Yummy Tummies

Ended up watching that How to Look Good Naked thing last night…

This concerned me a little. The girl concerned had quite a sexy body (particularly the boobs), though it took the whole program for him to do something about the lank hair, and the vacuous tone of voice is probably beyond hope…

Anyway, what concerned me was this…

He spent the whole program telling her she had a yummy tummy, (this being the issue she was worried about), and we see shots of her buying sexy undies (good effort, ‘cos the ones she showed up in were fairly dire), yet half the time he is sculpting her clothes-sense he has her trussed up in some kind of flesh covered girdle. I mean this is not Bridget Jones and her “hello mummy” pants. OK I like curves and it would take quite a size of tummy to put me off someone when I saw them naked. But if I undressed someone and found them strapped up like a burns victim I’d run a fucking mile.

So much of fashion for “larger ladies”, at least in stupid programs like this seems to be hiding their shape and trying to look as skinny as the rest of them. Bah, I say.


Old men of St George

Morley, it seems is Britain’s most patriotic town.

I wonder where else will rise to the challenge set of beating this? Burnley? Blackburn?

It is interesting how “patriotism” and a high BNP presence go hand in hand…


So the government seems that it may have accepted the problems of studentification

Though it’s unclear what they plan to do about it. I think it’s very unlikely they can. I’ll be watching this one.

Of course this article doesn’t quite get the fact that actually the ghost-town of the holidays is less of a problem, though some plainly anti-local students might seem to disagree. The holidays is when we get some peace and quiet, I can enjoy sitting on my doorstep without the 5 cars the girls next door have clogging up the road, I’m not woken up every fucking night, and the streets are relatively free of vomit and discarded knickers.


Panic Stations… House prices are falling. Well kinda – they dropped this month and they’re only 1.1% higher than this time last year.

You’d think this signified the end of the world sometimes. Now, I fully admit that sometimes it galls me that had I had the nous to buy a house 10 years ago, I could have afforded one on my paltry salary (about £8.5k) that is where I live now and would be worth a 6 figure sum… And I do have some sympathy for people who have bought a house that may soon worth less than the remaining debt on it. Though that happens with computers… housing is a funny thing that is supposed to rise in value.

Yeh. Rather than a place to live, a house is this big investment that is supposed to make you richer. Ok, it might me good if you can make a bit of a return on your bachelor pad when you get wed and start dropping sprogs and need some space for them.

But houses are seen as a thing to make cash.

My main gripe is that I don’t have one. Not ‘cos I want to make it rich. Not even ‘cos I want to stop paying the rent to the pocket of a landlord – after all if you get a mortgage, a fair part of what you pay makes some banker rich, and I’d prefer it to go to the little old lady who owns my house (even if I suspect she was rich enough to pay for it cash…)

But I would like to be able to paint the walls whatever colour I want, convert the loft knowing I have the security to make it worth it, and not have the permanent worry that the landlady might peg it when I have no reserves for a deposit, or the 7.5 tonner it’ll take to move all my crap…

Sadly though I’d need to scrape aide a fair whack of cash and be earning twice what I do to even consider getting a mortgage on a 2 bed back to back in Leeds.

Of course the government has a little plan to try and ease this problem.

Well 2000 of them. If they are “key workers”, or social tenants. Key workers should be paid more. Period. We all should really, but if a nurse or a teacher can’t afford to live somewhere they should be being paid more. Its not fucking rocket science. But what about me..? I’m not a key worker. Nor a social tenant.

There was a time I could have been (and hence still be), when Leeds had slightly less of a housing crisis that it does now, a social tenant. I chose not to be, mainly because I didn’t need to. I got by. Now do I suffer for that mistake?

That still kinda disturbs me though… ‘cos like the “Right to Buy” fiasco they’ll all end up making a profit for these poor beleaguered key workers.

There is a “urgent need to build more homes”, the article above says. No Shit Sherlock. At the end of the day we are overcrowded, that’s why we need more homes, but there’s no palatable solution for that, it just strays into disgenics.

But where are they going to go? There’s loads of space in cities, but they are all second homes for rich folk who want a city pad and still kick up a stink when a lap-dancing club opens next door. And who owns them? If they are privately owned then they follow the same rise in price and become out of reach to many unless you earn a packet and/or are prepared for uber-debt. Are they state owned…? Association owned…? The last is bearable, but they they will be full to the brim from the very poor. Which is fine, but it’s us in the middle-low-skivvy bracket that suffer then.

I’m caught between the devil and the deep on my views here. I think I would like to own a home, but don’t want to get into the big money nonsense that goes with it. Neither do I subscribe to some watered down socialism of state or housing association properties.

Why can’t everyone have the house they need – no more, no less? Note I don’t say own. They should be owned, but not owned that you can sell them to make money. Owned in that they are yours, no one can take them away or tell you that you can’t paint the walls sky-blue-pink with yellow dots on. But not an extension of your bank account.

Oh… ‘cos that’s the sort of thing some free-thinking anarchist might think.