One of these trees is not like the others. Another from the lights exhibition at The Pool of London last month. I don’t really have a lot to say about this one – I’m a city kid, and one of my earliest memories is of watching The Triffids, so I regard trees with a certain healthy suspicion. But I liked this one.
I accidentally drunk about three quarters of a bottle of whisky while sitting about the house last night.
This may have been a mistake. I feel a trifle unwell.
One of the first photos I took that a number of my nearest and dearest expressed the admiration of was this one, Light Of Knowledge. This, then is my attempt to refine the shot a bit, with the addition of a couple of years practice, and a rather better camera. I’ve deliberately excluded any people from this shot, where the pervious versions contained humans. I’d be interested to know what you think of the change.
While I have no wish to seem either greedy or ungrateful for what I have already recieved, because I am neither (belated thanks to everyone who bought me gifts – I had in fact cunningly saved the amazon slips, to thank people individually as and when the books came up in the weekly rotation, but then I tidied up, and now I’ve lost them, so I can only go by memory, and there are a couple that I cannot remember so if I fail to thank you when your gift comes up,I apologise), I was going through my amazon wishlist today to itdy up post-birthday, and noticed that there were a couple of items on there that are listed as purchased, but which have not yet arrived.
So, if you bought me either “Fables: 1001 Nights of Snowfall” or “The Subterranean Railway”, then a) thank you, b) I apologise for spoiling the suprise, but I figured a fortnight was enough time to allow for Amazon shipping late, and c) from a purely practical point of view, if it’s not too much trouble for you to check: does amazon claimed to have dispatched these things to me? If they do, you may wish to harass them/claim a refund…
While I have no wish to seem either greedy or ungrateful for what I have already recieved, because I am neither (belated thanks to everyone who bought me gifts – I had in fact cunningly saved the amazon slips, to thank people individually as and when the books came up in the weekly rotation, but then I tidied up, and now I’ve lost them, so I can only go by memory, and there are a couple that I cannot remember so if I fail to thank you when your gift comes up,I apologise), I was going through my amazon wishlist today to itdy up post-birthday, and noticed that there were a couple of items on there that are listed as purchased, but which have not yet arrived.
So, if you bought me either “Fables: 1001 Nights of Snowfall” or “The Subterranean Railway”, then a) thank you, b) I apologise for spoiling the suprise, but I figured a fortnight was enough time to allow for Amazon shipping late, and c) from a purely practical point of view, if it’s not too much trouble for you to check: does amazon claimed to have dispatched these things to me? If they do, you may wish to harass them/claim a refund…
I went out last night with some friends, with the intent to spend all night wandering about London. Sadly, I am a big jessie, and packed it in it time to get the last tube. Nevertheless, I got a few photos – in fact, I actually went out with a specific idea of what I wanted to do with the night – produce a series of photos of “London through the looking glass” – images of a spectral city, heightened and unreal.
I’ll be spacing the photos I took on that trip out, because they’re all going to be cross-processed, like this one, and I don’t want to bore you all by repeating the same trick for a week.
I haven’t put up a texture piece in a while, so here’s one from a month or so back – the Thames, lit in red.
Yes, I know I haven’t put anything up in a while – I’ve switched to using a Mac as my main machine, but I haven’t got hold of a copy of Photoshop for it yet, so my photos aren’t easily to hand whenever I’ve got a spare ten minutes. Crappy excuse, I know. On the bright side, I do have a massive backlog. I may temporarily rescind my one-a-day rule (which is only there because I don’t want to spam people’s friends pages) on those occaisions when I do am on the machine with photoshop on it, in an attempt to catch up.
#472:
While strolling along the Thames Path enjoying the sun, one lunchtime in the Spring, one does not expect to be knocked down by a motorbike.
Cunts.
(Yeah, I know – posting late of Friday night is a great way to get people to ignore your post. HeNver mind.)
As per my workblog earlier, there is a case before the courts, of a lesbian charged with bigamy – of making a false statement to the registrar at a civil commitment ceremony. Because she was already married. To a man – presumably the husband she has not get divorced,
She has plead not guilty, and the case has been referred to the Crown Court. I don’t know if it’s because she’s bloody minded, or because she wants to be the test case that establishes the law on this.
Now it seems open and shut to me – we have a law that says that you cannot be married to more than one person, so yeah, it’s bigamy.
But it was pointed out to me that other people do not consider marriage and a civil commitment to be the same thing. This was something of a shock to me, because to me, they’re doing exactly the same thing: you get up in front of a crowd, you pledge your devotion, and you then get tax breaks, etc[1]. God does not enter into it. In my view, you’re as married or not in the eyes of your god as you choose to be. You might not be married in the eyes of your church, but your god is up to you. But then, while I can understand faith, and a relationship with god, the concept of belonging to a church totally and utterly eludes me. I don’t understand why you’d give a body of other humans veto on the nature of your relationship with god.
But marriage is an institution of the church, and so the two are not the same thing, in some people’s eyes. And if they’re being denied marriage, why should they worry about it when they’re pledging their civil commitment?
But on the other hand: it is surely not fair to the great mass of people in this country that a person should get two sets of the same tax break, when it is explicitly denied to most people. Surely the courts must take the view that just because the church that people choose to belong to denies them marriage, it is not incumbent on the state and the rest of the taxpayers to make up for it?
Or, alternatively, should we simply allow everyone to have both a marriage and a civil commitment? Or is that unfair to those that cannot have marriage, because their church denies it to them?
I’d be interested to hear what people feel on this one…
[1] I am quite willing to be corrected that the tax breaks differ, which would add another dimension to this…
