Impossible people, the vamipires of mental health

It has taken me my full life to really understand there are people I just can not get on with.  The saddest thing is some of these people are my closest relatives.  No matter how hard I try to talk reason with them it is as though I am on a different planet. They will not listen, and even if I begin by listening to them, to do my best with all the skills I've picked up, such as empathy, unconditional positive regard and active listening. They will not return the courtesy.  They are stuck in the same repeated behaviours and discussions time and again. No matter how I approach them the results are the same.  I if I give an inch they take a yard.  They always want to talk about themselves about their problems, about how things are so bad for them, they don't give a shit about pulling anyone else down into their insular quagmire of depression. Those of my family should be loving, compassionate and supportive, but everything is with a caveat. I resorted to not speaking to one person for about 12 months. Difficult seeing as I live with them, the self-centreness of them. I just can not handle it.  I want to communicate, to really chat but there is no avenue for words to be let in, the doors are closed. Realization and understanding in this situation are alien terms.

There are times I always question whether it is me, am I the one who has some mental illness because I can not communicate with them.  Yet I can communicate with many other people. Then the realisation breaks through it is not I who has the mental health issues it is them. One has been been hospitalised for mental health issues, another has been on long term anti-depressants and has varying degrees of agoraphobia, a third has been to counselling and recommended anti-depressants but refused them.  An in-law is an alcoholic and lives with the first depressed individual.  It's got the point I can recognise a mentally ill person faster than a cowboy can draw their gun in a duel. I too find I change my attitude and behaviour pattern when I am around my relatives, they have been given too much of my time and effort so now I don't want to even bother, I don't want to engage and this in itself could be another contributing factor.  However, I do my best not to converse to any great extent with them. Not engaging is a self preservation strategy and it doesn't waste heart ache and soul. I'd love them to change or to make an active effort to change their lives, but it seems to me there is no motivation to do so. They will carry on as they are, until the day they no longer breath.

These people do not just exist in families, they exist in every walk of life. The next worse place to encounter them is at work.  Here they sill remain impossible people but there is an unavailability about them. Some of them are able to climb the ladder of responsibility, they get into positions where it is inexplicable how they got there in the first place. It is inexplicable they are able to take the responsibility, and quite frankly they don't. I recall one woman many years ago at work who just talked a load of shit all the time. But staff had to listen to her because she was a middle manager. Eventually higher management got rid off her through a restructure and her next job was substantially reduced in grade and responsibility.  Another manager I remember with utter distaste was one who thought she was a lovey dovey actor type personality, however more than this she thought she knew best on everything. Those who did not share her opinion had no opinion worthy of listening to, she was said to have been responsible for giving her manger a mental break down. But the plain truth of the matter was, she was an invidious bully and  those around her had to suck up or they would become the next victims to her bullying practices.

I read an article about impossible people on the internet. Simply you are never going to change these people and at some point you have to let them go from your life, even if they are relatives. If all they do is pull you down and depress then there is no alternative.  One strategy mentioned is silence, another I guess is doing your dam best to make sure you see them as infrequently as possible. Or you can treat them like children.  Yet they are adults in every sense.  They have lived decades and haven't learnt or introspected on their actions, on how other may see them.  If they can't be bothered to listen to you why should you be bothered to listen to them. Let them get on with their life and be what they are going to be. If help is refused and the only help they really want is your own mental well being to be as warped as theirs. Then it's just not worth it, for I will guarantee depressed mentally ill family members will either not have a job or have a really crappy job and forever be moaning about it.  But they will not see they have any power to do anything about their own situation, preferring to attribute the locus of control outside of themselves.

The thing is, normal people can not actually deal with abnormal impossible people. Another expression I've read used for these persons is Emotional Vampires.  Which is so true. It becomes a difficult task keeping your own sanity around them. Stopping yourself from getting angry, or from getting into those vicious circle arguments which go nowhere and achieve nothing. They just will not learn or understand, and it takes your own realisation and conscious decision making process to stop your own behaviour from providing oxygen to their fires.  It also leads me to an inevitable conclusion, you can not expect emotional or psychological support from these people, you can not expect them see anything other than their own point of view. They will never break out of this and they will never change their ways or seek to improve their situation. Which means, you can only change  your ways or run for the hills. Up in those hills you may even find another person who knows where you are coming from. Stephen Covey in his book 7 Habits of Highly Effective people terms this as being Pro-active.  By this he means you have to change your own rose tinted spectacles through which the world is interpreted and how you act.  It's like consciously saying, this person may be the most obnoxious person in the world, but I'm not going to let anything they say or do have any meaning to myself.  Although insightful, it is very difficult to do, but it can be achieved.

South Africa and the signs

It has been sad that one of the after events to linger on in public consciousness is the fake sign language interpreter.  I really don't know who he thinks he his kidding but to me, he doesn't know how to sign at all. So it is pretty obvious he has more than 15 minutes of fame and he got paid a handsome wage for it as well. His excuse of having schizophrenia has not been verified by any medical professional, so it even compounds his lie further.  Further this suggests to me South Africa is has an element of corruption so deep in it, allowing a fake signer to interpret at an international world event which puts South Africa on the world stage is one of the worse things going.  A developing country should never of allowed this to happen in the first place. In my opinion the only thing this man should be signing is the receipt for his personal belongings after coming out of a cell.  If South African's take no action and fail to investigate this further it could suggest they are resigned to their own corruption and the world can not take them seriously. 

I ask could this be the return of a tribal state as well?  In watching an episode of the politics program called Question Time which was broadcast from Johannesburg it seemed evident a lot of black south African's felt angry at white South African's and contrary to Madella's view of reconciliation and forgiveness, these people came across as wanting not just their land back but blood.  It's clear the country is dissatisfied with Jacob Zuma and the ANC.  It is in a conflicting state of mind because it was the ANC Mandela was a member of, but as they say, things change. The danger is of an extreme right wing who now get a chance and foothold. If they do we'll see yet another African state at war with itself with mass murder and possibly genocide.

Who know's what the outcome is going to be over the next few years, but there is no doubt in my mind this is a country in the throws of political uncertainty.

Nick Clegg alone in the dark

In discussion with a colleague the name Clegg cropped up. Cleggy, Clegg, Clegg!  Yhere seemed to be general consensus.  Firstly, it was the wrong decision for Clegg to have joined the Tory party in a coalition. His reasons may have been because he wanted to be in power, but actually he already was in power, having the casting vote over both parties he could of reined in every single decision they both made. Instead he compromised on his party's own manifesto and knocked back the Liberal party by at least another 70 years. He had power and he was so blinded by siding to the right and making a single party.  The result is to now make him and the Liberals or Social Democrats or should we just say the third party look like a bunch of clowns following and elephant with the shits. For every day which goes past they get the biggest pile of dung dropped on them ever and can not avoid it no matter what they do. They are tied tightly to the backside of a beast called Toryville.  The second point we agreed on was how interesting it would be to see if Clegg could win his seat again, his original win was based on a promise to thousands of students particularly in his own constituency that fees would be banned. Right now if I was a student, I'd be planning to vote for any other party just to ensure Clegg lost his seat. Student unions and organizations are probably formulating strategies this very moment, between rounds of cheap beer and all night cramming sessions.

Unfortunately I can not see a clear winner for the next election either, Cameron is as fashionable as a fart in a lift and Miliband is standing at speakers corner with no crate to stand on and a bunch of blue coats throwing cabbages at him. The unions may have made the wrong choice in brother, of course this is nothing they would explicitly admit to, but I wouldn't mind betting covert conversations of how the hell do they get out of this fine mess are going on in the background.  I'm pretty sure Clegg will not be around at the next election which means if there is a third party it may not even be the Liberals, surprise, surprise it may just well be UKIP.  Who seem to be pandering to extremes of both Tory and Labour parties.  UKIP have bought out into the open all the scape goats we deny actually exist.  Blame on immigration, blame on the EU and blame the French.  Even though Nigel Farage says he likes them.

If I were to predict the next election it would be hung with two third parties, both Liberals and UKIP. Clegg well I'm sure he will go the same way as a Duck Tours bus needing a service, yep, to the bottom of the Thames.

Cameron throws rattle out of pram and America goes in

Bashir Al Asad is an man who will pay for his crimes to his own people, like Saddam it will happen. It will take time I don't think it will be in the next year. Something will happen his card of mortality is marked and the days are being struck off.

In a statement by US Secretary of State John Kerry, France is described as it's oldest ally. As though to give a back hand bitch slap to the UK. There was no reference to how the UK went into Iraq and it was France who held off and opposed action with Germany. Together these nations were obstinate not to join in. In the UK the public believes the war in Iraq was wrong and the UK followed America like a little loyal lapdog. Even with the mentally challenged President Bush. You'd of though Blair would of been sane enough not to follow Bush anywhere. Shame on you America, who would of thought you were a fair weather friend.

In the meantime Cameron stands and hears the news he has lost the crucial vote for the UK to be a participant in taking military action. His response is with the emotional intelligence of a child, when he admits the UK will not move and he has listened. He says it with the tonal quality of someone who will get you back. There is no dignity in his reply because he is a child and should not be a Prime Minister, he so wanted his name stamped on a war so he could be famous.and it wasn't going to happen. However he is now famous for something quiet different. The first Prime Minister in well over a hundred years to be defeated on a decision of war.  He blames Milliband, his arch rival who he has so petulantly bitch slapped in nearly every PMQs there has been and now it comes back on him.

So why might the American's not get why this vote happened and how it happened? We don't like to be running around like an American lapdog, the special relationship appears to have been too much of a one way thing from the UK's point of view.  The aftermath of both Iraq and Afghanistan has been prolonged and expensive, in terms of life and money. America did not have a get out plan and did not appear to respect the native populations of both these countries. There is a love for being gun totting, shooting, asking questions but only what rifle lubricant they should use to make their bullets go faster. They have also shown incredibly bad judgement, Bush for one, Vietnam another. We are in a recession and fed up with all wars. There is a continuing deficit and we are bankrupt. Lastly, this decision is not the be all and end all, things can change and it can be revised. Waiting for the rest of Europe to join in is a wise decision, it is then with consensus and legal.  It is also cheaper. Also dare I say it, there may be some possibility of political dialogue, talking with the Devil Asad.Although it sounds mad may not be, there may be some real motivation and purpose to do so.  Oh yes, and just to say it again, we're not a lapdog, so get over it.

Too much of a Royal Baby

My normal radio choice has been put in disarray for contrary to belief there is too much of a good thing.  It's a fault of the media going crazy over the birth of a baby, a royal baby, too royalty. Personally I don't give a damn about royalty so why should I have to endure vast amounts of news time on this non event.  It certainly isn't because the entire British public want to hear about a royal baby. For the statistics of those who feel royalty has a place in the UK are worth looking at. In the Guardian 24th May 2012, of respondents to a survey on royalty, a total of 22 per cent said of English people said we'd be better off without them, whereas 69 per cent said we'd be worse off. These statistics also showed royal popularity had been at it's highest for the last 15 years. I've tried to pull up historical statistics on the royal popularity contest, but it is difficult. There are just too many web sites.  However, 2012 was special, it was a jubilee year so the whole nation was under an obligation to be part of it. On jubilee day, I refused to watch the news or any TV, again that was another bad news day.

I find the figure of just 22 per cent holding an anti royalty feeling as overwhelmingly low.  Also these surveys can be inconclusive.  For example why did the 69 per cent think the UK would be better keeping the royal family?  The biggest factor is because they feel it is worth world press coverage and advertising.  It makes the rest of the world come to the UK with the misguided perception of kings and queens being wonderful traditional things.  There's a romantic ethereal quality to them.  They don't consider their inbreeding, and historically tyrannical behaviour towards their own subjects. However, it wasn't long ago when there was a national crisis with the public and with the royal family. Had it been done at the time of Princess Diana's death in 1997, popularity dropped like a stone. The queen knows this herself and the public got to a precipice of resentment turning to loathing and complete contempt.  There was suggestions of Dianna about to announce her engagement and marriage to Dodi Fayed. Nobody knows for sure, but such an act would in itself of caused a lot of issues. He being of Islamic faith some conspiracy theorists suggest had a part to play. To have a Muslim vein to the royal family could of been just stretching the political correctness vein just a little far.

See!  Already I know too much about the British royal family than I want.  This anally retentive information has been forced on me through the media. I'd rather there were news programs about economic theory, or exposes of the real cost of politics in the UK. Royalty has no place in my life and were I able to expunge it from my memory by taking a royal memory erasing pill I would. They have no real function, all they do is sap money away from tax payers and live the golden life style. I am not a subject of them, I owe them nothing, they have done nothing for me other than peer out from the face of coins and notes. In short if I never hear, see or read another article about the royal family it will be too soon in my life.

MPs lose the plot as they ready for a pay rise

There is a caricature sketch in today's Times newspaper. It is of Cameron and a thought bubble pops up about MPs pay, he thinks it would be bad to give them a pay rise, but his next thought is to delegate it to a body separate from MPs.  Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) then were passed the buck.  However, the body who overlooked MPs allowances then proposed the biggest pay increase for MPs in the history of British politics at nearly 11 per cent. Now Cameron looks as much an individual lining his pockets as do the rest of our MPs at a time they all advocate austerity is the best policy. The IPSA findings have been put out to public consultation and so the public is given a chance to have their say.  I for one intend to fully take up this opportunity.  Another salient point of this fact is not a single MP has proposed a motion to vote this down. Every single one of those MPs look as though they are rubbing their hands together in greed. The very thought of this rise makes them drool saliva as they think of how they are going to spend the money.  Privately they want to take the money, publicly though they will intimate it is disgraceful, but not too loudly of course.

The UK has a budget deficit.  Although economists and politicians define the deficit as not growing, in real terms the actual debt is growing year on year.  The deficit is the rate of borrowing per year, whereas the debt is the accumulated borrowing over the years.  There is a debt and a deficit because not enough money is being taken in tax receipts in relation to the amount of money which is spent. Spending goes on pensioners, welfare benefits, the NHS , education and defence to name a few.  Politicians are afraid to tackle the growing pension bill or pensioner benefits because pensioners are the most likely people to vote. The grey vote is about the biggest say anyone in retirement can get. It's their chance to moan at the polls. Saying this however, I'd bet there must be a few pensioners out there who feel the ill wind of recession because they will take it on themselves to financially help support their families when they can. After all they do not want to see their loved ones in poverty either.  Put it another way, they are not untouched by the recession although being partly protected.  

Those hardest hit by the continuing entrenched recession are those on welfare benefits and those who are on low incomes but having to claim supporting welfare benefits.  Sometimes the two are treated in the same way. Indeed it has recently been remarked Universal Credits will not give working families more incentive to work as the pay-off taper against earnings and UC is barely noticeable. Those who receive just welfare benefits are now demonised by politicians as though it is their own fault.  There may well be some case of long term unemployment where individuals have been institutionalised into receiving benefit and not attempting to work, but this demonising is good old scape goating and nothing more.  For it is a delicate two way process pulling a nation out of recession and it's not just the job of government as a duty of care, it is also it's job to help raise the country's economic growth. Something severely missing at this time.  In reality, what MPs have  imposed on the country is zero performance growth and ever greater welfare bills. The only people who can be at fault are the politicians.  In the same instances some political parties believe government should be more privatised. Yet if privatisation and its success is based on performance, because it is simple capitalism then every MP in the current government would be sacked or their employer taking capability action against them.  So a pay rise should only be awarded where there has been shown a respective improvement in performance.  The UK is still in debt and the debt crisis is growing for future generations therefore the notion of performance related pay does not equate and neither an MPs pay.

There are now many people in the UK who use food banks.  The number of children in poverty has grown. Educational ignorance is strife because of the fear University students have carrying a debt around their necks for the rest of their lives.  A debt which would have to be considered if they were going to purchase a property.  The tendency now is towards an ever growing rental market because built housing is at it's lowest, the population is every increasing and immigration (another scape goat) could be an added cause.  The UK will at some point go through a righting process and an even larger part of the population will descend into poverty, especially once interest rates begin to rise again.    Yet amongst all this politicians think their friendly independent IPSA support group can surrender up to them a greater rate of pay for the work they do. The disparity is mind boggling. Their pay is nearly two and a half times the average pay as it is, how they think it then means they are representatives of the British people would seem to suggest there could be a mental illness. 

The financial righting in the UK could result in civil unrest because the full impact of bankrupt Britannia has still not been felt.  Looking around the world and viewing the current civil unrest it is not inconceivable this may be bloody and violent.  At least comfortable MPs can afford to purchase their own protective clothing, it's a little different for the rest of us though.

Ignorance

What pisses me off is ignorance. When someone is expected to do a part of their job and they don't, because they were the wrong person employed, or they haven't been trained and the the buck gets passed when it could of been dealt with at an earlier point. Ignorance is what makes customer services departments the most dangerous part of any organization. They simply are not up to doing the job. They end up being people on the end of phones who answer callers but don't actually give any answers, they may follow a script but not listen. They are impotent and they in turn make the organizations they work for look uncaring, incapable and likely to lose custom.  Just in the same way pushy phone sell ling pops up every now and again. The sales rep on the end of the phone who just wants to keep pushing and pushing, the rep who thinks they know everything. They pressurise people they call into purchasing goods and if the phone is put down on them, they just ring again at another time. This is not only ignorance it is harassment and should be criminal. Just as ignorance should be criminal. There are a lot of defences which are put up but they end up with no solution to the problem. Customer service reps and sales reps are prime examples of stupid.

It has been said, stupid things happen to stupid people, such is the karma of this world.

Bieber is Booed, what a delight

And with these words the presenter said

"The first ever milestone award for ..(being the world's biggest twat)...goes to Justine Bieber." Justine (Arsehole) Beiber, known by his friends as JAB then went on stage to receive his milestone award, which is a misnomer as the real name is tombstone award. The crowd did not welcome him with ecstatic delight. To the JAB's horror and confusion the booed. What a wonderful sight it was to view. Certainly on American TV broadcast nationally, to see this upstart little snobby nosed shite get recognised by his own fan base as being a complete twat. I could of told all those fans a few years ago they were nuts. It seems however, even nuts can get to see the light. JAB has acted like an idiot, he has treated his fans and the public to the petulant, arrogant side.  The look on JAB's face was a picture which could be hung in the gallery of the stunned.  It was almost a realisation not everybody actually loves or likes JAB. His response sounded like he was trying to win back the audience, they were not doing as he had expected them to do. He is so full of himself he thought it would be a matter of taking the microphone and talking about his number one fan (himself) and his inspirations. The time he stood there aghast; open mouthed like a fish desperately hoping a flake of food will suddenly be sucked into the vacuum of it's mouth, went on and on. Half of the time which may have been allocated to his speech was spent listening to the boos. Oh dear JAB, was it an insult to your ego?  JAB thank those people in his life who had helped him and in a desperate plead to get cheers the thanked Jesus Christ, however I never actually thought JC did much in the way of music production, well certainly not in the last 2000 years anyway.

There is a truth which often takes time to dawn on the general public, and certainly fans of any famous personality. It is to do with the impression they give. For example, an actor will play a part, the regurgitate words they have learnt or read of a cue card. The part they play may be a hero, someone cool, someone who you would give respect. In reality this is just a fictional character. What the audience doesn't know is what the actor is really like as a person. It takes time for this side of an individual to come out and spill into the public arena. Some are aware of this and are exceedingly careful. Others may be careful but then they are caught unawares. Their veil of fictional serenity is lifted. We then get to see what they are like as real people. At this point if they are not nice. If they are utterly contemptuous, then the public who made them feels they have been cheated. That actor then begins to lose their value, because although they can act, when you know what they are like as a person you just don't want to see them again. It is a brave studio who will employ them knowing of this publicity. In a manner the same goes with JAB. If his audience feels like this about him the likelihood is his songs will not be as popular as he once thought they were. At this point JAB is taken down by his own hubris.

With luck in a few months time the world could like have fewer songs sold by one once known artist, as they descend into musical oblivion. Perhaps at this point someone else will come along who has a little more substance.

The Idiot Award goes to Reese Witherspoon

As I began to watch a video of Reese Witherspoon being handcuffed and arrested for obstructing a police officer in his line of duty (work), I couldn't help think here was an example of another superstar who thinks they are above the law. As though being famous immediately excludes these persons from having do be respectful to law, order and justice. Of course to a certain extent this may well be true when considering the actor who got away with murdering his wife. The one to remain nameless, purely because I've forgotten his name, but enjoyed a high speed chase on TV prior to his arrest some years ago.  Justice is in reality something which is more likely to favour the rich than the poor. Yet this is not justice, this is paid for get-out-of-jail cards, via expensive lawyers. While Reese was being handcuffed she asked the policeman if he knew who she was. He obviously doesn't watch much TV or as it was night time didn't recognise her. Maybe Reese looks a lot different since her last blockbuster movie came out.  I mean looks do fade, and the vanity of a film star is more vigilant to these changes than any other normal human being.

In all fairness Reese didn't commit a great crime. She opened her mouth and questioned an authority figure.  However, what she did was to talk over the arresting officer, she was angry and was out to give him a bit of her mind. She clearly wasn't thinking at all and in this instance requires the idiot award for the month. She just would not shut up. It is therefore sad to see someone who famous and well known around the world only be given a $100 fine. In consideration of her behaviour the fine should of been a hundred times higher. It then would of been proportionate to her fame. As I researched the internet about this incident more damning details emerged. The video actually last for a couple of hours, it's recording sound as Reese and her partner Jim Toth are sat in the back seat. Jim was originally arrested for being a drunk driver.  He tells Reese she has made the whole incident national news by her behaviour, but she still doesn't understand her own belligerence, she just doesn't get it. In another part of the video Jim even tells the officer Reese is more drunk than he is. If she had kept her gob shut and let her partner be arrested she could of well driven the car back home. In doing so then she would of been drink driving. I've no doubt she would of done this. To an extent the arresting officer did both her and the American public a great favour in slipping on the hand cuffs.

In watching Reese explain her behaviour, in a much shorter interview on Good Morning America; it is noticeable how she shakes her head as if to say "no," in disagreement or negatively.  While saying one thing and shakes her head negatively both body and mouth are unsynchronised. Taken together, her body language, denotes someone who does not believe what they are saying. Unless what they are saying is "no" and then it would be a congruent gesture. Reese thought she would get away with it. At the end of the interview she spoke about having played a lawyer in her movies.  True this maybe, but she also says she is a not a lawyer. Another sign of discord in her body language arises as Reese is not shaking her head but rather nodding her head.  To have been synchronised she should of been shaking her head. Int this part of the interview she is more relaxed, in any event, consciously or unconsciously Reese believes she is a lawyer and does know her rights.  Reese has a high opinion of herself, she's positive she knows her rights and this is her hubris.  My personal interpretation of both episodes is Reese comes across as a pretty stupid woman.  I'd invite anyone to watch the Good Morning America interview a few times and see for themselves. It's there if you're vigilant enough to see it.

And now here's a tip for Jim, next time you go out with Reese and she's prone to a glass or two, take a cab, book into a hotel, or get a gag. All of which might prevent her from getting into trouble. 

aNueNue U900 Soprano Review

I just got a new Ukulele, the excitement has been bubbling up since it was ordered a few days ago, it's the aNueNeu U900. On doing some research it seemed this Ukulele is big in Japan, there are hundreds of videos of people playing it, there are even two glove puppets which have been characterised in videos playing both the rabbit and the bear (pineapple) versions of the instrument. The advertising is catchy, it's young it's bright and it's fun. The thought which went through my head was how Japanese people go for a quality product and this product was probably Japanese as well. But the reality is I'm not entirely sure where this company is based, who owns it and how they work. Doing a search on the internet has so far proved to be inconclusive. It is a new company, their web site has the image of a Hawain type Island but then anyone can do a web site and make it appear to be any place in the world. It should not of been a surprise but it was, there stuck on the neck of the Uke was a little sticker which said "made in China." At this point I felt a little disappointed. Whoever aNueNue are they subcontract the building of their Ukes to factories or companies in China. I suppose my hope was they had been built by Japanese robots to Japanese specification in Japan. A little naive in reality.

The Ukulele arrived, well packaged from the distributor, and I carefully opened it.  There was a tag attached to the headstock indicating Aquilla strings had been used.  The first thing I did was remove this.  I could tell straight away this was a different instrument from the beautiful Bertha I normally play. Bertha though beautiful is a budget uke.  However, she has given me 4 months of every day playing and experience. So I'm starting to know a thing or two about Ukes. The U900 is described as a laminate mahogany Uke. It is well constructed and reminds me a little of the old type of wood furniture which used to be typical of the 1970s. The U900 body appears slightly smaller than Bertha's, the action is excellent, so low and so much easier to finger the frets than Bertha. It is however important to realise playing technique should be taken into account when using any instrument. How it is held and how your left hand plays the frets can determine whether you are able to achieve the correct cord formations.  So preventing any buzz. I gave it a few strums and then proceeded to spend the next two and a half hours strumming away, getting used to the feel. My left hand may not be holding the neck correctly as I'm finding there is too much pressure on the headstock, but the shape of the wood and feel of the headstock is harder on my index finger, it almost bites into it. In a short time I wasn't quite happy.  It's to do with a buzzing noise generated from the C string.  This is a new instrument and I can't believe this is actually happening. So considering my skills are amateurish I think I will get someone else's opinion. Someone I know who can play the Uke and as what they think. If it is the case of a buzzing C string then it's going to have to be returned back to the distributor.

At the moment I am at the not-quite-convinced stage. Was this a good purchase?  Is this to do with the way I strum or pluck the C string? By the end of the week I'll know what I am going to do with it. Also I'm not sure if I will purchase another one not another one by this company or from this distributor. I need to be completely satisfied. It's a recession and every penny spent must be accounted for. I'll add an additional paragraph once I've had some further advice on the issue.

Update
I've now had this uke for three months. The C string did buzz so I sent it back to the shop. They in turn returned it or a new one, I can't tell which and took three weeks over it. I was disappointed with the distributor, but this happens when purchasing from the internet. I do like playing the instrument but at times am wary. I can hear an occasional buzz, partly down to my chord formations but possibly down to the instrument. Given a choice I would not recommend this instrument, but for now I'm stuck with it. I should of asked for a refund. So am still in a process of mentally accepting Harvey (uke name). There is not doubt though playing on a better quality instrument does enhance the appeal of learning the uke. Final say, if you do buy one, get it from a shop and if you don't but then find it's not up to scratch don't hesitate to ask for a refund. I know got an eye on my next uke in a years time. Probably a flea.

The Bedroom Tax and an alternative solution

The ever so wise (not) government have introduced a tax on those people who under occupy their homes. This tax applies to those who are of working age and only to the housing sector called Social Rented Housing. For example, councils and housing associations. Pensioners are not effected by this and a cynical person might say this is because they are ever so more likely to vote at elections. No government in their right mind would do anything to antagonise the elderly. In many cases the elderly have it easier than those termed as working age.  For everyone is always looking out to help pensioners.

An example of someone who might be effected by this would be say a forty plus individual, living in a flat with two bedrooms, in this example it could even be a couple. Say they had two children who have grown up and left home. Living in a two bedroom property this will automatically mean they are under occupying the property. Adding a little more detail to this situation, lets say this couple are at work but in low paid jobs and are able to receive some form of housing benefit. The bedroom tax will mean because they are under occupying the property they will not receive housing benefit in relation to the full rent. The maximum this benefit could be applied at would be a 14 per cent reduction in the actual rent. If their rent is normally £100 then the calculation of housing benefit will only be determined as if the rent were £86. This couple will have to find the additional monies to cover this rent.  If they were not working and receiving state benefits the same figure is used. Proportionately someone who is receiving state benefits will have even less money to live off. There are some exceptions in the bedroom tax, but the majority of working age claimants will have less money to pay their rent.

The repercussions of the bedroom tax have not been considered fully. A simplistic notion in a simplistic Tory mind is these people will either have to take in a lodger or they will move to another property. In London there are very few if any single bedroom properties vacant, because these are probably the most wanted properties around. In addition, there is absolutely no consideration to how many years of their life these people have spent living in a property or becoming part of the community they are in. Paradoxically there will now be people renting properties from the private sector who will be entitled to more in the way of housing benefits than those who rent from the Social Rented Sector.  Properties in and around London are expensive and their rental is equally expensive because demand is high. Of course the higher the demand the higher rental values can be charged in the Private Rented Sector. It's a matter of fact.

An alternative to have controlled spending on the housing benefit budget (which is about £23 billion per year) would of been to introduce a new fair rent act. An act which would restrict rental values of all private sector accommodation.  In addition to introduce an extra empty home tax, this would apply to all those properties which are empty for too long. Were this tax applied after three months and equivalent to say 70 per cent of the weekly rental value it would automatically encourage private landlord's to ensure they rented out their spare unused properties. The value of the empty property tax could then suitably increase if the property remains unoccupied for longer. Of course exemptions and exception would be applicable but those exemptions and exceptions would also be open up to review.  Applied to London and all other areas of the country this could increase income levels for taxes and at the same time ensure the number of empty and unoccupied properties were reduced and occupied. It would certainly be in the interest of any private landlord to ensure they were.

Instead now the Toss pot, I mean Tory Party coalition government have created a situation where the poorest people in the UK pay the most. They are expected to pull the economy out of recession by the government reducing it's underlying spending on housing benefit.  In the country there will be millions of people effected by this tax. The costs incurred to society will be high. Residents in the social rented sector will fall behind in the rent, creating rent arrears can mean they are in jeopardy of losing their home. In turn they will not be rehoused in social sector properties again as at this point they are considered intentionally homeless. However, they can seek out private accommodation, which charges a higher rate and be awarded benefits at an equally higher rate. In this respect the underlying desire to reduce the housing benefit budget is scuppered because now more funds are required.

It's a shame the government didn't have any idea about a fair rent act, then again they probably wouldn't. After all I expect a number of their supporters are private landlords who enjoy receiving the monies they do from their tenants. As for the pensioners, I'm sure a number of them will have children or grand children who are trying to start off in life and have difficulty making ends meet. In such cases when they hear of their children's plight they might become empathetic and change their vote. After all, even the bank of mum and dad, or granddad and grandma is limited. Look out voting box.

The Budget and a nasty smug chancellor

Tomorrow we get to see a budget by Georgie porgy Osborne, the upper class Tory snob who doesn't have the faintest idea of what it is like for a normal working or lower class person to live in the UK. He has his head so far up his own backside I understand he once sent out a search party to find himself. Fortunately he now has an app on his smart phone which tells him exactly where he is every minute of the day. He needs it, he gets lost easily, which is understandable as Cameron to has the same problem and was the first to tell Georgie about the app.

As though to give the country a good bit of news some of the budget has already been leaked. Those families who have children may be able to get additional help with child care costs. But this will not be immediate. It'll take place in 2015. Why tell us about it now I wonder. Inflation has gone up. This has been put down to the increase in oil, which Georgie has likely not even considered. How can a man with a degree in modern history run a country's economic? The Tory party must believe knowledge of economics is unnecessary. The most irritating thing though is everyone in the UK will have to endure Georgie's smug, ugly looking face tomorrow because he just happens to be the chancellor. I expect the NHS will take a hit with an increase in high blood pressure medication over the next few days. In the meantime Georgie will be basing himself in a bath of smug milk, and he'll probably use it all up before Cameron gets a chance to dip his toes in as well.

If evil exists then it must exist in ignorance, Georgie isn't fit to sit in Parliament but he does, how very unfortunate for the rest of us. Then if Karma also existed, Georgie is going to be in for a very interesting time when he leaves the house of power. Were god to exist then he sure could do with helping all of us.