Morts Musings

Lingerie, we all know what it is, it’s great stuff! It makes women feel more confident and attractive, and us men, well, we love it because it makes women more confident and attractive, everybody’s a winner!
Naturally enough then, it’s no surprise that there are a host of companies selling naughty nighties and underwear these days. Everyone from M&S, whose sexy, yet somehow at the same time sensible, lingerie is one of their flag ship product ranges, to the slightly more niche, and perhaps provocative brands; whatever your fancy it’s probably only a quick Google away.

Still, there’s “niche” markets and then there are some truly odd offerings which occasionally hit the world of underwear. One example of the latter is the, soon to be released, “golfing bra” from novelty bra maker Triumph International. The bodice includes an unfoldable 1.5m putting mat with the bra cups, unsurprisingly, becoming the holes themselves, & a built in speaker which congratulates you with a cry of “Nice shot!” whenever you hit the targets. But wait, there’s more! The top also features pockets for carrying balls and tees, as well as a flag pin that doubles as a scoring pencil. The outfit also includes a skirt, with the words “Be Quiet” on it’s rear, which can easily be transformed into a flag.

Other than carrying a putter around, the wearer really is all set and ready to go whenever they fancy some putting action, at least in theory; The fact that doing so would require the wearer to strip down to their pants is, sadly, likely to deter many from using this novelty lingerie outfit to it’s full potential.

I saw this article in The Times and thought it was such an odd little story that it would be perfect for a dull Friday afternoon.

The piece looks at the robbery of a French bank security van, the twist being that it appears it was the security firm’s own driver who was responsible for the heist. You’ve got to think that the man has to have balls the size of water melons, be really desperate, or be a few scones short of a picnic to try something so brazen.
Apparently his plan was so audacious (i.e. stupid) that the French police were originally working on the theory that he’d been kidnapped, along with the van, by a gang of robbers, or that someone close to him was being held captive by a gang in order to ensure his co-operation. However, it appears that this isn’t the case, and having visited the chap’s home, to find it pretty much cleaned out, and checked on his bank accounts, which have all been emptied recently, the French Police have come to the conclusion that the driver took off with the van, and the 11 million Euros it contained, of his own free will!

The driver had obviously planned his heist quite carefully, not only had he tied up loose ends, ready to dissappear, but he’d also done his homework well enough to be able to disable the van’s tracking system, and get the money out of the van’s armoured vault; A job which normally requires two people co-operating. Another thing which points at him having accomplises is the sheer amount of money he managed to shift, 11 million in notes has got to make for a fair old stack of paper! Even though the security van was abandoned in a quiet side street you’d still think that someone shifting the contents of a bank securitry van into some other vehicle (maybe he’d planned ahead and arranged van rental?) would draw attention, but as of yet the French Police haven’t mentioned witnesses coming forward.

So is the guy going to get away with it? On one hand it seems like such a stupid plan that it has to fail, but the guy’s obviously planned fairly well. The police don’t appear to have got him yet, despite knowing his identity, & although the French borders are being watched for him, you’d think anyone who had planned such an audacious robbery would have thought about where they were going to go in the longer term, and how they were going to get there.
One thing’s for sure, if the French Police don’t manage to catch this guy pretty soon, they’ll end up looking a little more like Inspector Clouseau than they’d like:

OK, so on the face of it this piece might seem a little hypocritical after my last, but actually I think it’s a good example of the sort of thing which consumers should be protected from. In this case, bizarrely, it was sofas which proved to be a source of hidden danger.

This piece from the BBC looks at a long running legal case over the use of the fungicide dimethyl fumarate on leather sofas made by a number of firms in China, & sold by UK retailers, including big names like, Land of Leather, Walmsleys and Argos. The sofas were apparently treated with the chemical to stop them developing mould while in transport & storage, however many people who bought the affected sofas developed painful skin rashes, as well as chest and eye problems in some cases. The chemical has now been banned by the EU, and the big name retailers who sold the sofas were all quite prompt when it came to issuing recalls & offering refunds.

Anyway, it seems that it’s pretty much old news now, and that those affected have received reparation, but after a couple of comments on my last piece* I wanted to make it clear that I’m not a completely heartless git. I do firmly believe that private companies can’t be allowed to operate under a completely lassiez faire system; The prime motive of business is to make profit, & history has shown countless times that, when unregulated, some businesses will put the bottom line before the quality, or safety, of their goods. Having said that, as an utter cynic, I think any consumer who doesn’t exercise the caveat emptor spirit is probably a little foolish.

In anycase this is the sort of hidden danger which a consumer can’t reasonably be expected to anticipate by exercising common sense, and which they should be protected from. Ok, so this is a pretty clear cut case, people looking to buy quality sofas have a reasonable right to expect that they shouldn’t be laced with unpleasant toxins. Whereas warnings about not letting heavy furniture fall on children should be pretty redundant, since, to my mind it’s rather obvious advice. Obviously there are grey areas inbetween these two examples, & I suppose those are where the slippery slope towards an over-protective nanny state starts.

Hopefully, this sets the record straight on the view I’m expressing, i.e. that people should be expected (& given the freedom) to exercise personal responsibility where possible, not, that we should live in an unregulated world where unethical manufacturers can endanger the lives of consumers if it means cutting production costs.

*No, I didn’t publish them, I’m fine with people criticising my views, but I’m not going to publish streams of profanity, or waste my time editing such comments to make them work place friendly.

I want to start this piece by making it absolutely clear that it’s an unashamed rant about the way the world appears to be moving towards a state where the public expect to be told any time they interact with anything which might be even slightly dangerous, even when it should be perfectly evident that exercising some common sense might be in order.

The tendancy for governments to bombard us with more and more safety legislation every year is an insidious creep towards a situation where everybody is assumed to be a moron who should be wrapped in cotton wool for their own safety. Maybe this is a good thing for the “hard of thinking”, the proportion of society who really do need to be protected from themselves, but I firmly believe that, by taking a “one size fits all” approach to looking after these poor unfortunate souls, govts are encouraging everyone to be more cretinous and less likely to think for themselves in situations where some judgement might be advisable; Not to mention that blanket legislation which caters to the lowest common denominator curtails the freedoms of everybody else.

I’m sure the campaigners who get behind these causes do so with the best of intentions. Often I believe it’s because the “danger” which they seek to protect everybody from has effected their lives in some traumatic way, and that’s almost part of the problem; Nobody wants to be the one to tell these poor misguided souls that they’re over-reacting, perfectly understandable if the campaigner in question has lost a relative, but really somebody should, rather than media, and politicians, jumping on the band wagon for the sake of sales, or to gain a few points in the polls.

Someone really should be able to tell these people that sometimes bad stuff happens, and it’s just bad luck, that no-one deserves to be sued as a consequence, & no laws need to be drawn up to protect others from themselves, or cruel twists of fate, especially if those laws would curtail the freedoms of others who are willing to take personal responsibility & aren’t hurting anyone else.

Ok, so you’ve had the rant now but what was it that set me off? Actually it was this piece from an US news site. It details moves in New Jersey to introduce laws which would require manufacturers, of TVs, and furniture, over a certain size, to provide warnings about the potential dangers to children of such heavy objects falling on them, & provide advice about ways to prevent such accidents.

From the article:

The proposed rules would apply to dressers, bookcases, bureaus, armoires or similar furniture that is 42 inches or more in height and designed to store, display, or otherwise place items; televisions with display screens that are 25 inches or more; and all television stands.

Furniture can Kill! No really, it can!

That’s right apparently furniture is a hidden menace lurking in our homes! All this time you thought it was useful stuff you kept around to store things on, or in, but in reality it’s a killer, just waiting to strike!

Don’t get me wrong I don’t intend to make light of anybody dying, let alone children, but we, as a species, have survived around heavy objects for millenia without anyone needing to legislate for our own protection; Why do we suddenly need laws to protect us, & why should a manufacturer be responsible if a consumer lacks the common sense to realise that heavy stuff is dangerous if it falls on you?!? By the logic of this legislation everything we ever buy should be plastered in warnings, just on the off chance that someone might use it in some unintended but potentially lethal manner! What? you mean it’s a bad idea to insert TVs into random bodily orifaces?
I mean, really, come on, where does it all stop?

It wouldn’t be so bad but, honestly, how many people actually read the manuals for their new TVs anyway? This move seems to be purely about protecting manufacturers from the asininely litigious, a section of humanity who thoroughly deserve to be told to shut up & go away, if not locked up for wasting everyone elses time!

Anyway, you’ve been warned, so next time you’re thinking about buying furniture or a new digital TV consider the dangers it poses to others around you, especially if you have small children! Anyway I’m off to post a warning in the article I hosted about sideboards, a couple of months back, before some litigious numpty tries to sue me for not pointing out the incredibly obvious!

Saw this interesting piece on the BBC site today. It discusses research which indicates that you’re more likely to get a positive response, when asking for something, if you speak into the someone’s right ear. It also highlights that, given the choice, the majority of people will use their right ear for listening to the phone, or when holding a conversation in a noisey environment, like a night club.

In some senses this news shouldn’t come as a surprise; the left side of the brain processes input from the right ear, and is the side of the brain which tends to be focused more on interpreting speech and language, and, apparently, also tends to be more ammenable to requests.

The studies mentioned in the article don’t seem to use the kinds of sample sets one might hope for, in order to produce truly significant results, but the indications do seem to be that if you’re trying to blag a fag in a night club, you’re more likely to get one if you ask people in their right ear.