It's time we all got tough on drivers with mobiles

It was refreshing to see the headline of the Daily Mail on Saturday, stating that police will automatically  seize mobile phones at the scene of accidents in order to determine whether texting or talking on the phone was a contributory factor.
Daily Mail headline

It comes on top of a recent announcement by Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin that those caught texting whilst driving should be given six points on their license rather than three.

But I believe that this doesn't go far enough, and that until using a phone whilst driving is regarded in the same vein as driving whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and those who choose to flaunt the law are dealt with severely (and I'm talking long jail terms and life-time driving bans), then people will continue to do it.
It's about changing attitudes through education and, where that doesn't work, changing them through punishment.

So why am I getting hot under the collar about this particular issue?
Well, I think it's because every time I got out on the roads, and particularly when I'm driving up and down the M6 (which I tend to do most weeks), I see people texting and I see people talking animatedly on the phone.
You can tell them from a distance.
There are those who think that texting or talking is fine so long as you pull into the 'slow lane' and drive along at 45 mph…of course, these people are blissfully unaware of how much frustration they cause to the line of HGV drivers who, doing 56 mph, have to pull out to overtake them.
Then there are those who think it's best to plop themselves in the middle lane and maintain a distance of about ten feet behind the vehicle in front of them, irrespective of how fast they are actually travelling.
Of course, there are those who think it's safest (and this is especially the case for drivers of Audis, VWs, BMWs and Mercedes) to power along at 100+ mph in the fast lane whilst gesticulating wildly or pointing a finger aggressively at the invisible person on the other end of the phone.
And finally, there's the guys in the vans, texting their mates - you can spot them by the tell-tale shifts in direction that they make every time they glance up from their phone - these over-corrections are always a little exaggerated, as if the van is bouncing off invisible barriers on each side of the lane they're in.

All of these people are fucking idiots!
They're also all potential killers!

I've only ever once answered the phone whilst driving (a few years ago now), and that was via handsfree - fortunately, the friend who was calling me immediately asked if I was driving (they could hear the background noise) and, when I said I was, they told me I was a muppet (or words to that effect) and then told me to ring them back when I'd pulled into a service station.
That was a proper friend!
It's something we all should get into the habit of doing - if your phoning someone and you hear the distant roar, ask whether they're driving and, if they are, tell them they're being bloody stupid answering the phone, and hang up!
If you're in a text conversation with someone and you suspect they may be on the road…stop texting!!

And if you still need any convincing that these are the right things to do, watch this video!

Oh Tony, do be quiet!

As the positions of the US and Russia on Syria become more entrenched, and the rhetoric of the two leaders becomes more aggressive, how comforting it is to hear the comments of former PM Tony Blair.
According to Tony, the UK is hesitant to get involved in Syria because of what happened in Iraq...though not, he quickly points out, because of the fact that we went into that war on false pretences...oh no, according to Saint Tony, it was our failure to deal with the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq that has left us hesitant.
Now, far be it for me to argue with a former PM, but I think people here in the UK, appalled as we all are by the use of chemical weapons in Syria, actually don't want to go charging into another Middle Eastern country for the following reasons:

1. Whilst it's pretty likely that Assad was behind the attack, forgive us (after Iraq) for not believing either the US or UK governments when they claim to have 'conclusive proof' of who was behind it - after all, we never did find those weapons of mass destruction or the capability to launch those weapons in 45 minutes in Iraq, did we? (But we did find a shit-load of oil!!)
2. It's a bit rich for us to one year talk about the importance of UN resolutions as a mandate for military intervention and then, because we can't actually get one (yes, Russia and China, that's because of you and you still should be ashamed of yourselves!) we decide we don't actually need UN approval anyway.
3. We are still trying to get ourselves out of Afghanistan!
4. We're sick and tired of trying to police the world, and paying for the privilege.

For the West to take sides in Syria is to try to help people who hate you win a fight against people who hate you - in the end, you just end up with even more people hating you than when you started!
So, forgive me, Lord Blair of Cheam, if I don't subscribe to the argument that we are hesitant to attack a few buildings in Syria with missiles because we don't know how to end wars; I think we're hesitant because, under your leadership, we learnt about the folly of getting involved in a war, however barbaric, which we can never really win, based on all the wrong reasons!

Sorry...but not all men are idiots!

Can anyone explain to me why so many advertisers seem to think it's okay to portray men as idiots/wimps/morons/dicks?

Example 1:
(and believe me, friends, I am loathed to share these examples, because it provides the companies concerned with more publicity than they deserve...but the point has to be made somehow).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoTWt3yrE_k
How much of a divvy does that guy look and sound?
By the way, he doesn't know shit about playing tennis, judging from where he's standing on court!

Example 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVMrInD8hy8
Look at this utter cock - what the hell is he doing? Why does he lift up the table?
What sort of alternative universe do the advertising people behind this crock of shit actually live in? I mean, no man acts like that in a furniture store...ever! In reality, he's almost certainly there under duress, so he will always be wearing an expression which says 'Would rather be doing something... anything else. Ergo, I'm pissed off!' If he does interact with any furniture, it is only to appear to be interested and to dutifully confirm whatever it is his wife/girlfriend/mistress/partner has just said...or to check the price.

And it's not as if this approach of showing the male of the species as useless reflects well upon the fairer sex - after all, what is it suggesting about the women in these adverts when they are clearly willing to put up with such utter dorks. Take the woman at the beginning of Example 2 and the condescending shake of the head she does - it's as if she's saying 'Yes, I know he's a complete knob, but I'm so weak/pathetic/gooey-eyed-in-love-with-him that I'm willing to put up with it.'
In reality, any woman worth her salt would just tell him in no uncertain terms to stop acting like such a bloody pillock!

My thoughts on this?
Well, if advertisers are looking for their adverts to 'empower women' (which so many of these TV turds try, but fail, to do) and yet at the same time avoid offending men (which so many of these TV turds don't even try to do), then they could do a lot worse than portray a man being cooly and clinically put in his place by a woman, either by a short, cutting remark sharpened on the stone of frequent use, or simply a disapproving glare, perfected through years of repitition; it's closer to reality, and it's something to which 'real' men can definitely relate!