Charlie Hebdo - Free speech, racism and resistance

The attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo that left 12 people dead sent shock waves around the world.  Many people have felt uncomfortable with defending the magazine though, believing it's content to be offensive and bigoted.  This leaves many unsure on what is the right stance to take in the aftermath of the killings.

Whatever can be said about Charlie Hebdo as a publication, there can be no doubt what-so-ever that the killings were wrong.  No caveats of "but..." on the end of that, it was just wrong.  There is no cartoon imaginable that could deserve the drawer to be executed.

And lets face it, there is always the opportunity to offend.  I know this very well from comedy.  I've even done family friendly improv-comedy shows that have lead to complaints. 

What I have learnt from this is that whilst you can argue your corner to discuss issues around a potential misunderstanding, you cannot tell someone what they can are cannot be offended by.  It is entirely down to the point of view of the individual.

Charlie Hebdo offended many with various cartoons that can, and correctly in my view, be considered bigoted.  Perhaps there is more nuance to many of them than you would realise on first viewing, but there are certainly aspects that generalise about racial minorities.  This is racism.

The main cause of offence for Muslims of course are the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed.  Any image of Muhammed is considered harem, strictly forbidden.

It may seem extreme to non-Muslims, but consider the myriad images of Jesus that depict him as a white, western male, like a pensive Brad Pitt after a bout of the shits.  That should be offensive to Christians, but instead the image has stuck.

Whilst some would say Muslims shouldn't be offended by the cartoons, that to me is not the point.  They are offended by it.  Not just some perceived section of the religion that is deemed "fundamentalist" or "extreme", but potentially all of them.  What is the point of that?

In France there were Unity demonstrations attended by millions of people.  Many holding Je Suis Charlie banners, and some holding Je Suis Ahmed banners.  At the very head of the march was superb showing of sheer, brilliant, hypocrisy.

I wonder if the other few million are shouting "hold up!"

Leading political figures from around the world led the demonstration, linking arms in their own sign of unity.  Unity, that is, in getting a nice photo op, not unity with the rest of the demonstration as can be seen in the picture above.

Above all though is their hypocrisy in marching in defence of free speech.  They all have crimes against their names in this respect, but to name just a few:

• Sameh Shoukry, Egypt Foreign minister - Egypt currently has three Al-Jazeera journalists in prison on "Terrorism" charges.  In July 2013 1000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood were slaughtered when trying to demonstrate.  There are 40,000 political prisoners in jail
• Ahmet Davutoglu, Prime Minister of Turkey - The country that held the record for the most journalists in prison anywhere in the world in 2012 and 2013
• Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel - 7 journalists murdered in attacks n Gaza in 2014.

As I said though, every leaders government has crimes in its name to some degree or other against freedom of speech.

It's not just world leaders who have a conflicting view on free speech, we all do.  Mehdi Hassan in an excellent article in the New Statesman talks about this conflict.  He points out that Charlie Hebdo fired one of it's cartoonists, Maurice Sinet, in 2008 for making anti-Semitic remarks.  So attacking Muslims is fine, commendable even, but attacking Jewish people means you loose your job.

In no way am I defending anti-Semitism, but again, it's certainly a hypocritical position to take.  He also pointed out that in a YouGov poll, 82% of the UK's voters said they would like to see jail sentences for those who burn poppies!

You can't vigorously defend free speech unless you defend the right for someone to say something that deeply offends you.  That's the point.

"All these political arguments are all good and fine," I hear you say, "but when are you going to mention Boyzone?"

Don't worry fans, that time is now.

The reason why, is that this debate reminds me of when Stephen Gately died in 2009, and the furore that followed after a piece was published in the Daily Mail by Jan Moir.  She blamed his death on his lifestyle, which was seen as her essentially blaming his death on him being Gay.

Unsurprisingly, the balloon went up over that.  The Press Complaints Commission received over 1000 complaints, possibly record breaking.  And understandably so, it was an appalling piece of gutter "journalism".

At the same time Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party, was appearing on Question Time.  As soon as it was announced he would be appearing there was an explosion of protests in response, saying he should not be allowed on the program.  Needless to say, free speech was a hot topic at the time.

When asked on Question Time whether the Daily Mail should have published the article by Jan Moir the entire panel said that they should be free to publish, and clearly said that there should be no pressure from Government to change any legal framework to stop such freedom of expression.

The only person to say they shouldn't have published was Nick Griffin.  It's fair to say that as a life long committed Nazi, he ain't exactly "Gay-friendly".  However, for the first time in his life, he was right.

The problem was the framing of the argument.  The right answer, to me, is pretty obvious.  Should the Daily Mail have published the article?  No.  Should they have been free to publish the article?  Yes.

You have to defend freedom of expression completely, but individuals and organisations still have the choice of how to express themselves.  If a columnist at the Daily Mail sent the editor an article detailing their view that Jimmy Saville was such a good entertainer he deserved to have a few under age girls as personal sex slaves, do you think they would publish it?  Of course not!

Should they be free to?  Yes.  But then people would stop buying the paper, which is our freedom. A freedom I use to my advantage every day.

Rewinding slightly though, were the protests right saying that Nick Griffin shouldn't be allowed on Question Time?  Yes, I think they were.  The reason is that he is a Nazi.  They hide what they truly believe in the hope of gaining respectability in order to grow their organisation.  Organisations that wish to gain power, and once they do, would impose a system with no freedom of speech what-so-ever.  No democracy, just Fascist rule.

You cannot have the right to free speech if you wish to smash it.

One worrying trend following the attacks in Paris has been the rise in Islamophobic attacks in France.  Largely unreported in the media, 26 Mosques have been attacked, with such things as pigs heads, grenades, and even someone shooting a gun through a window.  60 attacks have been reported, but there may be many more that have gone unreported.

Do you think that the two gunmen who carried out the killings at the offices of Charlie Hebdo did so because of some cartoons?  That is why they targeted the office, but is that really why you would be willing to fill?

They were willing to kill, and sacrifice themselves,because of the ongoing bloodshed of Muslims around the world.  Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the list just goes on and on.  We are presented an image in the Britain of all these conflict zones being "over there".  Europe and America is "over here".

9 people shot in Paris shocks you.  Many more slaughtered anywhere in the Middle East and you don't care.  However, Muslims are taught to feel a connection with everyone of their faith.  Those countries aren't merely "over there" for them.

But also, they are angry for other reasons.  They face problems at home of racism of course, but also the effects of austerity, of job losses, of cuts in services and benefits.  Problems that effect us all.

There is the message from our Government that is like a parent, putting an arm around Muslims and saying "it's ok, you're welcome here.  But whilst you're under my roof, you must live by my rules."  The problem is, our government is an abusive parent.

So a number of Muslims are angry.  And they have absolutely every right to be.  Furious in fact.  You think white people don't have the same issues?  Why do you think people get involved with the EDL or other such extremist organisations?

People feel the need to fight, but they don't know in what direction to punch.  EDL fight Muslims and immigration and multi-culturalism in general.  The terrorists in Paris attacked cartoonists.  Charlie Hebdo attacks immigrants.

EDL and the terrorist are punching sideways, attacking people who are actually in the same shit as they are. Charlie Hebdo punches down, those people who are actually the most affected.  What we need to do is all unite together and punch up.

To do that we need to organise and unite where possible, be a pole to attract people to the real fight.

Join the demonstrations in London, Cardiff or Glasgow on 21st March to Stand up to Racism.  It's not the answer, but it's certainly asking the right question.

Football - racism, rape and the beautiful game

Rapist Ched Evans (former footballer)

Without wishing to start this blog with too controversial a tone I just want to make clear that I'm really not a fan of racism or rape.  I know, what a weirdo!  What can I say, I've just not ever been that much of an arsehole.

However, I bloomin' love football.  Now, you would expect that those two statements wouldn't have any need to go together and yet, they do.  Just like toast and Marmite.  Dreadful, awful Marmite.

Football has been a playground of inconsistencies for years, and something that I'm no stranger to myself as can be read HERE in my blog from April 2013.

For a start, just look at the global governing body. FIFA.  Prince Ali Bin Al Hussein has stepped forward to say he will stand as candidate in the leadership elections in a bid to remove Sepp Blatter form the post.  He is being supported by figures such as Uefa president Michel Platini and the English FA.

That's right, the state of democracy is so bad within FIFA that we are looking to elect a Prince.  It shows how backward FIFA is when a member of royalty is being seen as a great reformer.  Seriously, it's only just caught up in time with Feudalism!

The FIFA ruling body

Then of course you have the footballers.  Aside from accusations, there is quite a healthy list of criminal convictions within the game, including assault and death caused by dangerous driving.

One lovely chap is Marlon King.  Already with a list of criminal convictions more impressive than his list of clubs played for, he is currently in jail for dangerous driving.  I think the jewel in his crown though is his 2009 conviction for groping a woman then breaking her nose.  What a Champions League level dick!

But of course, we all know where this leading.  Ched Evans.  He used to be a footballer.  Now he is just a rapist.

However, he would like to no longer be a rapist and go back to being a footballer.  There are many crying out at the injustice of the public pressure against Ched Evans, saying that he should have the freedom to join a new club.  Unfortunately for Ched Evans he gave up that freedom when he raped that girl.  Soz Ched.

The most annoying aspect of the macho nature within football is the unrepentant sexism.  There are many who simply refuse to ever believe any accusation of rape against a footballer.  I have heard all kinds of unpleasant arguments, often revolving around the suggestion that the girls just do it to make money.

Well perhaps the girl in the Ched Evans rape case did wish that one day she could own 5 houses.  Well that wish has kind of come true now she has been forced to move home 5 times in 3 years to try and protect her identity.  Her life is in ruins.

There are arguments that say Ched Evans shouldn't be allowed to join a football club because he hadn't apologised.  Others say that a convicted rapist should never be allowed to be a footballer, with the role model aspect for children that goes with the job.

Protests against Ched Evans being re-signed

I personally believe that for any criminal system to work their has to be the chance for rehabilitation.  The chance for a perpetrator to accept the consequences of their actions, understand what they have done is wrong, and then change for the better.

With that in mind I believe that any footballer convicted of a crime should be able to be rehabilitated, and given the chance to return to the game.

This could cause arguments between me and friends.  Not in the case of Ched Evans however, as he has refused to accept responsibility for his crime nor any suggestion he did anything wrong.  Therefore, he has not been rehabilitated.

Yes, he's served his jail sentence and no, that is not enough.

Yes, he has now "apologised".  It says a lot about Ched Evans that even his apologies are forced.

Absolutely pathetic.  Like John Terry apologising for making racist remarks to Anton Ferdinand only after being found guilty by the FA, this apology means nothing.

It really is a sorry state of affairs.

But, despite all this, I still love football.  I can't help it, I really can't.

Sport to me is about drama.  Real drama.  I hate watching soap operas because of all the clichés, because I know what is going to happen.  Football is improvised, made up in the moment.  Yes, at times it can be dull, but at others it can blow your mind.

Manchester United winning the European cup with two late goals after being a goal down for almost 90 minutes.  Utterly amazing.  Never could a film, play or a book get as explosive a reaction from people as a moment like that can.  It cannot be scripted.

The corruption, bigotry and misogyny in football are starting to feel like clichés though.  For the art form that is truly lived in the moment, maybe it is time to change the script.

The beautiful game

Ed Milliband and his "lack of personality" politics

Ed Milliband and Wallace.  A better brother than David, to be fair.

Increasingly, it seems, personality is dominating politics.  Especially the world of mainstream politics.  But then, this shouldn't be surprising.  Deciding on who to vote for in elections should come down to differences in policy, differences in the ideological outlook of the party in question.  But there doesn't seem to be any difference.

Living is tough, and it's felt like this for years now.  There are no leading political figures who are coming up with an alternative. Not even the suggestion of one.  As such, it's hardly surprising that when we decide which political party to vote for that personality is where we start.

In these depressing terms Ed Milliband is currently losing amongst the leaders of the three main parties.  According to official YouGov polls he's even less popular than Nick Clegg.  That's like finding out your girlfriend is dumping you for Julien Blanc!

The Sun, along with the rest of the right wing press, enjoy making as many disparaging comments about Ed Milliband's appearance as they can.  One repeated aspect has been to compare him to Wallace.

In many ways of course this is a weak argument as Wallace appears to be far more human like in his appearance.  Also, Ed Milliband would kill to have even just an inch of Wallace's likeability.

The next obvious thing for columnists and political cartoonists to employ would be to compare anyone close to him as being like Gromit, Wallace's faithful hound.  Except for this comparison to work you would need someone, anyone, to openly ally themselves to Ed Milliband in the first place.

Instead, the bulk of the Labour movement appear to be distancing themselves from him as much as possible.  Almost like being unpopular is a disease you can get from close contact.

There are indeed many who would prefer Ed Balls to replace Ed Milliband as leader.  A bizarre concept if you are just looking at personality as he doesn't exactly exude a winning confidence.  Also, as immature as it is... he's called Balls.  I mean, come on...

Of course personality shouldn't be the issue.  I'm adding to the criticism here as well, I know that.  But the problem is, he doesn't give us anything else to go on.

Compared to all the other leaders, he doesn't say anything different.  Austerity is necessary, immigration is a problem, we all need to tighten our belts.  It's the same script that all the other leaders are reading from.

When you realise that, why not decide on who to vote for according to the colour of their tie or how good they look eating a sandwich?

Ed Millband eating a bacon sandwich.  Erm... that's it.

In fact, at the next election, the ballot paper should have the names of the parties represented removed and simply comprise of pictures of the different nominees eating sandwiches.  Sounds glib, but if it was actually a beauty contest at least Nigel Farage would miss out!

Only 4 years ago, it actually looked different.  In the Labour Party leadership election we had various options.  The favourite choice was David Milliband, who represented a continuation of Blairite politics.  Nice suit, nice smile, business as usual.  Privatisation and genocide, hand in hand, just like his old boss.

On the left was Diane Abbott.  Essentially there for the sake of it, but that being no bad thing.  If she could help drag the argument to the left, all the better.  Any socialist with a vote knew she had no chance, but was glad she was there.

Then came Ed Milliband.  Not a left winger, nor had he really played a prominent role previously.  But he stood out.

At every election when a party suffers a set back prominent members interviewed speak of the need to "listen to the voters, and learn from our mistakes".  The mistakes are never actually openly declared, and as such nothing is learnt and the voters are ignored.

However, during the Labour Party leadership Ed Milliband said that the Labour party had made a number of mistakes, such as the Iraq War.  Wow!

Yes, it's the bleeding obvious, but from a candidate that actually stood a chance of winning, this was amazing.  Faced with the prospect that maybe real change could happen within the Labour Party, it is hardly surprising that ordinary members and Trade Union members (who also had the right to vote in the election if their Union was affiliated to the Labour Party) flocked to him.

Now, 4 years later, it of course turned out to be a lot of smoke.  Now he sticks to the script, and has nothing to say for himself.  Tired, boring and pointless.  His comparison to an animated work of fiction is by far the most interesting aspect of his existence.

We deserve better than this.  At the next election I, along with many others, will vote for Labour.  We always do, and we have to hold our noses as we do it, but we know that even now there is a difference between Labour and the Tories.  Paper thin though it may be.

Working people - the alternative to Dave, Nick and Ed

If there is anything to learn from mainstream politics as it now stands it's that if nothing else, the solution will not come from elections.  The system itself is utterly corrupt, and the parties available only want to slightly tweak it.

It needs changing.  Utterly and fundamentally.  Grass roots campaigning, active Trade Union membership, there are other alternative forms of democracy.  It's not enough just to get angry, but it's a start.  If we accept it the way it is, we leave all the big decisions to whoever has received the most effective media training in how to eat their dinner.

Student life, then and now

This week I had an article published online with Now Then Magazine, an arts, culture and politics magazine in Manchester.  In this article I look at the impact of the student population returning to the city, and reflect on how my experience coming to the city in 2001 would compare to today.  Enjoy!

http://nowthenmagazine.com/manchester/issue-13/student-life/

What exactly is militant Liberalism?

The militants lair

Comedian Andrew Lawrence caused something of a minor shit-storm in comedy circles last week by posting on Facebook criticism of comedians appearing on BBC programs such as Mock the Week.  The general gist was that there are a lot of comedians making cheap jokes about UKIP, and he blames a liberal elite within the corporation, and the laziness of comics.

What could have been a contribution to a debate, however incorrect, was somewhat mired with statements bemoaning

"...moronic, liberal back-slapping on panel shows like Mock The Week where aging, balding, fat men, ethnic comedians and women-posing-as-comedians, sit congratulating themselves on how enlightened they are about the fact that UKIP are ridiculous and pathetic."

I think the part that particularly annoyed many was the concept of "women-posing-as-comedians."  It feels almost like he is imagining a producer with a need to fill quotas desperately searching for any woman he can find.  Eventually the char lady has powder applied and, bewildered and blinking under the studio lights, is sat next to Hugh Dennis and told not to break anything.

Contained within the entire statement are a number of breath-taking examples of foetid nonsense.  However, I don't intend on writing specifically in response to Andrew Lawrence, as plenty have already taken up that challenge.

What I will do though is pick up on one particular gem from it all.  He accuses the BBC of "deeply ingrained militant Liberal politics."

What exactly are militant Liberal politics?

The campaign against library closures steps up a notch

For a start I can't imagine an armed struggle being waged by a political faction in the name of liberalism.

A sniper assassinating government advisers on drug policies in a bid to further the aim of de-criminalising marajuana; "Outrage" kidnapping The Queen and forcing her to marry a Lesbian; a "No to page 3" activist pretending to go in for a topless photo shoot only to reveal under her blouse a bomb vest, taking out half of Fleet St.

Doesn't seem too likely does it?

Complaints about the BBC being too Liberal are not uncommon.  We hear it all the time from the likes of the Sun and other right-wing newspapers.  But then, complaining about bias of the corporation against a political position is not just the reserve of the right.

At the height of the anti-war movement against the invasion of Iraq we were always amazed at how you could get so little coverage of demonstrations, despite 10,000's people taking to the streets.  Thousands marching on any subject should surely be newsworthy?

When Israel stepped up it's murderous campaign against Palestinians, activists were again complaining about a pro-Israel bias.  But at the same time Zionists and other supporters of Israel were complaining that it instead had a pro-Palestinian bias!

What that suggests is that while it may not be perfect, and will always make mistakes, maybe the BBC is pretty unbiased after all.

Anyway, the suggestion that UKIP could complain about bias against them from the BBC is ridiculous.  Can anyone remember an episode of Question Time that didn't feature one of their members on the panel?  Whenever immigration is mentioned in any capacity in the news, there always appears to be a UKIP spokesperson on hand.

There is every possibility you may be reading that last bit of criticism of UKIP thinking "but you would say that, you're a Liberal"  To which I would say "get stuffed, I'm not a Liberal!  I'm a Socialist!!"

You can't argue with facts

A liberal wants to gently tweak the already existing Status Quo, where-as I want to change the entire system because it's the system that's at fault.  Agree with me or not but you would have to admit, that's militant!

A few comedians on Mock the Week suggesting Nigel Farage looks like a muppet?  No, that's not militant.  I understand in that context why supporters of right wing parties might complain about their treatment.

I mean, thank God no-one ever mentions Ed Miliband's appearance... oh, wait...

Like a hole in the head

Some teeth, earlier

Last week I went to the dentists for the first time in over 10 years.  Needless to say, I was nervous.

Nerves are not the reason I hadn't been for so long by the way.  I'm not generally an anxious patient, particularly when it comes to the dentist.  I used to go regularly when I was a kid right through my time at Uni, and every time I went I was told how good my teeth were and never received any treatment.

That was the problem.  I haven't gone in so long because each time I did go, before I even had time to get comfy in the chair I was being sent on my way with oral praise ringing in my ears (by oral I don't mean spoken, although it was, I mean it was about... never mind... ).

This meant going to the dentist was nothing to fear, so it wasn't a big deal.  As such, as an adult, I didn't bother going.  I never even registered with a dentist all the time I've lived up north.

At the same time though, lets not pretend that my sheer laziness hasn't played a role in this as well.  There are many very important things in my life that don't get done because I can't be arsed.  If I got bitten by a Black Widow spider in my living room and the serum was in the fridge, I'd still wait until the end of Coronation St to go and get it.  And I don't even like Coronation St.

Clearly, as a child, my Mother took the responsibility.  As an adult, that passed to, unfortunately, me.  Have you met me?

However, I now live with Sally.  Regular readers will know she is the nice lady who makes me coffee in the morning, puts morale boosting notes in my lunch (as in, in the bag, not as a sandwich filling), and even recently taught me how to ride a bike (as detailed here).

You would have thought Jesus' CV would mean he could
get a better job than a dental assistant, but there you go

She also decided that my health was actually important.  Who knew?

And yes, unusually for me, I was a bit scared.  It had been that long, who knows what was wrong with my teeth.  I hadn't been in any pain at all, but still, what would he find?  Perhaps my molars were packed with Ebola.

But still, I did go.  The staff were all very pleasant and the experience was fine.  Until the end when he explained I needed a filling.  After a decade of wilful dental absenteeism, I suppose I got off lightly.  All the same, this was my first one ever.

So this morning I've been back and had it done.  My favourite bit was when he said "I'll be doing some drilling, do you want injections for anaesthetic?"  WHO WOULD SAY NO??

I know some people are afraid of needles but he was going to drill in to my head, and I had the choice of whether to just go ahead and feel it all OR NOT!

Needless to say I said yes, and very bloody quickly too.  As such I felt nothing apart from the vibration of various things in my mouth (and no, I've never said that in any other context before).

It all took under half an hour in total and cost £32.  I only mention that for any American readers.  Apparently, they would be looking at $250+.  Well, anything less would be COMMUNISM wouldn't it?

Filling done, the dentist said that otherwise I had excellent teeth.  Jolly good, I can leave it another 10 years then, right?

Driven to distraction

A Car

In a perfect world I wouldn't need a car.  Public transportation would get me wherever I needed, and at an affordable cost.  But that’s simply not the case.

I briefly had to commute from Bolton, where I lived at the time, in to Manchester where I worked.  It was hard to understand why the train system could claim to be short of money travelling at these peak times.

Stuffed in to carriages like victims escaping an atrocity (and Bolton isn't really that bad!), with guards at the entrance to the station to ensure nobody got through without a ticket.  They couldn't complain about the lack of numbers.

What was more annoying was that I was paying significantly more for a ticket than I would have done for fuel.  Yes, in my car I would have spent a lot of time queuing in traffic, but on the train I was given an experience that makes you feel jealous of veal.  When you add on the fact that the car took me door to door whilst with the train I had to also walk 20 minutes as part of my commute in all weathers, the ticket price was definitely not representing value for money.

Aside from the commute to work, the real reason I chose to drive a number of years ago was for comedy.  Any kind of career in stand up is virtually impossible without a car now.  There are a minority of pro acts who don’t drive, but these are pretty much all people who got established a number of years ago when the circuit was somewhat smaller to say the least.

 

Another car

Without a doubt though, one of the most stress making aspects of my career is to do with cars.  Fuel costs, repairs, the lot.  There’s nothing like driving along without a care in the world only for the oil light to come on followed by the car uncontrollably going up to maximum revs whilst huge clouds of smoke pour out of your exhaust pipe.

That example was at the end of last year and meant my turbo needed replacing at a cost of over £400!  Sometimes the costs can rack up that much that I feel that my existence is solely to earn money to continually fuel and maintain a car.

I’ve not had a lot of luck with cars.  I managed to write off the first car I owned for a start.  Whilst parking.  In my own car park!

Sounds stupid, and it was.  I just whizzed in too quick like the fearless boy racer moron I was.  Realising I was going too fast I went to slam on my brakes but my foot slipped on to the accelerator.  I was only to achieve a few feet of acceleration before hitting a wall, but that was enough to crumple up my bonnet.

As horrible as it was, I can’t really complain.  Friends had some sympathy at first thinking it was a low level perimeter wall I hadn't seen.  When they found out it was in fact a three story block of flats, their sympathy evaporated.  Needless to say, I couldn't really miss it.

If I learnt one lesson from that, aside from the obvious one about avoiding stationary... buildings, it was that if no-one else is involved, DO NOT claim on the insurance.

The car I wrote off was an old Punto, and after taking in to account my excess the insurance company paid out just £500.  Needless to say, they’ve taken many more times that amount of money from me over the years through increased premiums.  At its worst, I had pay an annual premium of £1600!

Over the last 5 years I’ve managed to stay clear of accidents, but don’t let that fool you into thinking that meant I could stay trouble free when it came to cars.  No, instead, the cars themselves would cause their own problems.

I had three Vauxhall’s in a row that all had some weird intermittent fault wrong with them.  Intermittent means that when the fault occurs you can’t drive the damn thing, but when a mechanic comes to look at it they can’t find a problem.  So there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Yet another... oh no, wait, that's an owl on a skateboard

Call me old fashioned, but I just want a car that works.  Simple.

So I made the leap, and spent real money on a car.  Part exchanged my pointless car in return, and drove off a Skoda Fabia that’s only three years old.  On paper, this should mean I have a dependable car that won’t cause me trouble but what it also means is that if this one causes me grief I am significantly out of pocket.

Fingers crossed it does work, otherwise I’m back on the trains again!