?

Initially, I felt that the answer was straightforward, but on giving the matter further thought ( I was bored while cutting the hedge), the question was expended:
should those people not within any culture, group, society, etc., have the same rights to an opinion as those inside the group and thus with experience for example;
(a) should Westminster and city dwellers dictate to countryside residents how the countryside is run, especially on the fate of hunting and farming?
(b) should people without children sit in judgement on parents?
(c) should the UK be run largely from Brussels as part of a United States of Europe?
(d) should Wales and Scotland be run form London?
(e) should Christians and the centralised state interfere in the running of other religions or cultures within the UK or elsewhere?

OK, so I was very bored while cutting the hedge, but it was very spiky.

Oh, and Dan - there are at least 7 innuendoes somewhere within this message...

Conspiracies

Is it human nature to assume that everything that is not in your own circle of influence, friends and knowledge is by definition a conspiracy aimed at:
(a) preparing the world for an alien takeover;
(b) hiding the fact that the world has already been taken over;
(c) ensuring that the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful;
(d) ensuring that the poor stay disnfranchised;
(e) the continued dominance of the freemasons / communists / fascists / Christians / Army / business interests / Zionists / science;
(f) predicting the future complies with predictions in ancient texts.

Sky TV are pulling all the strands of this together in a series of conspiracies, with "compelling evidence", "documentary proof" and "expert testament". None of it, of course, stands up to much scrutiny. So far in the series, they have dealt with:
- hidden codes in the Bible which predicted Hitler and the man on the moon;
- the "fact" that the Titanic did not sink, but was instead the largest insurance fraud in history;
crop circles;
- the bombings of the Twin Towers were planned by the US government;
- George Bush and Tony Blair are part of an international secret society which ensures that the staus quo remains.

Didcot's Public Bins

Firstly, I would like to apologise in advance. This is a very specific rant, and afterwards, I suspect, you will be none the wiser.

The estate on which I live, Ladygrove in Didcot, is a modern estate, built after 1988, and has a reasonable network of cycle paths, dog walking tracks, paths and roads. At strategic places there are bins and dog waste bins. There is a usually a large amount of rubbish outside the shops and pub which does not get cleared up. However, the bins are used by people walking around the estate, as indeed they should be.

These are emptied on a reasonably regular basis, although in some cases they could be more often. My problem comes in the way in which they are emptied. I assume that the council amenities department send a refuse van around the bins and that the wastes are treated as general household refuse. The evidence of this is twofold. Firstly, as would be expected, the bins are occasionally empty. Secondly, and this is my issue, there is a large pile of small waste plastic bags (freezer bags, sandwich bags, etc.), all neatly tied and containing a small amount of substance, in a pile to the side of the bin. Again, I am assuming a lot here, but I suspect with reasonable accuracy. The most logical conclusion is that dog walkers are putting bags of dog waste into the bins (in preference to the specific dog waste bins which are usually some distance away) and then these are being taken out by the refuse collectors.

The pile of waste bags never get taken away, they remain until they get very soggy, flooded, kicked into the hedgerows or otherwise litter the rest of the estate. I understand that there is something of a health hazard in the bin men taking away dog waste, but there are a lot of problems with the approach being taken:
more people are affected by dog excreta being scattered around the estate;
there is no signage or warning that bagged dog mess is not permitted in the bins;
there seems to be no way for the bin men to be sure both that the bags actually contain dog mess (I can't believe that they check each bag), and that there they are actually removing all the bagged dog mess from the bins;
the whole process seems to decrease from the overall level of Environmental Health, which is ironic from the Environmental Health Department.

As I see it, there are several solutions, which to the best of my knowledge have not been tried:
clearly warn people that bagged dog mess is not allowed in the bins;
provide specific bins next to all of the normal bins;
accept that there will be dog wastes in the bins and develop procedures for ensuring that the bin men are protected (e.g., a specific round performed in the same way as for the dog waste bins themselves).

Of course, I could be wrong and there could be a far better explanation for the bags of rubbish, but I suspect that I am right.

Thank you for your indulgence.

Head and Shoulders

And I'm sorry, but if your girlfriend has stolen your bathrobe, scent, boxer shorts and rubber ducky, then you have a slight problem. However, if she wants to steal your Head and Shoulders for Men then I suspect she is the one with the problem. The shampoo is perfectly safe. SAFE, I tell you, SAFE..

Sorry, all got a bit too much for me then.

Kandoo

If you can wipe your arse with Kandoo surely you can wipe it with bog roll.