Log in

No account? Create an account

Down in Albion ... young love tripped up on a Rainbow

About Recent Entries

Nov. 21st, 2011 @ 10:59 pm

Today I got asked if I was workshy.

I am not sure it would be possible to be more insulted than I am right now.

Swimming at the Brixton Rec Mar. 14th, 2011 @ 04:41 pm
Let me preface this by making it clear that I am not, by any means, a svelte or accomplished swimmer, nor have I ever been. Strong perhaps, once upon a time, but certainly not accomplished.

I have been swimming, for the last month or so, twice or three times a week at Brixton Rec. I like it because it's cheap and close to home, and on the way home from work so I can stop off and swim at the end of the day without going out of my way.

It does, however, have its drawbacks.

People, as it turns out, have quite extraordinary ideas about what 'swimming' actually is, and propel themselves through the water in a variety of perfectly remarkable ways.

The Kickers - sometimes you get the kickers. Despite the pool being divided into four (slow, medium and fast lanes, and free swimming), the kickers will always situate themselves in the slow lane and then swim as fast as they possibly can. They won't achieve a great speed, but they will kick. Wildly. Their legs flail as far in and out of the water as they can possibly get them; they won't look where they're going, or who is beside or in front of them; they will splash as hard as they are able so that you have to swim through fizz and are in grave danger of a broken nose.

The Snails and the Speedys - these are the ones who appear to have absolutely no idea of the speed of their swimming. The snails are so slow that, even in the slow lane, you are forced to stop every 3 strokes and back-pedal so that you don't swim into their feet. The speedys like to demonstrate that they *could* be in one of the other lanes if they desired, but that wouldn't allow them to show off, so instead they bat everyone aggressively in the slow lane out of the way as they power up and down the pool.

Then you get the Rollers - these are the first of the truly remarkable swimmers. They have mastered breast stroke (though usually without 'proper' breathing), and once upon a time, someone introduced them to the idea that there is a breathing technique to accompany front crawl. At some point, however, the 'technique' part, got lost in translation and so these incredible swimmers roll. With each intake of breath, their entire torso and their thighs turn over completely, to face the ceiling. What is really astonishing though, is that they proceed to roll back round, and then take the next breath on the other side, so that as they swim they rock from side to side to side through the water. This is usually accompanied by strenuous gasping and the arms flailing.

The Windmills, as you might imagine, are people with dubious front crawl motions. They usually keep their heads unnaturally raised up out of they water, and move their arms like someone put a splint at the elbow. They move a lot like six year olds, who have just progressed past doggy paddle, and their arms slap the water in such a way that it looks a lot like a belly-flop.

Finally, we have the incredible Doggy-breast-stroke-crawl. These specimens amalgamate all strokes into one bumbling disaster. On Saturday night, for example, the gentleman in question, had combined the breast stroke and front crawl leg action into something which was half frog-leg and half kick. His hands, meanwhile, worked in tandem to pull the water like doggy paddle from immediately in front of him, down, and out like breast stroke. I did not know it was possible to swim that slowly.

Bugger Feb. 25th, 2011 @ 08:20 am
Somebody broke into my car last night.

They were kind enough to lock it up again afterwards, and don't appear to have taken anything, but they broke in nonetheless.

Anyhow, I now have to pay to get the window replaced, which was not in this month's budget at all.

I'll be up doing pirouettes. Feb. 16th, 2011 @ 08:16 pm
Yes, it is 2005.

Since last night, I have mostly been thinking how sad it must be for all the people who haven't ever gone to a gig by a band they love so much that it's a bit like exploding with all the joy.

Jan. 18th, 2011 @ 10:51 pm
Me: [slightly frustrated remark to Y11 student to sit down]
Student A: Alright, alright, keep your socks on, Miss!
Student B: She's not wearing socks.
Student A: [glancing over from slumped seating position] Ok, ok, polyesters then.

Jan. 17th, 2011 @ 10:41 pm
So I just checked my student loan balance (stupid, I know), and have calculated that it will take me somewhere in the region of 17 years to pay it off at the current rate. Even assuming that my re-payments increase, the interest will mean that it will probably still be approximately the same amount of time.

I am truly glad I am not leaving school now.

Feb 15th Jan. 1st, 2011 @ 06:19 pm

I am probably more excited than is strictly right or proper, but I am SO EXCITED.

Misfits Dec. 5th, 2010 @ 07:00 pm
That is some fucked up shit. Not just a little bit either, but properly freakily fucked up, and I need for it to be Thursday already.

That computer game shebang freaked me out completely, and has convinced me that I definitely do not approve of such things.

If you haven't, you should watch it. It's good in an actually good way, not in my usual it's-shit-I-love-it way.

Nov. 21st, 2010 @ 11:10 pm
This weekend I have mostly been trying to avoid work by watching an amazingly terrible show called Beautiful People on YouTube. You can tell it's shit because a) I really like it, and b) it has all the shittest recurring role actors from other shit programs that I really like, and c) the *entire* thing is up on YouTube because even the people who made it know it's shit.

Now, of course, it's almost Monday, it's moderation deadline and I still have 15 essays left to mark. Perhaps I will turn into marking's whirling dervish at 7O'clock tomorrow morning and be able to bang them all out before period 3, but somehow I doubt it.

In other news, Melting Ice Caps with a band: only gutted I haven't seen them before now. Spiffing stuff!

The West Wing Oct. 27th, 2010 @ 12:01 am
I know that this is a TV show, and thus not 100% real life, but hear me out.

What I don't understand is this: if there is a constitutional separation of Church and State, why do politicians in the US spend so much of their time promoting/campaigning/lobbying from religious perspectives?

In all the crap leading up to the General Election in May, I don't remember any MP explicitly referencing their faith-based beliefs on political issues. In fact I don't remember anyone's religion being mentioned at all, except perhaps to criticise the Blair government for Blair being Christian (or perhaps to question the 'collective act of worship in schools' rule, though this might more be me projecting my own question). All of which is odd, when you consider that we have a national religion. We are in fact, in a way made impossible by the US Constitution, one nation under God, since we have a state faith and a head of state who is head of said faith.

Perhaps it goes back to Elizabeth I and her radical assertion that she 'did not wish windows into men's souls'. Perhaps even as far back as that, when CofE was a mere fledgling, we were moving towards an ambivalent attitude to religion in government, and perhaps the ease with which the church ceased to be biblically literal and accepting of the theory of evolution has developed into the take-it-or-leave-it approach taken by the electorate. Or perhaps, in having CofE we negate the need for a religious debate for just that reason: we are officially all members of said church, and thus we adopt a 'no windows' approach to the possibility that governing persons are not members: they must accept that parliament begins with prayer (though they are not obliged to attend) and remember the church's role but thereafter... I don't actually know the official rule for the Commons (though I would imagine there is no such legal discrimination by faith), but we shouldn't forget that 26 bishops sit in the House of Lords.

I think as I have been writing this, I have argued myself into my opinion on the UK, but I still remain bamboozled by the US. If church and state must be separate, then why do you swear on the bible? If church and state must be separate, why does the Pledge of Allegiance talk of 'one nation under god'? If church and state must be separate, why do politicians spend such a lot of their time campaigning or endorsing religious questions?

Anyway, I think that ramble was more to get my own thoughts straight that anything else. Not illuminated, but perhaps the shape of an opinion might be beginning to form.
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com