Remember when business’s were just that, business’s that were simply involved of the business of making things? Things that you would then buy, if another business didn’t make a similar product that was better, that is. Better quality maybe, or better suited to your needs, or simply sold for a much better price. It was really quite simple, they made stuff that we bought. A nice transactional arrangement that suited everyone and more importantly, one in which everyone understood the role they they played.

But now it seems that the bigger a business is, the more profit it makes from whatever it does, then the more it needs the people that either buy or use the thing that they make, to think good things about them, so that they keep on being their customers. And if customers of competitor business’s also happen to think good things about them as well, in time and with enough good things thought, those potential customers might become actual ones.

Google today carry on the homepage of their search engine a link to ‘Discover Ballroom’ where one can explore and find out more about ‘its vibrant culture, history and importance.’ I have mixed feelings about this. Not because I don’t think its a story that shouldn’t be told, far from it, but rather the fact that a business, in this instance Google, is co-opting a ‘vibrant culture’ in order that good things are thought about it. Google aren’t the only business as much as in the business of selling us things as selling us the idea that they’re not just a business at all, that they don’t have a primary legal obligation that maximise returns to its shareholders, but they are in fact on the side of the angels. They’re all at it.

Or maybe, it’s me being cynical, maybe everyone involved is happy with arrangement. That Google are celebrating a hitherto largely unknown part of life’s rich tapestry for no other reason than it deserves to be celebrated. Quite possibly.

Coldplay.

The band you like if you find Radiohead a bit too challenging, a bit too idiosyncratic and a bit less popular with your friends. But hey, what do I know? To me both are guilty of making the kind of jingly-jangily guitar music (JJGM) that I’d hoped dance music had banished into obscurity. To be nothing more than a stark of warning to adolescent boys with dreams of being intellectuals and virgins no longer of the dangers inherent in foolishly believing that their parents weren’t lying about their ‘musical’ ability. So that makes me a hypocrite, admittedly not in the same league as Coldplay, but still.

Is there a sliding scale of hypocrisy? If not, there should be. Is it possible to be only a ‘sometime’ hypocrite, only one on a day with only a ‘o’ in it,? Or else a full-time hypocrite, the kind who bangs on about being a vegan, whilst secretly wolfing down fillet steak cooked rare. I ask because a while ago, in a previous post, in addition to outing myself as a hypocrite, I asked whether it was better to be a hypocrite and know you are one, or to be a hypocrite and not know? Or, is it better to be a hypocrite and not even care?

Coldplay have provided me me with another possible iteration. Namely is it OK to take a laudably virtuous and principled stance on something, one that you know will have great negative financial implications for you and others, only for a few years later to totally reverse that decision, asserting that the reversal isn’t actually a reversal at all. But merely a realisation that simply by hiring someone to tell you that by tinkering with some eye-catching trivialities, and loudly proclaiming them as evidence of something, then they could resume doing what they did before they so foolishly announced they were going to stop doing it.

Confused? You and me both.

Because back in 2019, they announced to much approval by the right people that they were postponing touring their new album, not because it was full of the sort of JJGM beloved by estate agents and hairdressers, and didn’t want to cause the levels of aural pollution later achieved by Ed Sheeran. No, they cited their concern about the ‘environmental impact’

“We’re not touring this album,” frontman Chris Martin told BBC News. “We’re taking time over the next year or two, to work out how our tour can not only be sustainable [but] how can it be actively beneficial.” Instead of spending months on the road, they played two gigs in Jordan, which were be broadcast, free, to a global audience on YouTube. But what was ‘actively beneficial’ in 2019 wasn’t by 2022. Possibly, their accountants had looked at the financial losses of not touring – no income from ticket sales, merchandising revenues or sponsorship deals -and advised the band that they couldn’t afford their preachy principles. So, to no-one’s surprise, by 2022, it was business as usual. Publishing the bands press release almost word for word, one website fawning so much it thought its mother was Bambi, gushed:

Coldplay’s 2022 world tour will be powered almost entirely by renewable energy, using a rechargeable show battery the band developed with BMW, the band explains on their website. They have teamed up with BMW to develop a rechargeable battery that will be powered by recycled cooking oil, solar power, and the kinetic energy of their audiences. And if that weren’t enough, fans can always hop on one of the electricity-generating bikes that will also be installed at each show, helping to cut mainstream electricity usage down even more. 

I was Glastonbury years ago, up in the Green Fields very late one night and very off my face. We found a tent that not had a DJ playing some awesome tunes, but had the entire sound system powered by loads of tandem bikes producing electricity. No more than 500 people, most in a similar state to me – loads of energy and goodwill – but every now and again, the music would slow because not all of the bikes were in use. But ever the optimists and ignoring the fact that people who like JJGM are not known for their prolonged love of the dance-floor, the BBC tell us that this tour, which bothered earholes in Cardiff earlier this week, is partially powered by a dancefloor that generates electricity when fans jump up and down, and pedal power at the venues.

And just to enhance the whole sex and drugs and rock n roll vibe Their opener on Tuesday and Wednesday night will also play a bilingual video educating fans on the sustainability elements of the tour.

Sounds like fun.

And not to be churlish about things, earlier this year Coldplay were at it again, playing 11 shows in South America, trousering $65.4M, as part of a tour that has 122 shows. What’s the point of preaching principles to others if you can’t get massively rich when selling them out?

This is only going to short post, in part because I’m so furious and in part because if it were going to be any longer, then it would require time-consuming research and time is not my friend right now.

In the Europe of 2023, an independent sovereign nation has been invaded by its much larger neighbour, one that is not only by a considerable margin the biggest military power on the continent. But one that is under the control of a leader also who is easily characterised as a ‘path this or a ‘list that. However, from an alternative point of view, one might reasonably deduce that he might have looked at 20th Century European history and arrived at a wholly rational decision, namely that the other European powers would talk a good talk, but actually do nothing.

For Austria in 1938, see Crimea in 2014. Both were justified on totally self-serving fabrications and both were used to gauge the response it would provoke. Angry words at The League of Nations in 1938 and the same angry words at the United Nations 2014 on both occasions, but both about as much use as a marzipan dildo. Meanwhile, whilst aggressor keeps on aggressing, the European leaders give ever more pitiful reasons to explain away why they must do nothing. What kind of fools are they, spineless or just scared. ‘All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing’, goes the old saying. The updated 2023 iteration is ‘Evil triumphs when there are not enough good people to stop them.’

Today is June 6th, 2023.

I’m not a parent myself so I can’t even begin to imagine the overwhelming sense of dread one feels when one’s child goes missing. Most of those missing children are thankfully found, however that still leaves parents whose children are never found with a loss that is so enormous it defies description.

But this post isn’t about that. Its about those parents whose child is missing, not only from their lives, but also in the media. Its about the scar in those parents lives that is ripped open anew, when some other theory that might lead to a clue about Madeline McCann is reported in the media, or a new computer generated image is produced of Ben Needham, showing how the two year old toddler who went missing in 1991 might look now. The media landscape is growing both more fickle and rapacious with every news cycle, it needs newness to sate it, so when a child goes missing, initially there’s interest. But it soon passes as more newsie news pushes it further and further away from editors attention.

How must they feel? Is their torment the price they must pay for not having as photogenic a child as the media demands? If no heart-wrenchingly cute photo exists, how, in this increasingly online world, are they to be kept alive by the media? Since Madeline McCann’s disappearance in 2007, 1.5 million UK children have gone missing. It could be much much more. These people think so. But between 70,000 and 120,00 children every year, of whom roughly 80% are found within 24 hours. Which still leaves an unbelievably large amount of anguished parents, unanswered questions and lives not lived. And forgotten by the media.

One can’t, of course, lay all of the blame solely on the media, tempting as it is to do. Editors are aware of which stories their readers are drawn to, what will keep them clicking, and the more they click, the more content is produced to keep them clicking. So, you, yes you, are all to blame as well, complicit in keeping other peoples misery alive, but not me, because I don’t click on those stories.

This post isn’t about Phillip Scofield. Well, it kind of is, and it isn’t, but what it definitely isn’t about is the scandal that has engulfed him, causing him to lose his jobs, his reputation and well everything. Because I know as much about all of that circus as I do about the weather on Mars.

Gordon Brown, remember him? The dour faced misrerabilist who was inexplicably our Prime Minister a while back? Scottish chap, permanently looking like he’d just been given some bad news, and when he tried to smile it was as he’d read how to do it in a book but had never quite got the hang of it? Coming back now?Couldn’t answer in an interview what his favourite biscuit was? Now you do!

The reason I mention him is that he immediately came to mind when I read that Scofield had said in, an interview on the BBC with Amol Rajan,

“I fully appreciate there is a massive age gap, but that happens in life. I think there is an enormous amount of homophobia that it happens to be male, but if it was male-female then it wouldn’t be such a scandal,”

See what he did there? Possibly, just possibly, it was a combination of him lying about the fact that the affair had even happened, the bosses at ITV being worried by all the negative press that this created and their urgent need to be seen to take immediate action, that they were more of the causative factors here. But Phillip thought, instead of seeing a downfall largely created by himself and the consequences that ensued from them, saw homophobia. A nicely self-serving swerve, where he sought to reframe the narrative and muddy the waters in which he’s drowning by giving the media yet another angle to discuss. Exactly how homophobic is is the British media? Classic swerve, hinting at the shadowy motives that only he imagines can explain his accusers actions.

Anyway, Gordon Brown. On the election campaign trail in 2011. Meets Gillian Duffy. Now you remember. When he is safely back his the car, forgets he is still miked up and calls her a bigot. So that became the story, not her concerns about unchecked immigration from Eastern Europe, not the fact that the previous Labour government had been politically naive enough to imagine that it wouldn’t be a problem. Instead, call her a bigot and when that leaks, make the story all about that and not her concerns that lead to the story in the first place. And the media will be so thankful as well, it being a lot easier to pontificate about how a politician should behave, is someone a bigot or not, rather than to seriously discuss the problems of unchecked immigration.

Granted, it might have been an accidental swerve, but it served the same purpose. And although history is no doubt littered with other swerves, I always think this one the best, because not only did it immediately dominate the campaign for days and act as distraction from more weightier issues, it was the media themselves that leaked the story and made more of it than it deserved.

Nowadays, it seems that live in an increasingly reframing of the narrative – swervey – times. Been accused of something and are as guilty as fuck? Why not swerve the whole thing, make out that your the real victim, that the whole thing is fuelled by an ‘ism, a ‘phobia, a toxic this, a misogynistic that or something, anything, that’ll give the Twatterati something else to froth over instead? Indeed, we live in times when we almost expect a swerve to happen. I mean, can you recall the last time when someone embroiled in a very public scandal didn’t try and swerve out of it, but instead said ‘Yeah, fair do’s, I’m bang to rights and I’ve only myself to blame.’

Swerving doesn’t work all of time, but throw enough mud, and who knows? Maybe even Gordon the Gopher will believe it?

I know, yet another post having a swipe at ‘The Guardian’, and I wish I was sorry, but not only am I not, I’m also aware that it won’t be the last. Don’t blame me. If they persist in printing contradictory tosh that perpetuates the breathtakingly self-serving notion that their readers – or proprietors/owners/tune-callers/ – can keep on having children and be concerned about the climate emergency, what else can I do? Ignore it, pretend it never happened, or possibly follow their example, because it isn’t hypocritical if ‘The Guardian’ doesn’t say it is?

Anyway, the lead story on on Monday screamed;

More than 90 English primary schools to close or face closure for lack of pupils

Guardian analysis lays bare effect of dwindling pupil numbers and associated funding amid rising housing and childcare cost

Wait, was that 90 schools? Is that a lot? How would I find out? I mean I could always do a search on google, I suppose, to find out exactly how many primary schools there are in the UK, but that would take me all of 0.17 seconds. Here goes.

The answer, surprising to any Guardian readers continually told how bad things have become after Brexit, is just over 16,000. So, far from warranting the screaming headline it was given, and yet further still from deserving of a lead story. But yes, it was an ‘exclusive’, in the sense that no other newspaper wasted their time on it and yes, it was ‘news’, albeit in the very narrowest of definitions of what we understand the word to mean, inasmuch as no-one was aware of it.

But wait, it gets worse;

The analysis showed 88 primary schools in England were more than two-thirds empty last year, leaving them in danger of closure. On average, the vacancy rate – the proportion of unfilled places – recorded by the 156 schools that have closed since 2009-10 in their last year of operation was 66%.

A further four primary schools were already proposed to close.

So only four schools, four isn’t that much, and hang on… 156 schools that have closed since 2009-10…but that means fifteen or so have closed each subsequent year since then, and that’s not much either, is it? But the message was clear, it wasn’t as celebratory, that the birth rate is declining, as it should’ve been. So much such so, in fact that, we were told that primary school admissions are predicted to fall by a percentage that may be either large or small depending upon what the original figure was. No, it was all doom and gloom, that somehow people having less babies is a bad thing, a source of concern worthy of a screaming headline. It was their top story on Monday. No mention of the fact that no schools have closed. Never mind though, a story reporting that nothing has happened although it might happen at some future date, for entirely logical reasons, isn’t much of a story, is it?

Thinking again of their readers – or proprietors/owners/tune callers ‘The Guardian’ couldn’t leave it at that, all hand-wringingly sad face, no matter how much they wanted it to be the fault of Brexit, partygate and Boris’s Johnson. They need the donations to keep coming in after all, so therefore they had this, to cheer their paymasters up. So further down the homepage was this;

Baby boomtown: does Nagi hold the secret to repopulating Japan?

Fertility rate is more than twice the national average and nearly half of households have three or more children – thanks in no small part to generous daycare and an all-in approach to raising families

It seems utterly bizarre that a family having three or more children is seen as a good thing, something to be admired. To me, it makes no sense, the notion that you can have children, yet still be deluded enough to think that recycling this, driving an electric car to there or eating the other is somehow doing your bit to help the planet. Perhaps ‘The Guardian’ is like a weird pyramid scheme, whereby the more their readers pay, the more the secrets of how to have children and be concerned about the planet are revealed to them

The article waxes lyrical about the many benefits that are used to bribe people into being even more consumptive than they already were. Cheap childcare, subsidised healthcare until the pollutants are 18, massively subsidised housing, basically all the things ‘The Guardian’ thinks this government should do but isn’t and gush about how wonderful everything is, somewhere else that isn’t here.

I was going to write about something else else today entirely, but just before I opened WordPress, I made the cardinal sin of thinking ‘Oh, I may as well see what the Guardian is going on about today.’

Big mistake.

Because befouling my eyes was the headline,

More than half of voters now want Britain to forge closer ties with the EU, poll reveals
Dramatic reversal in public opinion seen even in those constituencies that recorded the highest votes to leave

Which if true, would indeed be a source of some great alarm inside No.10.

But it was bollocks.

‘The Guardian’ had commissioned a survey which just happened to add yet more increasingly spurious credibility to an already spurious proposition, namely that suggests most people regretted voting to leave the EU. Maybe within the circles that Guardian journalists live, possibly, and maybe equally possibly businesses, but most people, I would hope are more pragmatic and having accepted the decision, now want to move on and make the best of it.

But that doesn’t suit ‘The Guardians’ both insulting and patronising narrative, which grows ever more unhinged the further we get from the vote itself. In trying to come with reasons why people voted to leave, they assert that people were lied to and because of that they din’t know what they were voting for. In their alternative reality, every political party in the history of ever has always told the electorate the truth order to get elected. The underlying assumption underpinning all of this nonsense is that everyone who voted to remain, and most especially Guardian readers, were totally au-fait with the nuances and detail of what EU membership meant for the UK.

Again, bollocks.

Most people who voted to remain could cite five, maybe six reasons why they voted the way they did, but once you took away utterly self-serving reasons for doing so – my son may want to work in Barcelona, I travel to Europe a lot, that sort of thing – basically one was left with reasons that basically boiled down to an abiding wish to be anything other than English. Well not the sort of English who didn’t see themselves as Europeans first, anyway.

Back to the survey.

One wonders if ‘The Guardian’ would have given it quite so much prominence, if they’d publish it all in fact, if it proved the very opposite to what they’d hoped? And how many people were surveyed? 10,000 we’re told. I’m sure that the methodology was this and that, that it allowed for this and weighted (whatever that means) for that, but still, 10,000 people. Considerably less than the 130,000 Conservative members who voted the last but one Tory leadership election, and which ‘The Guardian repeatedly criticised as being unrepresentative but then they weren’t expressing a view that ‘The Guardian’ didn’t agreed with, were they?

It makes me think of ‘Bullseye’, perhaps the most sadistic gameshow of the 1980’s. Ostensibly a darts based game-show (yes children, that was a thing), contestants would compete to win prizes. So far, so normal, yes? But ‘Bullseye’s’ evil genius lay in the fact that when the pair, who had made it through to the final would lose, would be then be shown exactly what they’d lost. “Here’s what you could have won.”, would announce host Jim Bowen, as he showed a couple from Nottingham a speedboat.

That’s what I thought of when I saw that story. Under almost any other circumstance, ‘The Guardian’ would be criticising those in positions of power for ignoring the democratic will of the people, in pursuit of their own narrow-minded beliefs. They constantly print articles that seek to blame all of Britain’s woes on Brexit and if they can’t do that, then shoehorn a Brexit blaming narrative wherever they can.

Oh, I should add that I voted to remain, but then, democracy, losers consent, Britain not being a dictatorship, tolerance of opinion….

I’ve always been highly suspicious of the Liberal Democrats and it’s a suspicion that their leader, Mr Ed, proved to be fully justified.

Not just because of the fact that when they knew they had no chance of ever constituting anything approaching an effective political force, they promised all manner of things to woo the electorate. They were like the ‘Goldilocks’ of British politics, inasmuch as they were like the Conservatives but not too much like Conservatives and they were like Labour but not too much like Labour. They were something different – which was important when your trying to impress your middle-class friends that you too were different – although what exactly that difference was, wasn’t exactly clear. Their seemingly intentional vagueness didn’t help matters for me so I never understood the point of them actually. To my way of thinking, why didn’t a voter either spoil the ballot paper or be just be honest and secretly vote Conservative anyway.

They were partly defined by what they weren’t. They had beliefs, but not what one might call a central unifying one, one that could be summed up in a sentence and was elegantly simple. The Conservatives were – and still are – for example, are pro-business, pro minimal state regulation, pro-monarchy and pro-privatisation. Labour were pro-workers rights, pro-trade unions, pro-welfare state, and pro-state intervention for the common good. Butt now? Who knows? But with the Lib Dems one never knew, possibly because they weren’t treated by the media as ever likely to be anything other than good sports for making the effort.

But whilst they had successfully managed to inveigle themselves into the electorates collective consciousness as the decent political party, all of that credibility that they’d built up over the years, was exposed expedient posturing in a quite breathtaking act of political opportunism. After the 2010 general election, where no one party was able to form a majority government, some hurried negotiations took place, which saw many Lib Dem manifesto pledges being jettisoned in ‘the national interest’ of having to form a coalition government with the Conservatives.

What might have been in the national interest certainly wasn’t in theirs .No one trusted them anymore and with good reason. The Tories used them as a political fig leaf. And gave rise to the joke, “Why did Nick Clegg cross the road?”, “Because he said he wouldn’t.” The curtain had been pulled back and revealed them be as ethically dubious they had always claimed they weren’t. But somehow even that disastrous period in coalition government didn’t dim the enthusiasm of the mung bean eating and sandal wearing faithful. Inexplicably, they stayed true.

I’d imagine that a lot of them, especially women, may have reconsidered their loyalty to the party when the party showed no loyalty to them, as evidenced on Tuesday. Because Lib Dem leader Mister Ed claimed, in response to a caller on an LBC phone-in asking him ‘on behalf of 51 per cent of the population’ to explain ‘what is a woman’. Sir Ed told the caller: ‘The vast majority of people whose biological sex is a woman when they were [born], they feel they’re women… But there’s this very small number of people who don’t feel like that.’ Presenter Nick Ferrari then asked twice: ‘Can a woman have a penis?’ Eventually, the Lib Dem leader replied: ‘Well, quite clearly.’

Any politician today is aware that this question might be asked of them, and equally aware of the political storm that engulfed Labour leader Not Hardie when he failed to answer a simple question about what was a woman, and equally aware that the Conservatives can answer this question with ease. Namely, that a woman is a biological human female. Mr Ed clearly saw a political opportunity here. One that would not only massively distance the Lib Dems from both the Labour and Conservative parties but equally demonstrate that the Liberal Democrats were fully onboard with the new political virtue signally orthodoxy, one that suggests among other things that a woman can have a penis.

Which, and I can’t quite believe this is even a thing that needs to written, is a load of what women don’t have.

They were at it again, the other day, the little scamps that sub-edit ‘The Guardian’, when they chose to headline a story on its front page thusly;

“Low birthrate is UK’s top priority, Tory MP tells rightwing conference”

How could I resist, it was almost written with me in mind? So I clicked on it, only to realise it wasn’t, as I’d hoped some senior government MP, calling for the government to do more to stop the birthrate from increasing, but the very opposite. A previously obscure Tory MP, saw an opportunity to make a name for themselves in the right circles, and equally important, cause outrage in right-on circles.

Addressing the National Conservatism shindig, and seeing a career enhancement opportunity for what it was and seizing it with both hands, Miriam Cates MP said western countries faced an existential threat from falling reproduction, arguing that a lack of family-friendly tax policy in the UK played a significant role. Because, as we all know, having a family-friendly tax policy is uppermost in ones mind when one is consumed by lust. Time and time again, the Tory’s bang on about this, hoping that the Goebbels Phenomena will eventually kick in.

Anyway, the story went on “Cates claimed that the UK’s low birthrate is the most pressing policy issue of the generation and is caused in part by “cultural Marxism” stripping young people of any hope, at the start of a populist-tinged conference in London.” Did you see what they did there? By labelling something ‘populist’, The Guardian’ is effectively engaging in dog whistle journalism, letting its readers know that this isn’t something they should agree with.

But not for the reasons ‘Guardian’ readers think, because the entire business model of ‘The Guardian’ is principally to keep on attracting readers and one way to do that is to pander to their seemingly endless capacity for hypocritical self-delusions . Chief amongst these is that they can keep on having more children, keep on consuming more, but only as long as they consume more of the right things. You know, consuming things that don’t consume increasingly scarce raw materials, aren’t manufactured in in a polluting way, by people in sweat-shops or on zero hour contracts. Those one’s, which naturally, ‘The Guardian’ will tell their readers what those things are and handily, where to but them from.

But I digress. Back to Miriam, who is sensing that her move from obscure to a future star is only a few more headlines away, said that the low birthrate was “the one overarching threat to British conservatism, and to the whole of western society”. Hang on, did someone just say that, someone who expects to be taken seriously, not only as a politician but simply as an intelligent human. Is not an increasing birthrate the threat, is not an unchecked global population a threat to all societies, not just western? I know I’m cherry picking from an already highly cherry picked account of her speech, but still.

But hey, what do I know, she’s on the same page as Extinction Rebellion. They don’t believe that an increasing population is a problem either, and besides, her strategy is working. Because in yesterdays “Guardian”, we had profile of her, “Miriam Cates: the new Tory ‘darling’ and rising star of the right”

Having compared Extinction Rebellion (XR) with the Peoples Front of Judea yesterday, I thought it only fair that I should poke around their website, see what they were about, read their demands, and then to cherry pick the parts I can take the piss out of. Of course, being a White heterosexual male – so therefore privileged – taking the piss is only to be expected of me. Perhaps the fact I’m brain damaged nullifies this. Who knows?

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction is one, that to be fair, XR are not alone in being guilty of. But just because lots of people do something, it doesn’t make it right. So, they find nothing contradictory in stating that, “There is a value in us making changes in our own lives to reflect the changes needed, such as changing our diets, where we go on holiday and so on (however personal responsibility can be overstated and is based, to some extent, in privilege).” Except, of course, the most important change of all, the decision not to reproduce. That is never mentioned. I mean, not anywhere on their website.

As I’ve consistently argued on this blog, the extinction of the entire human race can only be a good thing for the planet, but this view in no way blinds to a self evident fact. Namely, one can do less of this, more of that and start doing the other, but to keep on producing more babies means more consumption. Or am I missing something? If someone can tell me how increasing the global population is in any way good for the planet, well great, tell me.

I don’t see it myself but XR clearly do because, “Our duty is to create a world fit for the next seven generations to live in.”And then what? Seven is a bit too specific, isn’t it? What happens after seven or is that the goal, to be like a doomsday cult, seven generations and then everyone drinks the cyanide Flavor Aid? Is Roger Hallam trying to do a Jim Jones, albeit on an altogether bigger scale. If I was a supporter of XR, I’d want to know. But then again, it wouldn’t affect them, would it, seven generations?

After that, I kind of lost interest, although the achingly painful ‘right-on’-ness didn’t help much. Imagine if a hippy commune in 1970’s West Germany, fell of university drop outs who knit their own lentils, one where everyone has access to an unlimited supply of the drugs available in 2023. Then imbue all the hippies with a sense of self-righteous certainty, a certainty that only a zealot has, a zealot moreover, who is late to the party and who makes up for this by furiously necking everything they can get their hands on. That’s what the XR website makes me think of, some good idea’s, watered down to an almost homeopathic level by their own drug fuelled echo chamber.

Younger readers, rest assured that necking refers to the consumption of alcoholic beverages and not anything to do with inappropriate behaviour one might associate with a hippy commune. Although now alcohol consumption is seen by some problematic, so again, who knows?