To: [Ex-husband]; [Ex-husband's wife]
Sent: Dec 02, 2011, 01:51 AM

Came home to various missed calls from BOTH of you. You BOTH need to stop this. You could have just settled your argument between yourselves, yet you dragged me in by both calling me repeatedly over the past 3-4 weeks, so here are some home truths: I did NOT land [ex-husband] in debt, it's quite the reverse and while [ex-husband] got his bankruptcy I am still paying and that's how I almost ended up homeless. I did NOT know [ex-husband] had a new relationship, let alone two! We separated 08 April 2009; when [ex-husband] put an earlier date on his petition for divorce I did not contest it to allow the divorce to go through. I would never have known about the lies at my expense had you not contacted me, BOTH of you, to drag me into your argument; what do I have to do to stop you both from harassing me and move on - issue proof that [ex-husband] lied when this is YOUR argument not mine?! How pathetic and wicked are you both, seriously. LEAVE ME ALONE!

© All rights reserved

Initial press reports neatly relayed the official press release which deliberately gives no details regarding the manner of death and asks "that everyone respects the family's privacy at this very sad time".

The police report that followed next did not go beyond basic detail, either: the police had been called to an address where they found someone dead and the next of kin confirmed the dead person's identity.

So the press pack swiftly moved on to the daily business of competing with each other over who can outdo the other on bringing out the (better? worse? more?) details of the circumstances of the person's passing.

Could they not have waited that little bit longer and leave it for the loved ones to decide whether they wanted that to be brought out into the public domain and in which way?

Why this rush, possibly at the expense of people involved?!

All well and good, this 24-hour hunger for immediate news all the time, but at moments like these I wish people would just slow down... think for a moment: Within an hour of the news of his demise being published, comments went from celebrating the person to making him the subject of something... did no one else notice that?

I don't care however true any ponderings or 'eye-witness reports' over a person's physical and/or mental state in the run-up to his untimely demise may be; are such ponderings, particularly their timing, always appropriate? Was it really too much to hold on just that little bit more and consider the human being over the story for just that little bit longer?

Note: this post wasn't written in some self-righteous sense of wanting to defend any particular individual(s). I am posting this as a member of the public whose interest the press claim to serve when they publish someone's official statement asking for respect, only to instantly move on to things that then, in my eyes, show blatant disregard of that very request.

From: Jo
Sent: 08 November 2011 21:09
To: [ex-husband]
Subject: Final goodbye

Dear [ex-husband],

I didn't see your emails until today, after I got home from the hospital. My body is still in a mess, but I don't want to postpone this message.

So I got your panicky call last week, then nothing. Then those repeat and wicked phone calls from your wife - she never told me her name - after I'd just been brought back to the hospital ward from the operating theatre (and just before I passed out from sudden blood loss, by the way). I was worried about your wellbeing but too weak to do anything until in the evening when I was recovered well enough to phone your mum to check if you were alright and she confirmed that you were. That's what friends do, right?

Still, I am completely bemused at all these lies. I thought you knew me well enough to know that I would have granted you the divorce if you had honestly told me that you wanted it because you had met someone else. There was no need for you to commit perjury on your petition for divorce, unless it was to perpetuate your lie(s) to her that you'd already well and truly split up from me when in fact we hadn't (yet). (And of course, in the meantime, you got to continue to take everything you could from me until there was nothing left.)

All the secrecy, lies, game-playing... I don't want any part of it. EVER.

Your wife's immature phone calls to me, ignoring I was ill in hospital, suggests she's about as mature as you. As in: rather immature. (She may really be a very nice and lovely person, but I can only go by first impressions and those weren't pretty.)

If the two of you have marital problems, they're not mine and I certainly do not want to be dragged into them.

If she gets violent with you to the point where you need hospital treatment... not a great example to your daughters nor to any children you may be having with her, but again... not my problem and I do not want to be dragged into them.

Had I known about you being in a new relationship - having remarried even - and that being friends with you was to be a threat to your relationship, I would have backed off. Please now don't create issues for me by asking me to cover your back and lie for you. Allow me to move on with my life as much as you have done.

I guess I will never understand why you felt the need to keep so many secrets and tell so many lies, as far as I'm concerned I would rather have had the truth, however much uglier that might have been. (If other people in your life couldn't/can't, that's their problem.) Right now I am so (way beyond) shocked and disappointed at your web of lies, I really don't know what to think of you, really. I wondered why our mutual friends suddenly backed off from me but I guess now I understand... they had all become part of the "don't tell Jo" game... that hurts me more than I would like to admit to.

But I'll get over that, and I really want to move on. All the stuff from our wedding (pictures, presents, honeymoon souvenirs etc.) that you insisted you wanted to have... I suggest you let it go, don't dwell on that past and build on your present and future with your current wife. Once I feel better I'll get rid of those. As for the other personal belongings of yours you never collected, like I explained, I live in a very tiny home now without storage space, so as soon as I can afford to (which may be several months yet), I will have them delivered to your parents' address.

Apart from that, I think it's best we no longer stay in touch from now on. I thought we divorced as friends and would have liked to have remained friends, but it's obviously not working if you feel the need to lie to me and others about it.

I sincerely wish you a happy life.

Jo

© All rights reserved

READ THE PREVIOUS BLOG POST ON THIS TOPIC HERE

In response to my blog post outlining why I don't believe in the authenticity of the sexily-clad cyclist story, I received a tweet from @StreetsblogNYC saying that although there were "no direct witnesses" there was "compelling corroboration" of events with a link to their blog post A Long Explanation of Why the Biking-While-Sexy Story Is No Hoax;

"George Bliss and Marlo Medrano of Hudson Urban Bicycles, a West Village bike shop, confirmed that Rijcken described an encounter with NYPD when she saw them later the same day. ... Bliss’s recap of Rijcken’s account more or less matched what Rijcken told Streetsblog last Friday."

Is this meant to be the "compelling corroboration" referred to? Well, I'm sorry, but to me that's just too flimsy.

"Medrano confirmed that she was wearing the skirt shown in the widely-circulated photograph of Rijcken on her bike."

Errr... hold on now, doesn't that contradict her story?

"Rijcken told the Daily News that she was 'on [her] way back to the hotel when [the police stop] happened and I changed into pants.'"

Yup, I definitely spot an anomaly there.

If she went to the meeting first, why didn't she tell the Daily News she was on her way to a meeting rather than on her way back to her hotel? Or did she get pulled over after the meeting but before getting pulled over (in which case Medrana would have seen her in her skirt but she couldn't have told him about her supposed encounter with the cop as it hadn't happened yet)? (While on the subject of conflicting stories, note that in my first blog post on this subject I already pointed out that some sources say it happened on April 30 and others on May 3.)

So far, StreetsBlog's attempt to dispel the rumours only provides me with even more reasons to believe the sexy cyclist story to be a hoax, and it doesn't stop there:

"Rijcken touts her expertise in “guerrilla marketing” on her LinkedIn profile"

Hm, interesting, I didn't know that before, but it adds to my belief her story is not genuine.

"[Rijcken] emailed Joanna Virello and Stephanie Musso, her American acquaintances who organized the New Amsterdam Bike Show, asking if the New York Press would be interested in the story. (The Bike Show is co-produced by Manhattan Media, publisher of New York Press and other local NYC outlets.)"

Now that compellingly corroborates a possible hoax, as it directly contradicts a statement Rijcken made on Twitter, claiming she "never went to the press or mentioned a bikename" and "just posted it on [Facebook]" (the Facebook page for VanMoof, that was, with a lovely picture of Rijcken - who also claims she is a former model - posing with a VanMoof bicycle).

Streetsblog.org close their blog post stating "the hoax rumors have made her plot even more successful".  

Successful? 

Hm. Successful in getting herself and the bicycle brand she represents a lot of attention, indeed, but also successful in creating plenty of doubt on her own and her company's credibility and integrity, as it could be perceived that VanMoof might be willing to lie to people (dissatisfied customers included?) and that Jasmijn Rijcken herself is perhaps not as good at guerilla marketing as she thinks she is (as the whole point about guerrilla marketing is that you don't make it obvious it's a marketing stunt!).

All that at the expense of the NYPD; no matter how much you do so on the back of other bad press, that's just inexcusable and shows a ruthlessness that would frighten me off if I were a (potential) customer, business partner or even mere acquaintance of Jasmijn Rijcken and/or VanMoof.

On the off chance that Rijcken's story is genuine and not a hoax, she simply lacked the foundation to publicise it in the way she did. However genuine an accusation, you just can't take it to the press or even merely post it publicly on your (company's) social media profile without anything more than just your own word for it. (This is where serious, commercial press/media outlets should hang their heads in shame as well, as many of them relayed the story without sufficiently checking its factuality and credibility.)

I feel sincerely sorry for Jasmijn if she indeed really got harassed by a New York City cop, but I am having a hard time believing a person who on the one hand claims to be a well-travelled world citizen with work experience in the US, Europe and India, and on the other hand tries to present herself as a naïve, almost frightened tourist who could and would feel (easily) intimidated by a man in uniform.

Also, if she did get harassed by the unnamed NYPD cop and then decide to take advantage from it by publicising (marketing?) it in the way that she has done, I hope she understands what damage that may do to how other women (and men!) who suffered harassment may be perceived by the public.

And if she really is as "overwhelmed" as she claims to be right now by what "one Facebook post" (and an email to the press?) could bring about, that, again, may only show she's not quite the marketing expert and hype heroine she claims to be.

Personally, I am more inclined to believe this was all a deliberate hoax, and I would suggest that Jasmijn Rijcken and VanMoof issue a shared statement or press release in which they come clean about this marketing stunt and announce they will do something that might help them save face as well as make up for the bad press they gave the NYPD. Perhaps they could make a donation to the NYC Police Foundation, the NYPD Emerald Society or one of the other charitable organisations supported by the NYPD. And perhaps those media outlets stupid enough to fall for the hoax could make donations as well.

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.
Op dit werk is een Creative Commons Licentie van toepassing.

A small part of this post was previously submitted as a comment to an article on Jezebel.com

Last month featured (less than) fifteen minutes of fame for Botox Mom. So far this month, we've had the Gay Girl in Damascus that turned out to be a married heterosexual man in Edinburgh. Then it turned out that the lesbian news site editor (s)he had been flirting with online wasn't a lesbian female either, but in fact a straight, married construction worker in Ohio. Next up, I suspect, may be the revelation that Barbie buying her seven-year-old daughter a boob job voucher was nothing but a publicity stunt by human Barbie Sarah Burge to promote her plastic surgery company.

Great! If I wasn't already critical enough towards everything that pops up in my news feed, now I find myself taking a rather cynical approach to all of it, as well. And that's not a good time to see tweets linking to news stories of a woman claiming to have been stopped by police for cycling in a short skirt.

I'm not having this. Seriously, you can NOT expect me to believe this to be true. In fact, I'm pretty confident in thinking this was either a throw-away comment on Facebook that got out of hand, or a deliberate hoax conceived in a bad attempt at (guerilla) marketing. From the NY Daily News article:

"NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne said: 'Whether this story bears even a modest semblance of what actually occurred is impossible to establish without being provided the purported officer's name and getting his side of the story.'"

There are no witnesses either, there's just her story, and a picture of her posing, smiling, on a shiny brand new designer bicycle that isn't commonly on sale in New York; did she bring it with her on her short visit to the city? Oh wait, there's another clue in the Daily News article:

"As general manager of a Dutch bicycle company, [Jasmijn] Rijcken was in New York to attend the New Amsterdam Bike Show and hopped on her wheels that sunny day to experience biking in New York City first hand."

Sure. And she thought it would make for some nice (free?) publicity to pose for a picture, post that picture to her company's Facebook page with a story wicked enough to appeal to tabloid editors' imagination? And I am supposed to believe this actually happened?! Well I'm sorry, but I don't. But hey, it makes for a good story and there's no such thing as bad publicity, right? And while Jasmijn Rijcken has no proof for her version of events, I have no way of proving it never happened, either; I can, however, offer plenty of reasons to be sceptical in respect of the authenticity of the story.

As a blogger I have the privilege to self-righteously spout my views - and I don't claim to do anything else here but exactly that, albeit with due care and attention. However, I expect serious press outlets like the ones linked in this post to do a bit more than that; to do some fact-checking, ask difficult questions, assess something's actual news value, you know, those things that in my opinion may be expected from paid, professional journalists (as opposed to amateur bloggers). (And no, the word allegedly should not be put about ubiquitously as some Get Out Of Jail Free card.)

This sexily clad cyclist story hit various serious (albeit, in some cases, tabloid-type) news outlets in recent days, and we're in June. The lady's Facebook update reporting of this story with the accompanying picture is dated May 23, 2011; that's nearly three weeks ago already, so this isn't exactly current, is it? In fact, the story probably wasn't even current at the time of said Facebook update, as this year's New Amsterdam Bicycle Show in New York took place on April 30, and the incident with the police officer is said to have taken place around this date (some articles state it happened on April 30, others say it was May 3). This makes this week's reporting on alleged events rather outdated and harder to check for factuality. Aside from that, the weather in New York around April 30 may not even have been particularly suitable for a bike ride in a short skirt with temperatures in the area apparently no higher than 67°F/19°C (average weather conditions around that time of year would certainly not entice me to pack a short skirt for a trip to NYC).

Furthermore, if Miss Rijcken felt indeed as offended and discriminated against as she claims to have felt, it makes no sense to me that she waited three-or-so weeks to make that Facebook post expressing how upset she supposedly was. Also, why didn't she obtain proof (such as the police officer's name and/or badge number) and seek people to corroborate her story (particularly considering her claim that she's not the only one this has happened to)?

What I am trying to make clear is this: Serious, commercial news outlets currently face a lot of competition from bloggers. If they want to stay ahead of bloggers, perhaps they should distinguish themselves through quality and reliability, rather than resort to publishing opinion pieces and outdated (non-)stories or lower their level to badly checked (or perhaps even unchecked) expressions of (mis)information. Moreover, they have a duty of care towards their (paying) readership, as well as to society as a whole; people unfamiliar with the press and media industry, may be insufficiently aware of how press coverage may affect their own integrity, that of their business and that of other people or organisations involved (in this particular case the NYPD).

Secondly, I want people to realise the possible consequences of posting what they might think is an innocuous accusation on their social media profile; you never know who may pick up on your story and take it beyond your control.

Overall, I just want professional (i.e. paid) journalists and editors to stop treating their (potential) audiences as idiots and do the decent job of offering value for money by engaging in proper journalism. I am sick and tired of whiny mantras of how the internet is killing newspapers when perhaps a lot of the decline of the newspaper industry could be blamed on bad journalism.

In the meantime, I hope that non-journos reading this blog post will understand the importance of maintaining a critical approach to everything they read in the papers.

READ THE FOLLOW-UP TO THIS BLOG POST HERE

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.
Op dit werk is een Creative Commons Licentie van toepassing.

(Part of this post was previously submitted to Vogue.co.uk as a comment to their article 'Shock, Horror')

Viva Model Management have opened a London office, and to celebrate this asked photographer Scott Trindle to photograph some of the models represented by the agency. Trindle decided to invite each model to the studio in his London home, where he supposedly photographed them "without any make-up, hair or styling" and produced the resulting photographs "untouched" — well, according to Vogue's editorial about it, anyway.

"You could definitely learn something about the model's real character from the pictures," says Viva's director Natalie Hand. Oh really? Like what — that they're sad, unhappy and/or depressed? 'Cause I'm afraid that's the only impression I get from these supposedly 'natural' pictures: dark, dull and depressing.

None of the models look in the slightest bit comfortable with themselves in these images. God forbid any of them would dare laugh or smile to the camera: think of all the wrinkles and other human characteristics that might show! In a world where characterless flat-chested boy bodies are mistaken for women, that's just not done.

Had these pictures been produced in colour and made using plenty of natural (day)light, taken in a relaxed atmosphere where the models might have felt totally at ease and comfortable in themselves, their real beauty might have actually shone through.

To me these photographs just look... erm... awkward... But I guess because it's a tad different from the usual overstyling, cosmetics and Photoshop fest, fashion industry insiders, hangers-on and wannabes will drool and cry how "artistic" and "refreshing" this project is and how these photographs "expose the models' vulnerability" and so on.
Or am I perhaps just too 'common' to spot the awesomeness of the emperor's new clothes?

How I wish this industry would grow up and step into the real world, and give women their real beauty and femininity back, because this is definitely not it.

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.
Op dit werk is een Creative Commons Licentie van toepassing.

In my paperwork I hold a copy of my birth certificate. Not the original documentation submitted to the vaults of bureaucracy right after my birth, because those vaults, they're exactly where that documentation is meant to be kept forever. That's how things work (and not just for me but probably for most of us).

The birth certificate I hold in my administration is merely a counterpart, confirming the information kept on public records maintained on people's births, deaths, marriages, divorces and the like. The copy I hold has the added extra that it's a multilingual version I had issued to me before I emigrated out of the country of my birth. I've used it, in combination with successive passports and ID cards to prove who I am whenever I enrolled in a course, accepted a job, applied for a bank account and so on.

I know who I am and where I am from; the birth certificate, tax status declarations and confirmations, passports, ID cards and other personal documentation is just there to confirm to others that I am who I claim to be. My documentation's never let me down in that respect. (Though I do take issue with the way the authorities in my country of birth handle my identity, but that's something to discuss on another occasion.)

Though people might not like who I am, it's not like I could escape me, even if I wanted to.

If suddenly people were to come out with wild claims that I am not the person I claim to be and that all of the documentation confirming who I am is false, I'd probably be pretty upset, to say the least. Bemused as well, because if their claims were true, surely I would have been found out at some point in my life, on any of the countless occasions that I used my documents. I'd find the whole thing rather surreal, not to mention rather defamatory. I might even consider taking out legal action against those seeking to defame me and damage my reputation, but only if I had nothing more important to spend my time on (which I probably do).

Have you ever imagined how you'd feel if this sort of thing were to happen to you?

Surely, if you have, then like me, you'd want the crazy witch hunt that is the 'birther' movement that's been active for the past few years to stop right now. Seriously, there are more important issues to worry about than this non-issue based on nothing other than ignorance, intolerance and (for some) plain hatred. There are more important causes for people's tax money to be spent on than this non-cause that has no justification or foundation.

We are all human beings, and from time to time each of us may be confronted by bits of truth that we wish weren't true. Things that we'd rather not believe or accept. We can try to deny the truthfulness of certain facts, ignore any proof and even deny their entire existence. If we then keep repeating our denial to ourselves, we may actually start believing in that denial. And if we shout about it at the top of our voice to others, then we may get some of those others to believe with us. Nevertheless, none of that changes the truth at the core of our denial and discomfort. Which makes all our efforts against them pretty useless to begin with, and a waste of time to persist.

So let's move on, now, shall we? 'Cause let's be honest: there are far more important things to worry about in life. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.
Op dit werk is een Creative Commons Licentie van toepassing.

First of all, let me state that I think consumer champion Martin Lewis comes across as a great guy. His website MoneySavingExpert provides a great resource if you're looking for ways to save money or need any other kind of financial advice. I'll even happily forgive him for having a website that's perhaps a bit too '1.0' to warrant his "fighting your corner" tagline (he provides generic support and advice but doesn't appear to specifically represent anyone individually who asks him to do so).

Today, however, he came out with a blog post and statements on national radio and in the written press that astonished me, because in my eyes they were sheerly populist/political and had little to do with providing consumers with the best possible financial advice.

Lewis takes issue with the ticketing system for the London 2012 Olympics, the first phase of which closes tonight. Fair enough, in his position as consumer champion and self-proclaimed MoneySavingExpert, I would expect him to take a very critical look at any such major ticket sale. But then, as a single-minded, critical consumer in my own right, and one with a (proverbial) big mouth and a blog of her own, I do also rather like my right of response on my own terms. :) That's nothing against Martin Lewis personally, but on this occasion very much against some of the points he made today.

For starters, why did he choose to wait until the very last day of the first 'subscription window' to express his concerns. Why didn't he post his blog and talk to the press on the first day, or better still, before the window opened? If he really cares so much about consumers' interests, why leave it so late and then blame the organisers for the pitfalls of the system, when he could have forewarned consumers in order to help them avoid those pitfalls, and perhaps even have tempted the organisers to improve their system before they launched it?

Quoting Martin Lewis

Allow me to pinpoint and respond to a few things Martin Lewis specifically said (wrote):

"Surely we could have worked out a system similar to football teams where you register your interest, then are randomly selected and given a window of opportunity to pay for them. If you don’t want them after all then they are then passed down to others."

Perhaps so — but surely, if Lewis had been serious about this point, he would have come up with this last year when the ticketing system was announced, rather than on the last day of the first subscription phase.

"We’re expected to bid for tickets with no indication of what proportion we’ll get. This involves a financial and emotional commitment and is structured in a way that automatically penalises those with less cash."

Though Lewis is right that there is indeed no way to figure out the odds of being allocated the tickets one signs up for, the financial and emotional commitment would still be there in the alternative system he suggests, and, arguably, any fixed-price system "penalises those with less cash". Only a system that would base ticket prices on buyers' disposable incomes would not disadvantage people with less cash to spend, though one might argue the 'fairness' of a system where different people pay different prices for exactly the same product or service.

"If it does turn out that you’ve only a one in ten chance of getting tickets, then everyone should be bidding for a wide spread of events in order to guarantee that they will get to go at all."

"Everyone should be bidding for a wide spreak of events..." is hardly something I'd expect to come from someone claiming to have consumers' interests at heart. It's a ballot, there is no such thing as a guarantee, even if the odds of 'winning' were known in advance. Buying ten lottery tickets as opposed to just one may increase your chances of winning, it doesn't guarantee you a win. It does mean that the people with more disposable income can afford to buy more lottery tickets, increasing their chances of winning in comparison to those with less disposable income. Life's unfair like that. Get over it.

The difference between a lottery and this Olympics tickets ballot is that in the latter, you only end up paying for those that you win. If you're a responsible consumer, though, you only bid for tickets accumulating to an amount that you can actually afford, however unlikely it may seem that you will in fact be allocated (and have to pay for) all those tickets you subscribed for. The Olympics ticketing site even warns you about this.

Of course, it would be naive to think that every consumer is that responsible. There will no doubt be plenty of people who will take a gamble for potentially more than they can afford, just like there are people who use their credit card or any other form of borrowed money to buy lottery tickets. In both situations, some will come away lucky, while most will end up worse off for it.

Personally I would expect MoneySavingExpert Martin Lewis to urge consumers to act responsibly, rather than blame the potential consequences for the irresponsible ones on the enterprises tempting them. Let's not throw personal responsibility out of the window, here.

"That means the only people who can afford to take the gamble of going for a wide spread to guarantee tickets are the more affluent who can take the risk of, without exaggeration, thousands of pounds being taken from their accounts."

True — and the problem is...? If the system had been like Lewis had suggested, more people could take a gamble as there would be no risk of having to pay for something they couldn't afford... but eventually you'd still end up with those more affluent being able to afford more tickets than those with less money to spend... so in Lewis's words, still "penalising those with less cash". One could argue such a system to be unfair as people might sign up for something they couldn't afford in the first place (yet potentially disadvantaging those who could).

Even plain, unballoted ticket sales on a 'first come, first serve' basis would benefit those with more cash available to them, that system, too, would be considered unfair by some. There is no system that would be fair to all.

"Many of [British sports fans] are contributing through lottery and tax funds to the games."

Indeed, and not just British sport fans do, plenty of non-Brits living and working in Britain do too :) However, none of that buys any of us any 'entitlement' to anything. Many taxpayers pay towards non-taxpayers' welfare benefits. All car owners have to pay car tax, some of which goes towards public transport they may never use. I don't drive, but some of my income and council tax will go towards fixing the potholes in the roads that I'll never use. We all pay taxes and insurance towards police, fire, ambulance and health services that we hope we'll never need. That's not necessarily entirely fair, but that's how taxes work.

Lotteries don't constitute taxes; people voluntarily buy tickets, and usually not in support of the causes which benefit from lottery funding, but to buy themselves one or more chances of winning a potential fortune. Some local charities or other services lottery players use may benefit from lottery funding, but most lottery players will only benefit from the lottery on the rare occasion that they win a prize. You know that before you buy the ticket. Consumers need to know their rights and responsibilities; what they don't need is a misplaced sense of entitlement suggested or confirmed by a self-appointed 'expert'.

"Psychic"

Lewis repeatedly refers to the ticketing system as a "psychic booking process", because there is no way you can predict your chances of obtaining any tickets should you decide to register for them. It's a ballot! And even if it wasn't a ballot, but a plain first-come, first-serve ticket-sale, you still wouldn't be able to predict your chances of obtaining the tickets that you tried for. So aren't all ticketing systems "psychic booking processes"? Or is Lewis going a bit over the top in terms of rhetoric in his blog? (I'd say it's the latter, but that's just my humble opinion.)

"A catalogue of poor practice"?

Finally, under the dramatic header "A catalogue of poor practice", Lewis names his final bugbears regarding the London 2012 Olympics ticketing system:

• The system accepts only payments by VISA credit, debit, prepaid or virtual card.

  I do agree with Martin Lewis that this is way too limited, but I wouldn't go as dramatic over it as he does by asking "Is this the Olympic spirit?" — Olympic spirit doesn't pay the bills, and VISA, as one of the Olympics' main sponsors, does. Without that level of sponsorship, the Olympics bill to UK taxpayers would have been so much greater that most of us might have failed to feel any Olympic spirit at all. In that respect, the VISA-only rule, however inconvenient, is probably the lesser of two evils.

• Payments are taken at any time between 10 May and 10 June, meaning people need to ensure they have sufficient funds in their account during this entire period.

  Another major inconvenience, which should have been avoided, but again something people are clearly warned about before bidding for any tickets, so they can prepare for this (and yes, that might mean having to forego some interest, though under current rates this can't be very much).

  Where I disagree with Lewis is that he states this to be "on top of making everyone gamble by overbooking"... No one is being 'made to overbook' and everyone is warned on the ticketing website that they need to have the maximum funds available to cover the cumulative amount for tickets they bid for.

  While this system may have tempted people to overbook, that is no one else's responsibility but the people's themselves; no one forced them to be irresponsible about it and in fact, the ticketing website even warned them against it.

• The scheme for people wanting to resell any tickets allocated to them which they no longer want does not open till 2012.

  This, too, is clearly indicated on the website before anyone clicks through to bid on tickets. Lewis objects to the length of time people are having to wait, again referring to "so many people are having to deliberately overbid". Again: no one has to to overbid; if people felt tempted or even obliged to overbid, they clearly didn't read the blatant warnings on the website.

  Still, Martin Lewis firmly seems to believe that the ticketing organisation is to blame for anyone overbidding their budget; that, in my opinion, is a populist if not political point, not the sound financial advice that consumers looking to him for guidance would most benefit from. (They might like his populist stance a whole lot better than mine, but I think they'd benefit more from a reality check.)

Responsible consumerism

As much as Martin Lewis may wish to 'fight people's corners', as his website suggests, surely a self-proclaimed MoneySavingExpert should help educate people, instil them with confidence, and teach them to handle their finances responsibly. There is only so much you can blame financial and other institutions for.

Much of the 2008 credit crunch was a result of a 'greed beyond means' culture among consumers as well as companies, spending money that didn't exist in the first place and extending credit to people who would never be able to afford to repay it.

Whether consumers or lenders were to blame for that is a discussion for another day; today's reality is that credit is no longer readily available. It forces both consumers and businesses to act more responsibly than before 2008, as suddenly we can no longer live beyond our means — without credit, when the money runs out, that's it, it's gone.

This may require a new mindset (or a return to an old mindset that existed pre-consumer credit), one in which we all have to take our individual responsibility, because if we don't, we have to pick up the pieces ourselves, no matter how fiercely we try to blame others.

For some of us, responsible consumerism will mean austerity: prioritising needs and wants, making choices, sacrificing one thing to have another, or having to miss out on things we'd love to have.

Others, more affluent than us, may be able to continue to spend as they please, when they please, how they please. That's life. Life is unfair. Get over it.

Let's help ourselves and others do well, and not waste time bemoaning or even blaming others for what they have that we'd like to have, too.

As much as I respect Martin Lewis for all the good advice and support he's offered over the years, reading his blog today and listening to him speak on the radio, I suddenly found myself wondering whether he was talking populism, politics or finance. Or whether he'd perhaps failed to move on with the times post-credit crunch.

Personally, I thoroughly checked the ticket website but did not apply for any tickets because I did not have the budget for that. For that same reason I haven't been to any major football stadium for ten years. I could bemoan that, but I choose not to: as long as there are people willing to pay ever-increasing ticket prices, ticket prices will increase; organisers wouldn't charge these vast amounts if their events didn't sell out regardless. If, like me, you can't or don't wish to pay such extortionate amounts, find something else to do instead, rather than sulk. Be realistic. Life is unfair. Get over it.

Disclaimer: I have no links whatsoever to LOCOG or any of its sponsors, nor to Martin Lewis, MoneySavingExpert.com or any of its relations or competitors. 

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.
Op dit werk is een Creative Commons Licentie van toepassing.

Voor wie mij (nog) niet kent: ik was geboren en getogen in Nederland, maar woon en werk tegenwoordig in Engeland. Engels is inmiddels mijn eerste taal geworden, maar mijn Nederlands heb ik gelukkig niet verleerd.

Zowel Nederlands als Engels vind ik prachtige talen, maar ik wordt af en toe onpasselijk van hoe Nederlandstaligen overmatig gebruik proberen te maken van Engelstalige termen. Daarmee doen ze naar mijn mening beide talen onrecht aan.

Door hier af en toe aandacht aan te besteden, hoop ik schrijvers aan te moedigen toch vooral klare (eigen) taal te gebruiken.

Vandaag viel mijn oog op plattelandsfair.nl.

Ach nee toch, dit begint wat mij betreft al helemaal verkeerd met de naam. De makers van de website, of in elk geval de schrijvers van de teksten erop, hebben er zelf ook moeite mee, aangezien men het ene moment aan de PlattelandsFair (één woord) en het andere moment aan de Plattelands Fair (twee woorden) refereert. Tja, als je het nu gewoon plattelandsbeurs had genoemd, had je dat hele probleem ontweken.

De rest van de pagina's wordt er niet beter op. Dat de Nederlandse taal de Engelstalige termen website en homepage heeft ingeburgerd, is tot daar aan toe. Taal evolueert en ik heb geen bezwaar tegen het overnemen van woorden uit andere talen, alleen tegen het onnodig en vooral tegen het onjuist gebruiken van anderstalige termen. Plattelandsfair.nl staat hier helaas vol mee.

Om te beginnen is die naam, plattelandsfair, dus al onnodig én verkeerd; juist Engels zou country fair (twee woorden) zijn, maar in een Nederlandstalig tekstverband nog altijd onnodig. Plattelandsbeurs is gewoon lekker Nederlands en volkomen gepast. Dat woord home op de hoofdpagina is helemaal overbodig, dus dat laat je weg. Weekend is ook een in Nederlands ingeburgerde term, maar omdat het gecombineerd woord met Pasen, lijkt me paasweekeinde toch netter dan paasweekend.

De naam van de locatie kun je als organisator van een evenement niet wijzigen, maar ik zou er bij de eigenaren van de TT Hall in Assen toch op aandringen. TT Hall is weliswaar niet onjuist, en past bij de ongetwijfeld internationale aspiraties van de eigenaren, maar een creatieveling kan wellicht met een Nederlandse naam komen die ook bij niet-Nederlandstaligen niet al te moeilijk van de tong zal rollen.

"De PlattelandsFair is een unieke combinatie van een gezellige eigentijdse Indoor Countryfair en een tentoonstelling van historische landbouwtechniek. De outdoor-lifestyle van nu ontmoet er het plattelandsleven van toen in een gezellige landelijke sfeer."

Brrrr! Als je dan echt Engelstalige termen moet gebruiken, schrijf ze dan goed! Dus: indoor country fair (drie woorden, geen hoofdletters) in plaats van Indoor Countryfair, en outdoor lifestyle (twee woorden, zonder koppelteken) in plaats van outdoor-lifestyle.

Maar als ik lees dat de bezoekers onder meer kunnen zien hoe klompen worden gemaakt, zou het dan niet veel beter zijn om voor dit hartstikke Hollandse evenement helemaal Nederlandstalig te gaan? Als we alleen letterlijk vertalen zouden we veelvuldig gebruik van dezelfde woorden zien — wellicht was dat de reden dat men voor de verbasteringen van Engelse woorden koos — maar met een beetje creativiteit kun je daar prima omheen werken; de Nederlandse taal biedt je genoeg woorden.

Wat dacht je van deze variatie:

"De plattelandsbeurs is een unieke combinatie van een gezellig, eigentijds, overdekt plattelandsevenement en een tentoonstelling van historische landbouwtechniek. Het buitenleven van nu ontmoet er het plattelandsleven van toen, in een gezellige landelijke sfeer."

Prima toch?

't Is dat ik het paasweekeinde zelf moet werken, anders zou ik er zo heen gaan...! :)

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.
Op dit werk is een Creative Commons Licentie van toepassing.

Last updated 13 April 2011, 11.00 PM BST; subject to changes

Just a word of warning before I start: if you don't like the sound of the words in this post's title, don't read on. Because, yes, I'm selfishly revolving this post all around me-me-me and it won't be pretty. So if you do decide to read on beyond this paragraph, don't say I didn't warn you.

Chronic pain can be difficult to explain to someone who has never experienced it, or not to the extent that I have. To women I have explained the chronic pain I experience if I don't take any medication as continual labour pains without the reward; to men I have explained it as "imagine getting an almighty kick in your groin, and then each time the pain from that kick starts subsiding and you start feeling that slight sensation of relief, another kick follows". Which is evil but the truth.

Let me make clear that I have no medical background other than my experience as a patient and a few temporary stints as a medical secretary, so I can only describe what I have been going through and add what I personally think may be the cause(s) of or reason(s) for the symptoms and side-effects I experience.

For me personally, typing it all into one blog post will hopefully provide a sense of release. For those who know me, it may provide some (more) clarity. For others, I hope this may provide support in learning they are not alone in their (similar or other) struggles. Finally — wishful thinking perhaps — I hope someone with a (prospective) medical career may even take guidance from it... who knows.

Most certainly, I will be submitting a copy of this to my GP, gynaecology GP and gynaecologist.

One major challenge in putting together this post is determining the exact timeline of symptoms, diagnoses and treatments. Again, I am no medical professional so I can not say for sure why it is, but personally I think it's because of the morphine administered to me over the years that I am no longer able to say with certainty whether something was five days, five months or five years ago, or whether any time that passes without me checking calendars and clocks covers five minutes, half an hour or three hours. But I'll try to be as accurate as I can, as I'm trawling through past notes and paperwork to help me confirm dates.

Symptoms and (lack of?) diagnoses

If I remember correctly, it was February 2009 when, after surgery, I was formally diagnosed with the chronic condition endometriosis. (A private physician consulted in 2007 had already judged my symptoms to indicate I might be suffering from fibromyalgia or ME but neither has ever been confirmed as a diagnosis, or even investigated into for that matter.⁽¹⁾.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and so in hindsight it's fair to consider that I've probably had endometriosis from a young age — I had been on the contraceptive pill since age 14 to control the very symptoms — but my symptoms did not become as severe and as debilitating until after I suffered a miscarriage following an ectopic pregnancy in 2004.

I had already experienced bouts of depression before 2004, but never as bad as the ones I've had ever since that miscarriage; they could be purely psychologically because of that miscarriage and other events in my life — pain and fatigue don't help — but depression is also very much a physical thing that happens when hormones cause a chemical imbalance in the brain, and a symptom of endometriosis. Aside from that, my bouts of depression don't always seem to have a particular reason for occurring, i.e. I may be struck down by depression at times when there's really no reason in my life to feel depressed at all.

In the months following the miscarriage I had recurring pelvic infections, treated with vast amounts of antibiotics (often administered intravenously while I was hospitalised); this issue appeared to have been cleared after minor surgery in 2005 (see below under 'treatment'), but the pain and fatigue I suffered became chronic and worsened by the day. This started subtly, with muscular aches and pains initially quite similar to those felt when struck down by the flu, and probably best described as a 'T-shirt of pain', because the area of pain stretched from my neck down through my torso and back as well as into my upper arms, so like a roll-neck, short-sleeve sweater of pain, if that makes sense. I remember my GP at the time referring to these aches and pains as myalgias.

These myalgias were always there, accompanied by fatigue, and slowly grew worse as months and years passed by — from numb/dull 'background noise' to completely debilitating chronic pain — as did their extent, spreading from muscles to joints and extending from my torso down to my hips, legs and knees. The fatigue has, perhaps not unsurprisingly, followed the same pattern as the myalgias: it's become a chronic feature, and has slowly increased from a minor feature in my life to an at times debilitating factor.

Further symptoms I have experienced over the years include PMT/PMS and other 'hormonal issues', including sickness, hot flushes, night sweats and mood swings, though of course any of these symptoms could have been induced by treatments received (see further down) rather than be part of any medical condition to begin with. The same goes for the occasional swelling of my eyelids; besides, such swellings are merely a minor inconvenience compared to anything else I've been experiencing.

Up until my surgery 2009 I also had worsening urinary problems; these were entirely gone after said surgery, but seem to be (slowly) making a return to my life now.

In 2007 I suffered anorexia, mostly — I believe (not proven) — due to a stomach ulcer (because my appetite and weight improved after I was givenLosec), though in part to me not making much effort to regain weight, because my chronic pain decreased with my weight drop. In 2007 I also experienced drop attacks; a CT scan returned no possible cause so the neurologist attributed it to me being underweight at the time. From time to time (and in addition to the aforementioned myalgias) — currently once every one-two weeks — I experience severe stabbing pains (contractions?) in my lower abdominal area and groin; I call them my 'endo episodes' as my regular pain medication isn't a match for them and they tend to come up unexpectedly/irregularly, last 24-48 hours and then subside.

In addition to all these symptoms, I have now reached a point that the side effects of my medication — although I personally prefer them to my symptoms — are making life (and particularly work) difficult for me: you see, while patient information leaflets refer to 'somnolence', I'm actually knocking myself out regularly to a level of unconsciousness far deeper/greater and much longer than sleep ever would; I'll admit that on rare occasions I'll use that deliberately, to my advantage, but all too often these days it happens inadvertently after I take my medication, causing me to lose entire days of work, miss appointments and other commitments, and unnecessarily worry people who try to get hold of me but can't because not even a marching band could wake me from my near-comatose state.

Treatment(s)

As stated before, I had been on Microgynon 30 since I was 14, which worked just fine for me until 2004, when I got pregnant while on this pill and subsequently had my miscarriage. There was no hospitalisation immediately after my miscarriage, no D&C, but several admissions to hospital in the months after to be treated for pelvic inflammation. In January 2005 a minor surgical procedure involving a colposcopy, biopsy and diathermy; I felt superb after that — in fact, I had the procedure on a Friday and started a busy new job on the Monday after — because the pelvic pains and infections seemed to have gone (although the myalgias and 'hormonal' symptoms were still there.

Perhaps being 'up and running' that quickly after surgery wasn't such a great idea (did I tell you already what a great thing hindsight is?), because some months later, when I went to have a Mirena coil inserted at my local GP surgery, this failed because — allegedly — my uterus had tilted or prolapsed and my cervix was twisted or prolapsed as well, probably all as a consequence of getting up and running right after my cervical diathermy.

So in December 2006 I underwent surgery to, erm, 'straighten things out' again, so to speak, and have the Mirena coil inserted⁽²⁾.

Initially I deeply regretted that procedure, because the first six months after it were sheer hell. Although you're not supposed to feel the Mirena, I believe I did actually feel its every move and I can't tell you how much pain and discomfort that caused me. But after three months this started easing off and once six months had passed, all regrets had gone, because, actually, much of the effects of the Mirena by then were rather heavenly: pains, cramps, myalgias and fatigue had reduced (they've since returned over time), many (not all) PMT/PMS symptoms have gone or at least got less, and to this day I haven't had a single migraine attack (that alone has made it worth it).

Unfortunately, as time progressed, symptoms returned and worsened. I started practicing yoga and meditation to help ease my pains. I spent a substantial amount of money on visits with a naturopath; money well spent, because the dietary advice has helped tremendously. (I gave up eating meat altogether because of how much more ill it makes me.)

Regular over-the-counter painkillers were insufficient, so I was prescribed Tramadol. This worked, but not brilliantly; aside from that, Tramadol, a morphine-like substance, is rather addictive, so allegedly not advised to be taken for longer than six months at a time⁽³⁾. Moreover, as with any opioid, you build up a tolerance for it, meaning you need to take more and more of it for it to have any effect. So it doesn't exactly offer a permanent solution. Another issue was, that although I was receiving treatment for my symptoms, I did not have a formal diagnosis of what was actually going on with me

So in 2009 I underwent surgery again. This time I had a laparoscopy. An ultrasound scan prior to this procedure had shown there to be a 4x7cm cyst in one of my ovaries. During the procedure itself, it was found that this cyst had already disappeared and the ovary healed, but the gynaecologist did find and remove endometriotic adhesions. When I woke from my general anesthetic I was euphoric: not only did I finally have a formal diagnosis, aside from the expected after-effects of the surgery (like the shoulder pains you experience after a laparoscopy), I was actually entirely free of pain, cramps and myalgias. As far as I was concerned, I was cured!

Unfortunately, this euphoria ended abruptly three weeks later, when I collapsed at home and rushed back into hospital with severe abdominal pains. I was treated with antibiotics and a variety of pain relief for just over a week, then returned home to continue medication as usual.

In the time since, I have tried out a series of hormonal treatments, none of which worked and most of which only caused more symptoms to occur; one course caused me to be pretty much bedridden for about three months, while during another I developed a — thankfully benign — tumor on my breast, which was surgically removed in May 2010. My pelvic pains are not just in the abdominal areas where endometrial adhesions were found, and a trial involving an intramuscular injection of Prostrap SR temporarily eased symptoms but did not get rid of them altogether. This suggests that the diagnosis of endometriosis only covers part of my medical issues, though all symptoms appear hormone-based.

Pain and discomfort have only increased: on most days I wake up unable to stand or walk properly because of it, until about two hours after I've taken my first dose of pain relief. Pain patterns and discharge suggest I regularly suffer from (bursting) endometriomas and other ovarian cysts.

Currently I take Citalopram (20mg a day, on prescription) which takes the edge of my depression. I have continued to take pain relief, currently in the form of Zydol (tramadol, on prescription) and Paramol (co-dydramol, over the counter); costs (to me) totalling around £40 a month. By sheer accident I found out that they actually work best if taken together, rather than in turns. This has allowed me to function well most of my time, but by now I have become so tolerant that I've pretty much reached my maximum dose (400mg Zydol a day, 2000/32mg Paramol a day); my 'next step up' in pain relief would be to morphine, diamorphine or methadone, but what on earth would that mean in terms of side-effects, if my current meds are already inhibiting my ability to function?

The aforementioned somnolent blackouts from the tramadol/co-dydramol combo meant that I've (understandably) upset employers and clients by not turning up for scheduled shifts and appointments without notice; but if I don't take this medication, the pain is so debilitating that I can't work or otherwise function at all. How am I meant to maintain a normal life and hold down a job this way?! I have already lost my marriage and am struggling to work and earn constant and regularly enough to meet work deadlines, not to mention basic financial obligations!

To say that I'm desperate to get my life back is an understatement.

The medical rollercoaster I've been on these past seven years has given me a bumpy, tiresome ride, which isn't easy when you're not fit and healthy to begin with. Gynaecology is a medical area particularly overstretched in my geographical location, meaning long waiting lists — generally a three-month wait just to get an appointment with a gynaecologists for a mere consultation — accompanied by a messy appointment system: I've had past appointments moved back and forth, changed several times over to different dates, times and locations, only to receive a final confirmation by post for an appointment date/time that had already passed by the time I received the confirmation letter; supposedly I 'missed' my last appointment with my gynaecologist, even though I wasn't even aware I had that particular appointment; as a consequence, I've now been referred back to my GP to start the referral and waiting game again from scratch.

In that context, I cannot blame medical and other professionals for suggesting that I apply for welfare benefits on the grounds of 'disability' rather than seek treatment that could enable me to continue to be a productive, tax-paying member of society, but I don't feel quite so ready to be written off that way before I've even reached the age of 40 — and there will be other people much more deserving of any such welfare payments.

Enough is enough. And boy, have I had enough.

Future?

At the end of this extremely long blog post, there will no doubt be plenty of minor (and even some major) details I have forgot to mention here — but hey, it's long enough as it is, right? Right now I feel like screaming "Future? What future?" as I am afraid I have no future unless something major is done, and this is what I will be asking my GP, gynae GP and gynaecologist as I will send them a hardcopy of this post along with a cover letter setting out my request, for what I believe to be my only way out: a complete hysterectomy.

By complete I mean not just removing the uterus, but removing the ovaries as well and making sure that any and all endometriotic adhesions and lesions have been removed. I realise that is a HUGE medical procedure, with major consequences, and very much a last resort in terms of trying to alleviate symptoms, improve my quality of life, and move towards establishing what else may be going on with my body if all of the symptoms discussed aren't down to my hormonal (im)balances.

But I am truly and the end of my tether to play and experiment with my health any longer.

I am tired, so tired. Phsysically, mentally and emotionally exhausted. Not suicidal, but most nights I go to bed wish I could go to sleep without having to wake up again, as I lack the strength to face normal life.

Last year was particularly traumatic as I had to face divorce, financial problems and (family) bereavements. With my health already weak, it left me complete burnt out, and I am still recovering from that.

For my future I would at least like to be able to somehow rebuild my physical health in order to be able to deal with any such challenges life throws at me.

I hope this lengthy epistle helps open other people's eyes to my plight, and that it will help me get the (medical) help I need so I can get as near to recovery as possible (considering there is no cure), eventually leading to a fresh (healthy?) new start in life.

⁽¹⁾Symptoms of fibromyalgia and ME overlap those of endometriosis so neither possibility can be ruled out in my case, but I was never formally diagnosed with either (yet). I did have glandular fever in 1999, which, I was told, is supposedly is a 'prerequisite' for either condition.

⁽²⁾Supposedly the correct procedure is to have a follow-up appointment six weeks after insertion of the Mirena coil, and annual appointments after that, to check the strings can still be seen. I've never had any of these formal checks but other surgery and examinations since 2006 have turned out that no strings are visible outside the womb, indicating they're probably inside the womb, meaning removing/replacing the coil will require further surgery.

⁽³⁾Six months? I've been on it for several years now...!

Many thanks to Endometriosis UK and the Endometriosis SHE Trust UK.

 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.
Op dit werk is een Creative Commons Licentie van toepassing.