Wristwatch Mobile Phone

Yesterday I bought a new mobile phone.

This is hardly ground-breaking news, you may think, but if you do you don’t know me.

I’m not one of those people who updates their phone annually. I buy mine outright (rather than on a contract) so I get to upgrade it as and when I choose. And that is usually only when it is absolutely necessary.

For example, the last three phones I had have all lasted me well in excess of two years each. The phone I had previous to my current device was a Samsung Galaxy Note (as in a Note 1 – the first of the series which is now up to 4) which I had for two and a half years and I only changed it because it stopped working because they stopped providing updates.

And that was when the major change happened.

I went to a wristwatch mobile phone.

Now, this is a standalone mobile wristwatch, not a companion. You put the SIM in the watch. You don’t have a ‘buddy brick’ in your pocket and use the watch device simply to read notifications, the watch is the entire phone. It is an Omate Truesmart.

The future is here.

Now, a lot of people questioned me about this. How do you take calls? How do you message? Is the screen not too small?

Well, the answer was that it was all surprisingly easy.

I’ll start off by saying that I never intended it to be my sole device. I ordered it (well, Kickstarted it) well in advance of giving up on my Note, however by the time it arrived, the Note was on its way out and it proved so difficult inserting the SIM into the wristwatch that swapping between them was not an option.

But the watch proved functional enough. Yes, the screen was small, but workable. The predictive text was so sensible that mis-typing on such a small screen actually wasn’t an issue. Phone calls were not a big problem either – I could sit with my arm on my desk and talk at the watch, the microphone and internal speaker both powerful enough. The problem with phone calls only really occurred when I was at Alton Towers and didn’t have my Bluetooth headset (which you can use if you need privacy on your call) to cut out background noise. Then I looked a prat, talking into my watch then pressing it to my ear to hear what was actually difficult to hear.

But other stuff was very useable, more so than expected – apps, whilst not being optimised, were mostly usable. The Youtube app lost its volume control which was annoying, but otherwise fine. Whatsapp disappeared off the homescreen and had to be launched separately through a rather convoluted process.

So, why am I giving up on it? What are the problems?

Well, firstly, because of how much they have tried to cram into the device, some bits have spilled out. The antenna for wifi and mobile connectivity are embedded in the strap, on one side, with the GPS antenna on the other. At some stage, either through flex or sweat ingression, my GPS stopped working actually very early on – obviously just a couple of days before I had to take a detour round the back roads to avoid a massive traffic jam.

Then, there’s the battery. It’s obviously not going to be big, but even light usage of the internet during the day means that it needs charging immediately after lunch (from an overnight charge). The size of the screen means that it can’t be used to watch video on a commute, but the lack of battery means that you have to be very, very careful when travelling around in case you need that last 10%. And because of how they tried to waterproof the phone, you need a bespoke ‘cradle’ to charge the battery up with.

But it was also let down on some technical specs. For a mobile device that was only released earlier this year, it is almost inexcusable that it doesn’t have 4g.

The camera, though, was a real let-down. It wasn’t 3mp as had been expected – it was 1.3mp ‘upscaled’ to 3mp. It was actually quite poor. Frustratingly so. And the camera app was really glitchy. Three quarters of the time it wouldn’t actually take the picture; when it did it had no ability to select focus. It was the Tesco Value of camera apps. When you think how often these days you use your mobile to snap a picture, this is not good.

But I persevered with it, and it has been usable if not a glowing experience. Ultimately though I am going travelling in December, and therefore absolutely need working GPS and a good camera, and a sizeable screen for video will be a distinct advantage.

Aside from the specifically mentioned  issues though, the "wristwatch-ability" of the device was a benefit, just not in its current format

A million metres

So, as of last Tuesday I achieved my target.

You see, I’ve been running.

Not just running a couple of times aweek just to stay fit as in my previous job – this is serious, committed running.

A million metres.

I explained previously that the change of jobs brought about a pair of circumstances that lead to the running – firstly a more sedentary commute that eliminated my daily exercise; and secondly a lunch-hour on an industrial estate with little else to do. So I started running on my lunch. Well, that was last year when I just ran.

I don’t normally run in winter. I’m not pathetic about it; but in order to stop sweating enough to work I have to have a cold shower after my run, and that is painful enough in spring and autumn; but winter is another matter.

It also used to be more tricky in my old job as I'd run first thing in the morning and last thing at night - when it was dark in winter. Very dark. And very cold. And if it was frosty, that was really dangerous.

But we had an unseasonably mild winter and on my return to work on 2^nd January I felt fat after the Christmas break so went for a run. 4.47km. Now, to put that into context, I was ecstatic last year to run 5km for the very first time. When I first started running those few years ago back in the old job I struggled to do 2km without having to slow to a walk. Getting up to 5km was a real achievement for me. Being able to do 4.47km immediately after the Christmas break was awesome.

So, I decided that whilst it wasn’t too cold, I’d carry on. The next day I ran 5km.

About March or April time I realised that I was actually clocking up quite a bit of distance. I was running 5km or just over almost every working lunch. I didn’t run at weekends or on holiday; and I didn’t run if either I or the weather were bad, but otherwise I ran. And so I decided I’d see how far I could run in the year. Actually, not just how far, but whether I could achieve a particular distance – a million metres.

Why a million?

Well, because it’s a nice round number mostly. But I developed the plan whilst I was on one of my runs when I realised that a million metres is actually achievable.

A million metres is a thousand kilometres.

That’s two hundred 5k runs.

That’s doable?

Well, with 365 days of the year, 104 weekend days and 8 bank holidays that leaves 253 days. Then there’s holiday – nominally 23 days, but as I tend to take half-days (and don’t run on the half that I do work) that works out at around 27; and then three days work-training in London actually only left 223 days to run. That didn’t give me much leeway.

So I upped my distance. I now run 6.7km most days.

But what for?

After all, when people in the office found out about the challenge they assumed it was for charity. Because no-one does a challenge for themselves any more – it’s not about achieving a goal; it has to be all about the brass. You see – if you say you’re doing something, people ask for what cause, not reason.

And that’s the thing. I know these days everything is all about doing good – whether it’s taking a photo of yourself with no making on for #NoMakeupSelfie; a photo of yourself wearing pants to #SayPantsToHIV; or a video of you tipping water over yourself for the #ALSIceBucketChallenge – and that’s a good thing, surely? (we'll ignore here the people who couldn't even tip a bucket of cold water on themselves - one of my friends admitted to using warm water and tossing in the ice cubes last minute. Not really in the spirit).

Well, yes. Anything which highlights a particular cause is good (even if your cause is accidentally sweptup in someone else’s intentions); but does that mean that anything that happens has to highlight a particular cause? People at work couldn’t believe that I would want to run a million metres "just because" – to paraphrase George Mallory. It devalued the challenge in their eyes – to not do it for some altruistic reason.

But for me, to attach a charitable intent to it would have devalued the challenge for me. I wanted to go the distance because at school I had never been any good at running. It would have been unthinkable for me as a teenager to contemplate running even 2k, let alone 5k, let alone two hundred 5ks. I ran because I needed to prove to myself that I could. If there was any sort of charity attached, then I wouldn’t have been running for me – I’d have been running for charity. It wouldn’t have been me pushing me along, it would have been the disappointment of others. And it wouldn’t have been the achievement of a million metres, but a few hundred pounds.

I know they aren’t necessarily exclusive; however whilst the charitable association has the possibility of drawing more attention to the feat so it can also distract from it – people concentrate on the charity, rather than the challenge. Although, to be fair, it is a purely personal target – I haven’t really advertised it, it is simply me knowing that I can do something when I set my mind to it.

But then maybe I am looking at it all wrong.

Straight Away?

So, there's been a lot of chatter recently about 'gay only' or 'majority gay' clubs - the idea being to provide a safe space for gays to associate.

Now, I recently went into quite some detail as to whether this is choice of association, or discrimination, and this very nicely (or not so) follows on from that.

So, the idea is that gay-only or majority-gay clubs or pubs are needed. Or, rather, needed still.

Because, lets face it, fifty years ago they didn't exist. Or, at least, not overtly - not publicly. Such clubs were desperately wanted - but not available - to the gays. Now they exist but are, perhaps, wanted - but not available - to the straights.

The furore occurred a month or so ago when a large group of straight lads were turned away from a 'gay' venue. It's not a new thing - I recall me being allowed in (and to pay) only then to find that none of my other friends were allowed in to a particular venue.

But, is it moral? Is it wanted? Is it even legal?

I kind of see both sides (as ever).

As a chap who quite fancies chaps, I do like to go to a venue where I'm not going to get shouted at, derided, perhaps even threatened, if I happen to suggest to a chap I quite like him. At least in a gay / gay-friendly venue I know that if I approach a chap, he knows that it could reasonably be expected, he knows to be flattered, he knows how easy it is to rebuff. In a 'straight' venue he could be taken off guard; his mates might take the mickey ("he clearly appeals to men more than women" - I've heard it); he might never have encountered it before and only know how to respond with the offensive - usually a swift "fuck off mate", followed by perhaps a threat. Believe me, I've been there.

So I kind of understand their position. But are gay-only clubs actually wanted? Are they actually legal?

Let's face it, if you were running a 'straight' venue which excluded gays you would immediately have the gays throwing the Equality Act in your face - we've seen it with the Christian B&Bs.

Where am I at with them? They are in the wrong. They protest and moan about having to let gays into 'their private house'. It isn't that. The moment they opened it up as a commercial business, the moment they started advertising and extracting a profit from the property they lost all claim of 'private house' over it. They've opened it up for profit, whether pink or otherwise. If you don't want gays in your home, don't run a B&B for profit.

But, could the Equality Act not operate otherwise? Afterall, it defines 'sexuality' as a protected characteristic, not 'homosexuality', 'bisexuality' or any of the other LGBTQQIP2SAA (is that where we left it?) identifiers. So, surely heterosexuality is a protected characteristic? And you can discriminate in favour of a protected characteristic only where it is under-represented by your business - in other words, to draw in missing sexualities (or other protected characteristics) in order to 'even out' the mix in your business. Well, if gay bars are already maxed-out on gays, surely the Equality Act could be used to 'straighten them out' somewhat?

And, coming back to my previous comment within this blog, are they not seen as divisive? Discriminatory already? I have to admit already to picking up more of my chaps in 'straight' (or, more particularly, not-identifying) bars as I have in gay bars. Indeed, though it is not so easy to achieve, I do tend to prefer the chaps I find in non-gay bars; they identify less with 'gayity' and more with actual real stuff. For example, tonight I got chatting to two chaps because we were at a gig. We got chatting about music, the night, all sorts of stuff. In a gay bar, all that there is unifying is gayness.

I say that it's not so easy to achieve as if you were to walk into a gay bar and - assuming you are a man - every man drools and thrusts over you. Obviously they don't. But there is a massive hurdle overcome: go out in a non-gay bar and the chances are 90% that the men fancy women; in a gay bar 90% that they fancy your gender (albeit it not necessarily you). That's true, surely?

Well, that depends how you flirt.

IF you go out in non-gay bars you can identify those that are flirting with you; as opposed to those just being pally and matey. Ditto gay bars. Admittedly your chance of 'success' may be higher in gay bars.

But it depends on the types of non-gay bars you go to. There are some that I would never think of even trying to flirt with someone, even if they gave off the appropriate signs. There are many others, however, where if someone approached me - or (weirdly, rarely) I approached them - that it might not perhaps be a fall-off-your-seat moment.

It depends on your clientele. If it's what they expect - or are at least comfortable with - then go for it. If not, don't risk it.

And that, perhaps, is the reason for my success - the places I go aren't 'gay bars', nor are they 'non-gay bars' they are good bars. They have live music, or just plain funky music. They don't rely on a forced stereotype, a performance, a persuasion. They rely on a common theme - that of music, or good beer, or some other idea. Not sexuality.

And that is how it should be done. If you like a particular type of music - perhaps that more commonly enjoyed by homosexuals - then go to those bars. If you prefer other music, associate elsewhere.

But does that not justify gay bars for those that want gay bars? Well... maybe. But why should they exclude anyone? Yes, make the environment welcoming to gays, but surely then it should make it less attractive to those that don't like gays? Surely they would only attend to cause protest, which would be short-lived. Afterall, they have so many other places they can go if they enjoy accessible pop on a regular basis without it being thrust in the faces of the gays?

So, should there be gay bars specifically for those that wish to exclude the non-gays? Exerting directly the force that those who didn't or don't want to accept the gays fifty years ago? Or even fewer than that?

Unity or diversity?

Association or discrimination?

A Gentleman of Indistinct Persuasion

So, the bank holiday just gone was Manchester Pride weekend, and I didn’t go. I nearly did, but I didn’t. And it’s the first one that I have missed in well over a decade.

Previously I worried that I might not go. I did get that year – I went along for one evening with the hope I could get through the night until such time as I either got the early train or sleep in the station. In the end I met a lovely chap called Jack.

So yes, this was the first I missed, and I nearly didn’t – I almost did the same thing again, but ultimately stayed in bed until it was too late to get the train and then went to the cinema with my sister instead.

But I have been to a pride this year – I went to Nottingham pride in July. And I’m still not sure whether prides are a recognition of historic achievement; lobbying for future change; or simply and advertisement. Now that we have legal equality (at least in most of the UK), any further changes are going to be purely social or cultural; and I’m not sure prides achieve that – though I’m not going to repeat how they irritate as much as celebrate.

And certainly these days there seems to be little historical recognition. There is a bit; but you ask most people why they are at pride and it is the party. And again, I know I’ve already covered about how exclusive, rather than inclusive, that party can seem. In our strive for equality, there is a recognition of diversity.

So, do we still need pride? As I say, does it not divide us? Single us out as different? Require us to define ourselves as one of the burgeoning letters in the initialisation? You go to pride, so you’re gay. But then that develops – some lesbians don’t want to fall into the standardised definition ‘gay’ - afterall, they aren't men who fancy men, so it becomes lesbian or gay. Then LGB. Then LGBT. But you are expected to fall into one of the definitions, one of these little boxes which unify us.

But they don’t. As I said in my other post, each ‘coming out’ is different, personal. This ‘unifying’ experience is unique. Whilst you get shoved in the box that says gay – because you love the same sex – you find yourself in a box with people who you could never in a life of Sundays fancy. Just because someone finds men attractive, it doesn’t mean they find all men attractive.

“The LGBT community” as it is repeatedly called. But why? Why lump together men who fancy men, with women who fancy women? In the Venn diagram of life they are in entirely separate circles. Rather than sharing a similarity – that of same-sex attraction – they share absolutely no similarity. Men who are attracted to men can no more understand women being attracted to women than they can men who are attracted to women. And why the hell throw trans in? Their distinction isn’t with the gender that they fancy, but the gender that they are!

But they all get lumped together. And as more get lumped together, so the individual definitions become smaller. Bisexuals. People who fancy both. People who can’t quite make their mind up which sex they fancy. But those two categories similarly can identify differently. Some call those who can’t make their mind up ‘curious’. Or ‘questioning’. People who fancy both – who know that they fancy both, who have “made their mind up” – may identify as bi, or they may identify as polysexual.

I heard the acronym QUILTBAG used the other day. Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bi, Asexual, Gay. But the Q can also be used for ‘questioning’. But what’s the difference between – say – gay and queer? I’ve even seen LGBTQQIP2SAA. Breathe deeply for this: Lesbian, Gay, Trans, Queer, Questionning, Intersex, Pan-sexual, 2-Spirited (?) , Asexual and Allies (again, ?) I mean, now you’re just vomiting letters onto the page – so many to remember that you’re going to offend someone by missing out their letter. And – moreover – it is nonsense to anyone outside of the community. And let’s face it – it is those people for whom the acronym, the definitions themselves are created. Which is a reversal – it used to be those outside the community that defined you, shouting “poofter” to put you in a category. I suppose the community should feel empowered – taking back control over what name to call itself. Rather than listing QUILTBAGS you might as well just use POOFER. Allies? Who claims to be an ally? Or, rather, who refuses to? We're barely a step away from a list of each person's individual name.

As the definition becomes broader and more inclusive, so each individual distinction becomes sharper – higher definition. But the wider definition loses focus. Maybe it should be QUILTBAGS – with the S for those who identify as straight? O for other? Our aim of diversity only goes so far – you can have diversity so long as it fits in a category.

It’s forcing people to make a decision. It’s forcing people to come out – and then place themselves inside one of those letters. And if they aren’t happy? If they change their minds? This is one of the greatest reasons people are reluctant to come out in the first place: what if it is just a phase? How easy is it to shake off those letters? There are still a lot of girls who are very reluctant to even consider a relationship with a chap who has experimented. And a lot of people suffer with this exact problem. Take a look at Ian Thorpe – champion Olympic swimmer. He suffered a lot of anxiety, stress and other personal challenges prior to accepting who he was; partly because of how he would be perceived, what if he wasn’t right? It is, still, the point of no return for many.

And this is where sexuality loses its sexuality and becomes about pure gender. It stops being about who you are and who you love – the people and the relationship – and is instead about what you are, what gender: the pure biology of the bedroom. The moment you put yourself in one those categories you dehumanise yourself. You stop being you, instead you become Gay.

But then again, humanity has always been about definition. The moment you start with exploration definition follows naturally; with rules established in the same we as there is a hierarchical structure to the natural world. Homo Sapien. Homosexual.

And this is where I co-align with Tom Daley with my lack of definition. Did you see his video? I’m not going to call it a coming out video like every other man and his dog does; because … well, Tom doesn’t call it that either. He very carefully avoids using any definitions save for one – describing the person he was in love with as a man. He doesn’t call it coming out. He doesn’t say “I’m gay”. He doesn’t feel the need to place any label on him or his relationship. It’s nice. It’s personal. It’s not coming out, it’s an explanation of where he’s at.

But it was news. Why? There is much discussion (and for me it is probably one for another posting) about why ‘coming out’ is still news these days; but who was the video directed at? Let’s face it, Tom had reached a point of acceptance a long time before; his family already knew his situation; anyone that knew him or cared about he had told personally. Now, I’m not making any judgement on his decision to do a video: he is very aware of his fandom, and very keen to interact and update people from all around the world. It’s the social world in which we live; where I broadcast my life on Twitter, my views and rants on here. No, I’m wondering why it got picked up and run with – often as the lead story – on so many sites. Or more particularly why they put words in his mouth: they defined him where he had specifically avoided doing so.

Yes, I know that tattle is a big sell. There are so many magazines that trade on selling information or gossip (note, not “news”) about “celebrity” relationships; and there are some “celebrities” who make their living purely by broadcasting their relationships like a soap opera. But on the basis that Tom didn’t name his partner – or even give any information about his partner – what more had they learned? That he had one? They didn’t concentrate on that. It was all about Tom’s sexuality. Or – more particularly – the gender of his partner. And - preempting this, Tom says in his video that he got misquoted, that it shouldn't be news.

And so me?

If you ask some people they say I’m gay. If you ask others, bi. For some it is the question they’ve never asked – either out of choice or fear. 

I don't say.

I did. You'll see in some posts I define myself as gay, some as bi. It saves the explaining. The moment you fall outside of that definition you confuse people; you have to explain what you mean - (in the words of Madonna) justify yourself. People even think you are pretentious.

I'm not.

I'm just me.

Buzzfatigue

So, do you Buzzfeed? You know what I mean – it’s the sticky, viral ‘news’ site.

Sticky?

Yep. Once you are on there you are bombarded with reasons to stay on. There is a top banner with at least half a dozen links to other pages; a sidebar to rival the Daily Mail’s sidebar of shame; and footers with links to other similar pages around the site. And it’s amazing how attractive a list is. Or a listicle as it has been termed. It’s not as daunting as an article. It’s bite-size. It’s apparently still bite-size even when the listicle is 40, 50 even 100 points long. And it’s probably amusing. Or illustrated with amusing pictures. Or GIFS!!! Even news can be distilled / simplified (depending on your perspective) down into factlets.

Viral?

Absolutely. It’s the site that thrives on social media. Everything about the site is about sharing as far as you can. Indeed, it was one of the first sites to tweet every single article it posts. And everything about the posts are viral. The titles are crafted to pique curiosity. Not quite the clickbaity "you won't believe what happened next" but titles such as what exactly are the 26 types of sweat you can smell on the Underground? Which non-speaking extra from Eastenders are you? 39 hacks to enjoying an avocado. How many of the 728 things every jogger thinks about have you actually thought about. And SHARE it. Once you’ve found out which teet of a cows udder most reflects your personality you’re encouraged to share it. That’s why the post so heavily on the Buzzfeed Twitter and Facebook accounts – because you can retweet or share with a click. You can add your comments, tell everyone why Chapel-en-le-Frith is the Derbyshire village in which you should be buried.

They aren’t actual posts. Yet.

And that’s half the problem with the site – the content. There’s so much of it. According to Wikipedia, the global sites produce over 350 articles per day. Hence why it gets so repetitive. Once you’ve worked through the major sitcoms for “which main character are you”, you either have to go for the bit-part characters, or the more obscure sitcoms. But they still have to be done. And similarly, once they’ve done “which city should you live in” for America, then it’s every country. And then state. County. City. Town. Village. Hamlet.

But that’s not all that’s repetitive. The posts themselves get repetitive. One week there will be ‘16 signs that need an explanation’; the next week there will be ‘27 signs that need better translations’. I know, when you’re producing nearly 400 pages a day across many offices there is bound to be some repetition. But there is too much. Contributors get a taste for what works and exploit it until we got bored. There are images and GIFs which have had more over-use than some of the implements in my kitchen. The same vaguely amusing image can be used in a post about the crappy weather, or about living in Manchester, or about summer, or about Mondays. It’s almost as if they don’t try.

And a lot of them don’t. One of the things which Buzzfeed ‘prides’ itself on – another way they get you to stick on the site for hours or to come back – is the community created content. Saw a post but think you can do better? Give it a go! But because the community is often just doing that – adding to an idea rather than creating it – and, moreover, as they are not getting paid for it, it is sloppy. It is copying and pasting content, usually from within Buzzfeed. Now, they do warn you of this – there is a disclaimer of sorts that says that the content has been created by a member of the community; but you only find that out once you’ve clicked through to the page which turns out just to be a compendium, once you’ve been disappointed by the “I’ve seen this twenty times already somewhere” feeling. It isn’t even really presented as a disclaimer but as an advert – a normal person did this. You’re normal, aren’t you? Why don’t you do this too?! Create your own list of 38 words that mean a different thing if you were brought up living in a cave.

And because they are unpaid and – particularly – untrained, the quality of the content is patchy. Whilst some of it is good, a lot is recycled or rehashed, and a surprising amount is just plain wrong. Take the entertaining ‘signs’ or ‘things that accidentally look like penises’ for example. Many of them do not exist as presented. A lot have been ‘digitally manipulated’ (Photoshopped); some specifically created with the intention of being amusing. Yes, some are real, demonstrating why designers should work in teams so that a number of perspectives can see if there is something ‘wrong’ together with copywriters to check for errors; but far too many are not. But this content is simply not checked. In many cases a basic search of Snopes or other such excellent websites will show that they have already been debunked.

The other half of the problem is – the content. Or, more specifically, that it doesn’t really know what it wants to be.

It has a lot of sections. You probably mostly know it for the ‘LOL’ entertaining quizzes and listicles. You may also have stumbled across the breaking news section. There’s also the more straight-laced sections on books, DIY and food (which is surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly) vegetarian leaning). It even has “long-form” pages (known more normally outside of Buzzfeed as articles), going behind the serious news stories.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. Look at the sections that fall out of the Sunday papers these days. Aside from the entertainment gossip, all the other Buzzfeed sections will appear. But it is the weighting given to each which is different. And here it is perhaps a victim of its own success – or, rather, birth. News, for example, was an add-on. It didn’t originally feature. But it was something that a few people wanted, and it gave Buzzfeed some credibility. The other sections (or ‘verticals’ as they are referred to in Buzzfeed – no idea why) aren’t what drives the traffic to the site – that is still the viral entertainment fluff – but they are sticky distractors; keeping you on the site once you’re there. Afterall, once you’ve found out which lake-set movie should be your favourite; why not try 18 recipes to cook with loganberries?

The long-forms themselves started out almost accidentally. Just as the news section was created to garner a bit more respect, gravitas, authority; so there was an internal decision to broaden the appeal. But, when the breaking news section linked to the Fox news site showing someone rather graphically committing suicide whilst pursued by police on live television, Buzzfeed came in for a lot of criticism. So, to respond to that, they examined – in long-form – the events leading up to that moment. And so a new section was formed where they could take a more in-depth look at the stories behind the news.

Buzzfeed shrugs off most criticism as being from the sluggish old media, still not adapting to the internet let alone social media; worried about losing clicks to this new pretender to the throne. And to a degree they are correct. But not all criticism is from the old media, or even direct competitors. A feeling of ennui is starting to develop within their own community and with other commentators.

And some of the criticism is very correct. One thing that Buzzfeed is very adept at is taking a current story – whether news, fun or general interest – and running it itself, often in a very similar format or using very similar language to another output. Copyright law is a tricky one, and there are only so many ways that different sites can report the same stories; but Buzzfeed cuts ‘lifting’ very close to the wire on occasions, and on others it has had to acknowledge blatant plagiarism.

As a new source of news and entertainment, they are still learning – they are “disrupting the establishment” – whether it be by innovation or by more dirty tricks. They are still developing their own style and procedures, hence the lack of consistency across the site – even before considering the community contributions.

The site is clearly very popular, hence why there are a spawn of copycat sites popping up to nibble the cherry – playbuzz and distractify to name but a couple. But for how long? We’ve all seen the lifespan of the internet meme is quickly over (remember Doge?) and Buzzfeed relies heavily on them. We’ve also seen how quickly tastes change online and how very very quickly sites that rely upon social interaction fall out of favour – Friends Reunited or Myspace anyone?

Maybe the last post will be “The 38,897,264 Buzzfeed listicles you have probably already read.”

School Hellidays

Recently there has been a furore surrounding school holidays. Or more particularly holidays outside of school holidays.

There have been a number of articles, including the parent who was fined “over£1000” for taking his children out of school during term-time. Of course, this chap is clearly just trying to make a point and get publicity for what he thinks is a draconian measure – what he doesn’t say, but the article does, is that had he paid on time the fine would have been just £60 per child.

Then there is the petition against holiday companies who inflate prices for non-term-time holidays .

And suddenly parents are up in arms. They are up in arms at the profiteering, and they are up in arms at the draconian regulations and the heavy-handed application.

Now, I speak as someone who doesn’t have children, and who works in an organisation where I am able – nay encouraged – to take holidays during term-time so that priority during school holidays can be given to those who can only take holiday outside of term-time. That said, I’m not bitter about being unable to holiday in July and August due to my lack of off-spring; I’m actually quite objective about it. Yes, I may have restrictions placed upon when I can take holiday; but I don’t particularly want to take much holiday during the restricted times. The payoff that I get for agreeing to those restrictions is cheaper holiday.

So, we’ll start with the regulations.

As I say, parents are up in arms about them. They feel they are excessive. In a free society, so they should be free to take their children out of school to go on holiday. And in a sense they are. Well, not ‘free’, but £60. It’s not much, and it certainly isn’t as much as I would like to see. It means that a term-time holiday is still much cheaper than holiday-time so there is still a cost-benefit incentive to take children out of school.

The regulations changed a few months ago. Previously the headteacher had a lot of discretion to allow children to take term-time holidays. I don’t like discretion. It gets applied unfairly depending upon the mood of any particular person on any particular day. Now the headteacher can only grant term-time time-off in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances do not include a bargain week at Eurodisney.

Now, I whole-heartedly agree with the regulations. Why? Well, because education is vitally important. It may not sound much – missing one week – but when you factor in that there are only 39 weeks in a school year, and that a few of those diminish due to administration at the beginning and end of terms; sports days; trips and visits; then missing a further week means that the child actually has a lot of catching up to do. Think about it – the child has around 25 hours of actual teaching in a week. That’s 25 hours that the child has to make up, and usually within a short space of time because the learning doesn’t let up – the rest of the class keep going.

And that’s just the child. Taking children out of school doesn’t just impact the child, but the teachers. Each time a child is off, the teacher will have to spend a considerable amount of time in one-on-one tuition with the child, or at the very least preparing a written summary of what happened during the lessons. This is work which simply wouldn’t have to be done if that child was not off. Yes, the teacher would have to do similar if the child was off due to illness or other exceptional circumstances; but that is precisely the point of the regulations. Where it is absolutely unavoidable, then fine; but the burden should not be placed upon the teacher and the child in avoidable circumstances. Think about it – if every child in the class were to take a week off during term-time, that would mean there was one child missing for practically every week of the school year. The impact on the teacher would be excessive. And let's face it - the teacher doesn't get to take time off to take an off-peak holiday. When they enter the teaching profession they accept that as one of the conditions of working, just as I accept that other people will get priority over school-holiday annual leave.

I’ve heard of people arguing that they should have the ‘right’ to take the child out of education for a holiday. Rights also come with responsibilities – and here the responsibility is to ensure the child is not disadvantaged with their education. To be honest, I struggle to see a holiday as a ‘right’; but more as a luxury. That said, I speak as someone who didn’t get a holiday every year, and those that we did were bargain-bucket holidays, camping or driving to France to stay in a self-catered gite. There were no hot, poolside hotels for me. But I’m not bitter.

Anyhow, that’s the regulations dealt with. Then on to the increased costs…

Yes, I admit, there is a degree of profiteering here. But not to the extent made out. And we have to remember, we live in a free market – price is determined by supply and demand. And it isn’t as though there isn’t competition out there: we don’t live in a cartel, we live in a highly competitive market and if one company wants to steal a win over the others it could reduce its prices.

But, of course, it isn’t that simple. To a degree, the families subsidise the holidays for the rest of us. When you look at the profits that the holiday companies make of the course of a year they are not substantial. Tui reported profits of £471m on revenues of £14.7bn. That’s about 3.2% profit. Not much. Centre Parcs made a massive £48m loss in 2012, turning it around to a profit of £18.6m. This is on revenue of £291m – a profit margin of just over 6%. And bear in mind, to achieve this they had to have occupancy of over 97%. So if their prices are double during term time, it must mean that they are making a loss outside?

Well, to an extent. Usually off-peaks are priced to just cover costs; though not always. There are particularly quiet times where the resorts and carriers don’t cover their revenues – where they have to stay open because of the season or to keep their flight slots or such like; or where a total shut-down would end up costing as much in staff wages, electricity, other overheads. Whilst the smaller revenues are still not sufficient to off-set the costs, they still mean less of a loss than zero revenues. And then, of course, there is the expenditure whilst closed off-season. This is when the hotels refurbish themselves; the resort gets the new facilities and there is no income.

So, if pressure were put on the holiday companies to ‘level-out’ prices, the chances are actually not that peak prices would reduce; but more probably that off-peak prices would increase.

And that’s even before you think about the difficulties in trying to force companies to do that in a free market. There are so many factors and variables to take into account. Yes, there is the obvious cost of accommodation and travel; but what about people who build their own packages? Would the regulations similarly apply to incidentals – would your car hire company have to charge the same amount during school holiday? Many of them actually offer cheaper prices during school holidays because demand is low: their primary customers are business customers. It’s very difficult. Someone even suggested that during school holidays, air passenger taxes should be suspended. That only benefits those who holiday abroad – generally the more affluent anyway.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the higher cost of a holiday is one of those cost that has to be accepted as a cost of childhood. I don’t have children, and so I benefit from cheaper holidays in the same way as I benefit from cheaper holidays because I’m only paying for one hotel room, not two/three/four, in the same way I benefit from not having to buy nappies, car seats, high chairs, beds, clothing and such like. I don't get the benefit of having a child, but I don't get the financial burden either.

There is one solution that has been proposed which could work. Changing holidays so that schools are off at different times to other schools – staggering the ‘peak’ times, broadening them out across a much longer period, reducing the demand at any one time. Nottingham City recently proposed this but it was objected to by parents. Why? Because the holidays were at different times to other schools.

Sounds daft, and it is. The argument the parents made against the change was that where they had children in two different schools, they could have two different sets of school holidays. Or if they are a teacher under one local education authority and their children are under another, they won’t get the same holiday. Realistically, how many families will this affect? Probably very few if any. But for those that it does, again this is another factor that you bear in mind when having children and deciding where to live. I’ve seen the notes my mother prepared years and years ago when deciding where to move to when we were young – they included where the local school was; which secondary school catchment area were we in; and where this would mean that the parents would be able to work.

I know that this is a rather controversial topic, and I know that there will be some people who will tell me I don't have children so I don't have the right to an opinion. But if you are proposing changes that will affect my cost of a holiday, then I do. 

The primary concern here MUST be the education of the children. Holidays very much come second to that. And it must be remembered that holidays are not a basic human right but a luxury that you only have if you can afford.