A HARD DAY'S "NEET"

It turns out I'm a "neet" (not in education, employment or training). Thankfully, my girlfriend is no longer in the same boat, since she's very luckily managed to bag herself a trainee job working in a care home. Trouble is, we have no real cause to crack open the bubbly just yet, since those bloody idiots at the Job Centre inadvertently seem to be trying to destroy our very financial stability like the bureaucratic buffoons they so clearly are.

You see, for the past 4 months, my girlfriend and I have been on benefits. It's not something we've been particularly proud of, but judging by all the statistics about poor job prospects for uni graduates and 1 million young people unemployed, it’s been largely unavoidable. Back in July, we made a joint claim for income-assessed Job Seekers Allowance, Council Tax and Housing Benefit. We got enough money from welfare so that we could sustain our flat (paying rent, bills, food, etc.), applied for as many jobs as we possibly could, and despite being pretty damn impoverished, we've managed.

However, now she's got a job, she's notified the Job Centre of her change in circumstances, and they're giving us nothing but jiff. Essentially, what's happened is that my girlfriend's recent employment has re-configured our joint claim to be a single claim for myself via a contribution-based Job Seekers Allowance. This means that as of now, while I’m still unemployed, my benefits are likely to be estimated by my partner’s income. Trouble is, her income isn't very high – about £10,300 annually – so with tax taken into account we ain't gonna have two pennies to rub together.

The other kick in the teeth is that regardless of her low income, since she'll be working more than 24 hours a week, they're automatically revoking my entitlement to Job Seekers Allowance, meaning that all I'll be entitled to is council tax and housing benefit. Of course, none of this would be so bad if my girlfriend could get working tax credits to top-up her low income so that we can be in a better position financially, but since she's under 25, she's ineligible for working tax credits too. Even a lady I spoke to on the Job Centre Plus phone service said that it's "disgusting" that my girlfriend's not entitled to working tax credits, and I couldn't agree more.

Now, I don't mean to run off on a tangent, and I know it's such a typically working class thing to moan about immigrants, especially after all this BNP nonsense we keep hearing on Question Time. But generally, I'm not a 'batten down the hatches’ sort of bloke with a closed door policy on immigration. Obviously, I feel illegal immigrants should (except in some cases) be kicked out, regardless of what the EU says, and the legal ones should only be permitted entry if they have enough professional kudos (or qualifications) to boost our economy.

In fact, I'm pretty sure for most immigrants in this country – particularly the Poles and the other East European workers who work for peanuts – it's nothing but sweat, blood and drudgery. I suppose what I’m saying is, I’m certainly no Enoch Powell, and in fact, some immigrants should probably be kept out of this country to save themselves from being exploited for cheap labour in my view. But anyway, I perused through the direct.gov.uk website, and in the Money, Tax and Benefits section I discovered some information about immigrants. It turns out if you’ve come from another country to live and work in the UK, you may be able to get tax credits, pending a few ‘residency rules’. One of these rules mentions "being 16 or over."

Hold on a tick, does this imply that if you're a foreigner aged 16 or over, possess a work visa and have a legal entitlement to work in the UK, then you’d be entitled to working tax credits? Or is that only for foreigners who have children? If it's the former, what about UK citizens like my girlfriend, born and raised in this country, but disallowed working tax credits merely because she's under the age of 25? Am I right in assuming that foreigners on UK soil don't have to face such a ridiculous age restriction? If so, tell me, does that seem fair?

After all, not only is she not entitled to working tax credits, but since our joint claim for income-based JSA has now changed to a single claim for contribution-based JSA (for me), I therefore become somewhat dependent upon the fruits of her hard-earned labour. That, in itself, seems unfair to me. The fact that I myself am unemployed and seeking work appears to become irrelevant, since those drones at the Job Centre have said – as I mentioned earlier – that if my girlfriend is due to be working more than 24 hours a week (which she is) then I will not be entitled to JSA. So, despite my girlfriend working full-time hours, the fact that she'll be on a low income (£10,300 a year before tax) hasn't seemed to matter one jot.

Instead of that, the Job Centre seems more than happy to pull the rug out from under us. In fact, my girlfriend is due to be paid monthly, so when I asked about the possibility of financial help to pay the rent in that month – as is the custom (4 weeks extra housing benefit while you're waiting for your first paycheck) according to the Thanet District Council's website. This would've been ideal because the delay in her receiving wages is likely to make us fall behind in the rent. But oh no, apparently we're not entitled to that either, since neither of us have been unemployed for six months or more. To remedy that situation, they tried to recommend a crisis loan, but since between us my girlfriend and I are already in £43,000 of debt thanks to those pesky things called tuition fees and student loans, all it'll be doing is digging an even deeper financial hole for ourselves.

From what I’ve been told, working tax credits are supposed to be implemented to take the financial sting out of joint claimants if one of them comes off benefits and onto a low income. Therefore, it is slightly understandable that some entitlement to JSA may be lost in these cases, but surely JSA can only be repealed if my girlfriend’s receipt of working tax credits is assured? If she got working tax credits, then losing my JSA would perhaps be feasible, but since she can't (due to age restrictions), then surely we're entitled to something else in its place that would help us out monetarily? As it transpires, she's under the age of 25, can't claim working tax credits, and due to some petty contributions-based loophole, I can't claim JSA. How exactly is that supposed to put us in a financially stable position?

Clearly, it's not all doom and gloom – my entitlement to council tax and housing benefit will remain valid, so if that gets reassessed in accordance with my girlfriend's low income they may give us enough money (or perhaps recommend other entitlements) to accommodate for our ineligibilities so we can subsist. But my point is that none of this senseless rigmarole has made my girlfriend's path into employment any easier. All it does is make us worry whether we're going to fall into arrears.

After all, the biggest argument levied against the welfare system is that it doesn't give enough of an incentive to help people into work, hence the reason why some people wrongly feel it's better to sponge off. From experience, I'd say this incentive-to-work argument is partially true, since if you're under 25 and on benefits, all getting a job seems to do is make things a damn sight harder to guarantee financial stability – especially if some petty rule discounts my girlfriend from receiving working tax credits when some foreigner her age can potentially get one seemingly by snapping their fingers. Needless to say, this is stress that I could do without, but if I can find a job soon I'm hoping things will improve. Getting a job seems to be the only possible way that I can give the Job Centre the middle finger salute and bid farewell to their bureaucratic shenanigans, but considering my e-mail inbox is overflowing with rejections from the likes of Boots and WH Smiths, it seems like a pretty tall order.

YOU SAW IT HERE FIRST, FOLKS

I've just realized that the headline on the front page of this week's Thanet Times said 'Dreamland Come True' (see picture). Obviously, this refers to the government's whopping £3.7 million cash injection to support the revival of the Dreamland theme park. However, you might remember, I broached this subject in my blog post on Monday, the day before Thanet Times went to press, and I opted to choose a remarkably similar headline. I called it Dreamland Come True?

Apart from the question mark, it looks as though me and Richard Spillett - the journalist covering the Dreamland story at the Thanet Times - are quite clearly on the same page, so to speak. I know it's hardly Sun-esque in its witty punnery (i.e. How Do You Solve a Problem like Korea?, etc.), but it still feels like my intellectual property rights have been violated. I'm jesting really, I don't mind. After all, he is getting paid for it, and I am not, so it's fair game. Touchet, Mr. Spillett.

Just don't forget that you saw it here first, okay? I snagged that damn headline before that crafty blaggard got hold of it. Mwah ha ha. Nah, it's probably just a coincidence if I'm honest. But still, don't be a mug like me and spend 50p buying a Thanet Times from the local corner shop next week. I neglected to remember that since it merged with the Adscene recently it's available for free at some establishments, so don't foolishly waste yer money on the bloody thing like I did. Think of all the pick 'n' mix I could've got with that 50p! Oh wait, hang on a minute, Woolworths is closed isn't it? Oh dear. What a shame.

TOBACCO AND FORTH

I'm sure Kent County Council's investment strategies have been examined under a fine-tooth comb by other local bloggers, but I've just read an opinion piece in the Kent on Sunday newspaper by Tim Garbutt, local blogger at Sincerity Agency, who raises the issue of Kent County Council being inclined to invest money in U.S.-based tobacco firms. Garbutt claims that £9 million from the KCC's £900 million pension and reserve funds has been invested in "Philip Morris, the home of Marlboro man, plus Japan Tobacco and a cluster of brands such as Camel, Silk Cut and Old Holborn."

What's news to me, however, is Garbutt's additional claims that Kent County Council has also been investing in "not just one booze company, but a whole round of them: Carlsberg, Wetherspoon, Asahai and so on. All the more unusual as there's not a penny for Kent pubs and brewers." Quite right. Then again, nothing much here will be surprising to those of us who noted Stuart Jeffrey's blog posts last year which highlighted similar questionable investments on the part of Kent County Council. I might be wrong, but I'm presupposing that the ball initially got rolling on this tobacco subject courtesy of a Freedom of Information request by Joshua Carroll.

However, I'm not entirely sure whether the figures Garbutt discloses in the KOS newspaper are fully accurate, since I cannot seem to find corroborating info on the Kent County Council's financial publications website. It doesn't help that their PDFs are written in comic sans (oh, the irony). Nonetheless, it's still worthy of note, wouldn't you say? After all, if £9 million of public money really is being invested into cigarette firms, is this really what we want taxpayers cash being spent on?

In his article, Garbutt rightly explores the ethical issues of Kent County Council's investment in tobacco firms by discussing the social cost of smoking, noting that "East Kent has the highest lung cancer rate in South East England and a mortality rate 11 years earlier than the rest of Kent - perhaps partly due to Manston Airport and removal of noise and air monitoring, but also relatively deprived areas and tobacco smoking."

Obviously, I'm anticipating that the Kent County Council's justification for investing in tobacco and booze companies - coupled with investing in public health campaigns to offset the social damage created by binge drinking and smoking - will be that they are representing the contradictory and conflicting wishes and desires of the taxpayer. Therefore, the public purse is inevitably going to be spent in a way which is likely to please some taxpayers more than it will others. Some smokers will probably be nonchalant to the news, possibly even applauding it, whereas non-smokers like myself will probably fail to see how the KCC's decision to invest in creating 'cancer sticks' is in the public's best interest.

What is clear is that (if the figure is accurate) £9 million is a hell of a lot of money, and probably would've been better spent on public services with the taxpayer's health and wellbeing taken into account. Think about how many public toilets we could've kept open for that amount of wonga! I don't discount the right of people to smoke - if I'm honest, I even mildly oppose the smoking ban in pubs - but that doesn't mean I advocate the usage of their taxes by the KCC to actively promote and encourage smoking when all scientific evidence has proven it has a detrimental effect on public health.

How can you clamp down on death rates from lung cancer caused by smoking (or even curb binge drinking), while at the same time you're essentially financially sponsoring an activity which other public services like the NHS and the Kent Police are attempting to admonish? As far as I see it, the KCC's motives for investment in these firms seem very contradictory, somewhat hypocritical and seemingly run counter to the public's benefit.

That's not to say this is always the case, however. Garbutt mentions the fact that KCC provides "full disclosure through FOI and EIR and invests in ethical banks such as Standards Chartered with their innovative work in HIV messaging on cashpoints in Africa and oil-to-renewables firms such as BP." Good on them. It's nice to see that KCC is attempting to make a positive difference where it can; in which case, this whole tobacco issue appears to be an objectionable blot on the KCC's financial track record.

There's probably more to this subject than meets the eye, so I'll be very open to receive further information if you'll care to enlighten me. But for the most part, in my view, investing in tobacco or booze companies while at the same time funding campaigns and initiatives to discourage smoking is a positively schizophrenic act. Maybe we should get KCC sectioned. By doing that, at least we could say we have their best interests at heart, which is possibly more than can be said for us.

DREAMLAND COME TRUE?

I'm sure you're all familiar with The Dreamland Trust. Its chairman, Nick Laister, has been trumpeting his plans to transform Dreamland into a heritage amusement park for quite some time now, mainly proposing to fill it up with archaic rides and cobweb-riddled thrills 'n' spills to tap into the collective nostalgia for old-fashioned British seaside resorts and hopefully reviving its fortunes. On the whole, I've been an admirer of their plans to date; it's got some fantastic potential. After all, anything's better than being in limbo, like it currently is.

The trouble is, with a burnt-down and (currently) unrepaired Grade II-listed Scenic Railway as its centerpiece and a diminishing supply of metals being pillaged from the site, it's been hard to envisage the Dreamland project getting off the ground. That is until recently, of course, as it turns out the government has just awarded £3.7 million to The Dreamland Trust to make their plans of reviving the seaside attraction a reality. Hurrah to that, I say.

It is expected that the Scenic Railway will be repaired and the Dreamland Cinema (also a listed building) will be given a quick spit 'n' polish to look all shiny and new. I've even heard whisperings that Dreamland Cinema may double up as a music venue. Then again, I've also heard that it might end up being a museum devoted to the history of the Dreamland site, with memorabilia, archives, and artefacts. It could even be both, for all I know. All I do know is that with a little help of their friends at Thanet District Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund, it's my fond hope that this will be a runaway success for the Dreamland Trust and I hope it doesn't - ahem - go up in smoke.

In fact, I did apply for a job working for The Dreamland Trust as Audience Development Officer. The job description said they required: "An enthusiastic ambassador with a passion for this special site, and for music and fashion in general; you will have an appropriate degree together with excellent interpersonal skills, a flair for engaging with the public and a true appreciation of the importance of popular culture." Hmm, that sounds like me, I thought (well, -ish); so off I went; submitting an application form in good faith; keeping my fingers crossed.

Trust me, I don't like moaning about failed job applications on this blog, but I honestly felt very disappointed to receive a rejection letter from The Dreamland Trust. I don't doubt that there are people who possess more experience than me, and that's to be expected considering my age, but it still doesn't make it easier. Especially when I see The Dreamland Trust splashed all over Meridian TV banging about the extra £3.7 million in funding they've just received; and here's me, sitting on my arse, wishing that I could've thrown my hat into the arena and got involved in the project. Shame really. Anyway, here's the letter I received:

Hmm, I hope being rejected didn't have something to do with the fact that I've written a song about Dreamland on my MySpace page in which the some of the lyrics go like this:

"We've got dope fiends smoking in Cecil Square

The police and Thanet Council don't seem to care

Until the alkies and drunks vomit on our doorstep.

And people expect us to believe

the Turner Art Centre's got tricks up its sleeve

But the only art that Margate conceives is puking on a canvas."

It was only until after I submitted the form that I realized job applications for The Dreamland Trust are seemingly dealt with with through an Administrative Officer working at Thanet District Council. Hmm, I doubt that council workers would be too pleased if they heard my song, so it's probably not the best way to get your foot in the door, is it? Whoopsy daisy.

That being said - and I mean it sincerely - I wish The Dreamland Trust plenty of good vibes and offer them my wholehearted support. It's a real shame that I didn't get the opportunity to work alongside them to be a part of the whole enterprise and help achieve their goals, but there's no point crying over spilt milk (unless it's gone sour). This news of extra funding seems like a big enough vote of confidence for the whole project anyway, so anything I say will probably seem inconsequential, but hopefully it'll be a great success. Best of luck to all those involved.

EVERYONE KNOWS IT'S WINDY

Bloody hell, it's a bit windy outside, wouldn't you agree? I don't like to state the bleedin' obvious, but since Dover port was closed just after midday due to high winds (80 mph), it quite clearly explains why my windows are being rattled by blustery gales all day. The noise outside has been atrocious, only unfortunately I can't blame it on the neighbour this time. Thankfully, however, I've been searching YouTube and have found this live performance of "Windy" by The Association to commemorate this bout of bad weather.

By the way, since I have been moderating comments, I have received one extremely interesting anonymous post regarding the Mayor of Margate's little quandary. Nothing mentioned in the post, from what I can gather, is inaccurate (and by that I mean it's nothing you wouldn't have read here, or here), but there is some information which I intend to investigate further, so I have decided not to publish it in full just yet. If whoever posted it is reading this blog entry, feel free to e-mail me with any further information so I can follow it up (especially regarding the newspaper coverage the mayor may or may not have received nine years ago).

To be honest with you, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about moderating comments. I do feel it is a hindrance to free speech and an obstacle to dialogue between myself and those who wish to comment. I may be getting in touch with a solicitor soon to see if I can receive assurances that I can be legally protected and yet still remove restrictions on moderated comments. If I can be confident enough that I can avoid what's happened ECR and Adem (or that they both have sufficient grounds to contest legal action successfully), then I may revise my decision and freely allow future comments without moderating them.

In the meantime, however, I hope you enjoy the video and hope that the winds don't blow anybody's wig off. TTFN.

LIBEL TO KILL

In light of recent events in the Thanet blogosphere (Eastcliff Richard and Adem Djemil), I have decided that I will be moderating all comments made on this blog in the future. From now on, I intend to keep a strict check on the legitimacy of certain statements made anonymously or otherwise, before opting to publish it (or not). Since I post using my real identity, I simply cannot take the risk that comes along with allowing uncensored commentary to appear on this blog, especially if there's no evidence or factual information to verify whether certain comments are valid or not.

If I'm honest, I don't agree that bloggers should pay the price for something posted anonymously by someone else, but if that's what's defined by UK libel law, then I'm not taking any chances. In an ideal world, I would continue not to moderate comments, largely because I personally feel the Internet should be a place to freely converse and exchange ideas in public debate, preferably being exempt from liability. The reality, of course, is obviously very different.

While I don't think it's fair to treat blogs as if they were newspapers and placing them subject to the same laws and regulations as serious journalism, it must also be acknowledged that from what I understand UK libel law appears to regard a blogger to be the editor of an online publication. Therefore, if somebody contributes to the blog with a defamatory, libelous, slanderous or inaccurate statement, then it's the editor (i.e. the blogger) who faces the chop.

On Michael Child's Thanet Online blog, Adem Djemil posted the following comment:

“The libel laws for the UK and the web need to be clarified that is for sure. As you see from my blog, an anonymous user wrote something and then I am the one getting into trouble for it. It's a very grey area and something needs to be done about it soon.

I would repeat the message that bloggers need to be very careful in what they type or even what strangers type on their blogs because currently as it stands you will be responsible.”

I am in agreement with what he's saying. In fact, I'd like to bring to your attention English PEN and Index on Censorship's report on UK libel law called Free Speech Is Not For Sale. Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN, says: “Our libel laws allow people accused of funding terrorism or dumping toxic waste in Africa to silence their critics whilst 'super-injunctions' stop the public from even knowing that such allegations exist. We need to reform our libel laws now, and that's why we're launching a national campaign to persuade our politicians to do so.”

Heawood, of course, loosely references the recent Trafigura toxic waste scandal and the super-injunction put in place by Carter-Ruck to prohibit The Guardian from reporting about the story in parliament. Of course, Carter-Ruck later withdrew the super-injunction, but not without a huge public outcry on the social networking website Twitter, which some have speculated did indeed contribute to successfully bringing the story to light. So, it begs the question, if the Internet didn't exist, would we even know about Trafigura at all? Probably not.

To me, this highlights the power of the Internet: it has great potential to highlight, expose and bring to light stories which might have been swept under the carpet, facilitating great democratic change in the process by mobilizing internet users into action. This is provided, of course, that the evidence is valid and worthy of exposure. Amongst other things, The Libel Reform Campaign concludes that UK libel law does not currently reflect the arrival of the internet and that interactive online services and interactive chat should be exempt from liability, though I'm not quite sure whether that would include blogging.

Naïvely, I must admit, I have long been a champion of blogging as an impregnable bastille of free speech; or an open forum for debate. At university, I learnt about Jürgen Habermas, a social theorist, who claimed that democracy should have a functioning public sphere, or a space where people can debate freely (like the Internet, for instance), without interference or fear of reprisal. Obviously, this doesn't mean I advocate people shouting their mouths off about false or inaccurate information, and I'd sincerely hope that people would have the decency to be sensible and build their opinions upon sufficient evidence and substantiated fact, and not just on irrational hearsay or personal bias.

The Internet, I felt, was very similar to Habermas's theory of the public sphere. As it turns out, I was clearly wrong. I'd like to think this sums up where I'm coming from. Personally, I try my best to write tongue-in-cheek, relatively inoffensive yet occasionally cynical or speculative blog entries. I am not motivated by malice; I don't wish to intentionally destroy other people's reputations; I'm slightly questioning about people's motives perhaps; but overall I tend to base my assertions on fact. Where I don't assert, I speculate, either in a candid manner or in jest, approaching the subject clearly stating that it is my own personal opinion and that I'm open to be corrected wrong by whoever wishes to do so.

For instance, I've said before how I don't like Tracey Emin's art – does that mean I should be living in fear of whether Tracey is gonna sue me for disagreeing with her? Of course not, that'd be absurd. I've even allowed people to comment on this blog who happen to like Tracey's art, and they're entitled to their opinions in much the same manner as I'd hope I'm entitled to mine. That's what free speech is about – the freedom to declare our opinions. If something ceases to be an opinion and veers toward being a statement of fact, in my view, evidence must be presented, so this is why I will be moderating comments in future. I will conclude by saying that UK libel law certainly makes one feel as if bloggers need to be a lot more cautious about what we write than we initially thought, which is a great shame, to say the least.

BRING THE NOISE

I hate my neighbour. Now, that's quite a strong confession to make, especially since I don't actually know him personally, but trust me, I have my reasons. He's a chav, for a start, he has gold caps on his teeth and he wears a baseball cap (even though if you quizzed him on the rules of baseball and asked what a sacrifice bunt, a squeeze play or a sacrifice fly is, he'd probably be none the wiser).

That's what amuses me about chavs. They love their sportswear more than life itself, it seems. But they are often completely ignorant about sport in general, resorting to a lazy and health-destroying regime of playing Xbox Live, smoking spliffs and scoffing McDonald's, while at the same time acting as urban poster boys for Adidas or Nike by wearing designer trainers and tracksuits. Does anyone not think that it's a bit odd? I certainly do.

What riles me is that this neighbour of mine insists upon smoking, even though it's a non-smoking flat, and I've even caught him leaning out of the window puffing away like a trooper before slinking off indoors pretending like it didn't happen. You can definitely smell cigarette smoke in our hallway, it absolutely reeks, so how he stupidly expects people (or even the landlady) not to notice I'll never know. Now, I don't want to sound like I'm chav-bashing for no reason here, but I do feel like I'm quite within my rights to slag him off, even if it is based upon conjecture and/or ASBO-laden stereotypes. But, from where I'm standing, it's all 100% true, so that's good enough for me.

However, you should never judge a book by its cover, right? Wrong. True to his clichéd nature, my neighbour also aspires to be an Ibiza DJ every other night, frequently cranking up his limited collection of dance music, hip hop and R&B, blasting it out through his ghettoblaster, bass booming through the floor like he's trying to shift a tectonic plate. Now, I'm not prudish, I don't mind people enjoying music (even if it isn't music I happen to like), but here's the real reason for my hatred of him: he likes to play loud music all night long (as Lionel Richie famously sang).

That's right, I have a noisy neighbour. Normally, I wouldn't be troubling you with something so trivial, but since my girlfriend and I are kept awake until 4 o'clock in the morning every two days or so by his stupid Pete Tong antics, I felt compelled to have a rant. Our neighbour has made a habit of doing this, you see, and I'd given him the benefit of the doubt a few times, clinging on to the hope that he was a civilized human being, but this weekend I finally decided in a fit of rage to report him to the police. Needless to say, they did jack shit.

To be fair, it was about 1:30pm. I called Margate Police Station directly, but I was told that noise disturbances are no longer the police's responsibility, and that complaints should be lodged via Thanet District Council. She gave me a phone number. I called it up. Unsurprisingly, the office was closed. I was prompted by an automated machine to call an emergency number and speak to the Environmental Health Officer. Finally, after seemingly being passed from pillar to post, a lady answered the phone.

I told her that I had a noisy neighbour who insisted upon creating a godawful racket like a firecracker in a barrel of farts (although not exactly phrased like that) and that I wished to report it. The lady took my details, quite a lengthy process I must admit, and then she said: “I'm sorry, but the Environmental Health Officer won't be able to sort it out tonight. I advise you keep a log of every incident so that it can be dealt with in the future. Thank you, goodbye.” She didn't bid me farewell as bluntly as that, but she might as bloody well have done.

Let me get this straight: Thanet District Council has removed responsibility from the police for dealing with noise disturbances? I did some research and discovered that since the Environmental Health Protection Act 1990, councils have been obliged to take reasonable steps to investigate complaints of nuisance noise. I'm assuming that over the last twenty years, this Act has enabled the council to pay some chap a handsome wage to visit suspected troublemakers, threatening them with a fine or – worse yet – an ASBO. Ooh, I'm sure they're all quaking in their boots, don't you think? Especially when the Environmental Health Officer isn't bloody there half the time.

This whole thing left me feeling quite powerless. I tried to think of ways I could shut my noisy neighbour up. I toyed with the idea of knocking on his door and beating him round the face with my shoe; or putting on some heavy metal at high volumes to compete with him; or simply wandering out into the hall and switching the electricity off at the mains to spoil their party. I did nothing, in the end. But I did feel empathy with those who take the law into their own hands, going vigilante to tackle anti-social behaviour head on, rather than relying on the authorities to do their dirty work.

In fact, it's quite timely that the film Harry Brown, a Daily Mail-esque epic of paranoia and violence, in which Michael Caine plays a former Royal Marine who seeks revenge for the death of his friend by capturing, accosting and torturing young chavs who are destroying his local community. I believe it'll be swinging by the Vue Cinema at Westwood Cross this week, so if I can rustle up a few pennies, I may go and see it myself. I'll be the one with the extra large box of popcorn, completely engrossed in reverie, secretly imagining our noisy neighbour getting beaten to death by a belligerent OAP.

I can only hope my neighbour doesn't discover this blog, finds out that I've written about him and blows my bloody doors off. But I'm guessing that he can barely read a book, let alone a blog, so I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. Unless he keeps me awake tonight, of course. If he does, I'll be tempted to give Michael Caine a call. I'm sure he'd be able to sort it out.