Grumpy Old Sod Dot Com - an internet voice for the exasperated. Sick of the nanny state? Pissed off with politicians? Annoyed by newspapers? Irate with the internet? Tell us about it!

Send us an email
Go back
11th September 2013: The world's gone mad and I'm the only one who knows
30th August 2013: Isn't sarcasm a wonderful thing?
25th August 2013: Operation Yewtree has turned British justice on its head
13th August 2013: Black is white. Fact. End of.
11th August 2013: Why 'human rights' is nothing of the sort ...
11th August 2013: Electric cars, not as green as they're painted?
6th August 2013: How the British nation treats its friends ...
8th July 2013: The BBC biased? How can that be? They're so NICE!
26th June 2013: Think this country is a bastion of freedom and justice and a shining model for the world? Think again.
18th June 2013: Wrinklies unite, you have nothing to lose but your walking frames!
17th June 2013: is the end finally approaching for this evil woman?
31st May 2013: Now it's official - the BBC really is a left-wing propaganda machine
31st May 2013: Those evil bastards are at it again. Yes, you've guessed it - social services!
27th May 2013: Well-known TV presenter talks sense. No good will come of it.
24th May 2013: British justice is best? Only for the very poor, apparently ...
17th May 2013: Some actual FACTS about climate change (for a change) from actual scientists ...
10th May 2013: An article about that poison gas, carbon dioxide, and other scientific facts (not) ...
10th May 2013: We need to see past the sex and look at the crimes: is justice being served?
8th May 2013: So, who would you trust to treat your haemorrhoids, Theresa May?
8th May 2013: Why should citizens in the 21st Century fear the law so much?
30th April 2013: What the GOS says today, the rest of the world realises tomorrow ...
30th April 2013: You couldn't make it up, could you? Luckily you don't need to ...
29th April 2013: a vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE, because THE ABOVE are crap ...
28th April 2013: what goes around, comes around?
19th April 2013: everyone's a victim these days ...
10th April 2013: Thatcher is dead; long live Thatcher!
8th April 2013: Poor people are such a nuisance. Just give them loads of money and they'll go away ...
26th March 2013: Censorship is alive and well and coming for you ...
25th March 2013: Just do your job properly, is that too much to ask?
25th March 2013: So, what do you think caused your heterosexuality?
20th March 2013: Feminists - puritans, hypocrites or just plain stupid?
18th March 2013: How Nazi Germany paved the way for modern governance?
13th March 2013: Time we all grew up and lived in the real world ...
12th March 2013: Hindenburg crash mystery solved? - don't you believe it!
6th March 2013: Is this the real GOS?
5th March 2013: All that's wrong with taxes
25th February 2013: The self-seeking MP who is trying to bring Britain down ...
24th February 2013: Why can't newspapers just tell the truth?
22nd February 2013: Trial by jury - a radical proposal
13th February 2013: A little verse for two very old people ...
6th February 2013: It's not us after all, it's worms
6th February 2013: Now here's a powerful argument FOR gay marriage ...
4th February 2013: There's no such thing as equality because we're not all the same ...
28th January 2013: Global Warming isn't over - IT'S HIDING!
25th January 2013: Global Warmers: mad, bad and dangerous to know ...
25th January 2013: Bullying ego-trippers, not animal lovers ...
19th January 2013: We STILL haven't got our heads straight about gays ...
16th January 2013: Bullying ego-trippers, not animal lovers ...
11th January 2013: What it's like being English ...
7th January 2013: Bleat, bleat, if it saves the life of just one child ...
7th January 2013: How best to put it? 'Up yours, Argentina'?
7th January 2013: Chucking even more of other people's money around ...
6th January 2013: Chucking other people's money around ...
30th December 2012: The BBC is just crap, basically ...
30th December 2012: We mourn the passing of a genuine Grumpy Old Sod ...
30th December 2012: How an official body sets out to ruin Christmas ...
16th December 2012: Why should we pardon Alan Turing when he did nothing wrong?
15th December 2012: When will social workers face up to their REAL responsibility?
15th December 2012: Unfair trading by a firm in Bognor Regis ...
14th December 2012: Now the company that sells your data is pretending to act as watchdog ...
7th December 2012: There's a war between cars and bikes, apparently, and  most of us never noticed!
26th November 2012: The bottom line - social workers are just plain stupid ...
20th November 2012: So, David Eyke was right all along, then?
15th November 2012: MPs don't mind dishing it out, but when it's them in the firing line ...
14th November 2012: The BBC has a policy, it seems, about which truths it wants to tell ...
12th November 2012: Big Brother, coming to a school near you ...
9th November 2012: Yet another celebrity who thinks, like Jimmy Saville, that he can behave just as he likes because he's famous ...
5th November 2012: Whose roads are they, anyway? After all, we paid for them ...
7th May 2012: How politicians could end droughts at a stroke if they chose ...
6th May 2012: The BBC, still determined to keep us in a fog of ignorance ...
2nd May 2012: A sense of proportion lacking?
24th April 2012: Told you so, told you so, told you so ...
15th April 2012: Aah, sweet ickle polar bears in danger, aah ...
15th April 2012: An open letter to Anglian Water ...
30th March 2012: Now they want to cure us if we don't believe their lies ...
28th February 2012: Just how useful is a degree? Not very.
27th February 2012: ... so many ways to die ...
15th February 2012: DO go to Jamaica because you definitely WON'T get murdered with a machete. Ms Fox says so ...
31st January 2012: We don't make anything any more
27th January 2012: There's always a word for it, they say, and if there isn't we'll invent one
26th January 2012: Literary criticism on GOS? How posh!
12th December 2011: Plain speaking by a scientist about the global warming fraud
9th December 2011: Who trusts scientists? Apart from the BBC, of course?
7th December 2011: All in all, not a good week for British justice ...
9th November 2011: Well what d'you know, the law really IS a bit of an ass ...

 

 
Captain Grumpy's bedtime reading. You can buy them too, if you think you're grumpy enough!
Readers wives. Yes, really!
More Grumpy Old Sods on the net

 

 
Older stuff
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Because The GOS is an old gent of impeccable manners and sensitivity, he's delayed posting this page until the fuss about the killing of Reeva Steenkamp, allegedly by Oscar Pistorius, has died down a little. But it's something he feels strongly about, so he could only wait so long.
 
You see, there was a storm of criticism about newspapers that reported Steenkamp's death and illustrated their stories with stock pictures of her doing her job, which was being photographed with not many clothes on. Yes, I'm sure she was a beautiful, intelligent person of great depth and perception, but she made a living by wearing a bikini. What's wrong with that? It's a line of work The GOS would be happy to adopt. Sadly he might not be quite as successful at it as she was, but his chances of being shot by a famous athlete are rather less.
 
But this was not to the liking of a number of commentators, including Marina Hyde of the Guardian and ... you'll never guess ... politician John Prescott, who found it offensive and sinister that these pictures should be used to illustrate the sad story.
 
We're not sure what to think about this. Is it a symptom of a streak of deep puritanism running beneath the skin of certain people? Is it a hypocritical response that seizes on any event, not matter how tragic, to belabour the same old left-wing same old and force the rest of us to toe some hypothetical line?
 
Or is it just plain old-fashioned stupidity?
 
What we and no doubt many others want to know is ... if it's all right to show pictures of a girl in a bikini when she's alive, why does it become inappropriate the moment she dies? Does her rather delectable flesh suddenly transmogrify into something distasteful as the breath leaves her body? Is this the reverse of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, whereby the communion bread and wine are mysteriously and in defiance of all logic changed into the actual flesh and blood of Christ while maintaining the outward appearance of Hovis Wholemeal and cheap plonk from Oddbins?
 
Or is it a question of degree? Presumably it's OK to show Reeva Steenkamp's very lovely face, but not her body? If so, which actual bits of her body become taboo? Her legs? Her bottom? Her shoulders? What about her shoulder-blades, are they a forbidden area the moment she pops her clogs, or do they stay within the bounds of decency while her tits become unmentionable?
 
And does this moral delicacy apply only to a woman who made a living by having her picture taken, or does it apply to anyone? Let's see ... Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's quite dead. Can we look at pictures of her? Margaret Thatcher isn't going to last much longer, probably, so let's get it sorted out in good time – will it be all right for the newly regulated, cribbed, cabined and confined press to publish her picture or will they have to draw a discrete veil?
 
How about this lady? She's not a model, but her job gets her photographed in rather revealing clothes on many occasions. When she dies – which we sincerely hope won't happen for very many years – will the arbiters of good taste decree that all these pictures of her doing what she's famous for are suddenly indecent?
 
Changing tack only slightly, we read an article recently by someone called Snejana Farberov (Snejana? Is that a real name?) about Sports Illustrated which had “sparked a racial controversy” over its latest swimsuit edition which featured bikini-clad models posing with African and Chinese natives dressed in traditional garb.
 
One of the images that sparked outrage showed a blonde Caucasian model sitting on a traditional raft on a river in Guilin, Guangxi, being piloted by an elderly Chinese man sporting a typical cone hat. It's not clear whether it was the girl's bikini that did the damage, or the ridiculous hat worn by the boatman, or their juxtaposition. In a prominent feminist blog which we won't name because we don't want to give the harridans any publicity, writer Dodai Stewart accused Sports Illustrated of “perpetuating age-old stereotypes harking back to colonial times and using natives as fashion accessories while emphasizing the ‘centrality’ of the white models”.
 
Yep, I'm sure that's the thought that leapt to all our minds. Centrality is something that concerns The GOS every day, and it is of course outrageous to depict any ethnic person wearing clothing peculiar to his geographical location and ethnic tradition. Any photograph of any African tribesman or Himalayan Sherpa not dressed in jeans and a t-shirt should be burned and the photographer imprisoned; if he has had the temerity to depict a western-clad person in the same frame as someone ethnically dressed, that is of course far worse and Sharia Law should immediately apply, that's if it's all right to use Sharia Law to judge a non-Muslim.
 
'China has tons of skyscrapers and modern cities that make New York look rickety, but this image recreates an age-old narrative in which anything non-Western is quaint, backward and impoverished,' Stewart wrote. In future, then, it should be deemed unacceptable to publish any picture that depicts any part of a nation's past, so if your digital camera has a snapshot of Anne Hathaway's house in its memory you'd better delete it before the thought police come for you.
 
Dr David Leonard, an associate professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender, and Race Studies at Washington State University backed Stewart up, saying “beyond their use as human props, the natives in the images are imagined as servants there to please Westerners on their exotic adventure”. That's Downton Abbey off the airwaves, then. The maids and footmen there aren't just imagined as servants, they actually are servants, a dramatic depiction that flies totally in the face of left-wing ideology which prefers to pretend that the past didn't happen, because if it happened some of us might think it was all right.
 
A similar furore engulfed the French fashion magazine Numéro when it used a blonde model, Ondria Hardin, in a photograph entitled “African Queen”. It's not clear whether the problem was the heavy makeup or the fact that she is only 16 – probably both, for anyone who can find the body of a young woman distasteful will probably be offended by almost anything. There are just so many things to be wrong about, aren't there? - it's wrong to be young, it's wrong to be beautiful, it's wrong not the wrap your body head-to-toe in sack-cloth, it's terribly wrong these days to be blonde ...
 
And finally (well, not finally, because we know damn well the offence-takers will find plenty of other things to be outraged about – but finally on this page) we give you a model named Michelle Williams who was pictured on the cover of AnOther magazine wearing a feather in her hair. This of course was a massive faux-pas, because as everyone knows all feathers belong to the Native American Indians and nobody else is allowed to use them.
 

 
Blogs labelled it 'offensive', 'racist' and 'sterotypical' and demanded an apology. New York based online magazine Refinery29 said 'The photo is in black-and-white, so you can't tell for sure if they've altered her normally fair skin, but there is some definite contouring around the nose and the cheekbones that not only makes her look nearly unrecognizable, but also appears to mimic the stark relief of facial features often seen in early portraits of Native American women. 'The same mimicry applies her stoic, unsmiling pose - also a typical trope in that particular genre and period of art history.'
 
Wow, heavy stuff. You're not allowed to not smile and you mustn't sit still when having your photograph taken – that's racist. Another blogger ranted 'Am I glad that unlike most racist, stereotypical caricatures of American Indians in pop culture today, Michelle is not practically naked? Yes — but just as Blackface is never okay, Redface is never okay. Ever.'
 
Erm ... “redface”? It was a bloody feather, for Christ's sake, just a feather! That's next month's fancy-dress party scuppered, then.
 
Now that we've got to the end, we think we've made up our minds what lies behind all this. It's not a streak of puritanism, it's not a hypocritical response that seizes on any event to belabour us with left-wing fantasies.
 
It really is just plain old-fashioned stupidity. Like the monkeys who will, if they sit at a typewriter long enough, manage to form a few recognisable words, there are far too many feminist commentators who own a laptop and a dictionary and find that if they just string some long words together and make it sound really angry, no one will have the nerve or the sense to tell them that what they are saying is total bollocks.
 
Until now, that is.
 

 
Grumpy Old Sod.com - homepage
 

 
Use this Yahoo Search box to find more grumpy places,
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Copyright © 2013 The GOS
 
Grumpy Old Sod.com - homepage

 

Captain Grumpy's
Favourites
- some older posts

 
Campaign
 
Proposal
 
Burglars
 
Defence
 
ID cards
 
Old folk
 
Hairy man
 
Democracy
 
Mud
 
The NHS
 
Violence
 
Effluent
 
Respect
 
Litter
 
Weapons
 
The church
 
Blame
 
Parenting
 
Paedophiles
 
The Pope
 
Punishing
 
Racism
 
Scientists
 
Smoking
 
Stupidity
 
Swimming
 
Envirocrap
 
Spying