Facebook

A blog about Facebook is long overdue from me. If you follow me on twitter you will have seen me have numerous rants on the subject, and some of these views will be getting expressed here, but I will be able to go into a bit more detail.

To be honest, a lot of what I say may be a bit hypocritical. I use Facebook myself, I appreciate the odd like, and this blog itself is most likely going to get posted to Facebook. This could be construed as me being the exact thing I'm criticising here. But anyway, I'm just going to go with it...

I decided to write this blog after a status I posted myself on facebook last night. This status to be precise...

The Ted reference was excellent

Now, the fact this is a facebook status is actually irrelevant to the point I'm about to make here. It's more to do with the naming of the kids that I mentioned there, and the thought process that's gone into these names. It's the fact that parents picking the names have gone through the thought process of what other people will think of the names that annoys me. They've made the conscious decision that rather than give their kids normal names they will double barrel two names that don't really go together in an attempt to make them different and more memorable. And I fucking hate the idea of this.

This leads me on to my main issue with Facebook, in case you were wondering like. It's the thought process that goes into the posts people make on there. The idea that people have posted a certain thing in a certain way for the purpose of it gaining attention. What it boils down to, is that Facebook has now just become a competition. Pretty much everything people post on their is done so with the purpose of presenting how good their life is, to present the idea that their life is better than yours. In some situations you could argue that this isn't the case, but it's the way people present things in a certain way that makes you know that they've thought about the best way to get the most likes for this post. In all honesty though, people's lives probably aren't all that great, otherwise they wouldn't be on Facebook.

Of course, the opposite of this, when people are having a shit time and thus are not competing... they are in fact still fucking competing. My tragedy is worse than yours. One of the things that annoys me the most that you will see all the time on Facebook is posts to dead relatives. "Rest in peace nan. 3 years ago today I lost you, I'm sure you're looking down on me angel." Nan didn't have Facebook when she was alive so she's probably not got it in the afterlife. Visit the grave and lay some flowers you cretin instead of posting it on Facebook in an attempt to get some likes. You'll then find the tremendous overuse of the word "hun" in the comments from friends consoling them. Just fucking give them a call or visit them if you're that good friends. But I forgot, you want everyone to see that you're consoling your friend.

Again, it just goes back to the thought process the person has gone through to make this post. They've thought of a heartfelt status about a dead relative, but they've thought of it in a way that will best achieve Facebook popularity, and it just means nothing to the person who's actually died. The same principle applies to people who make a status to wish a relative happy birthday. The worst one is when it's for kids. "Happy 1st birthday Robbie-Joe, we love you." (It's bound to be a shit name like Robbie-Joe if the kids only one, because the parents probably picked the name with a Facebook status in mind when they decided it.) But yeah, why wish a kid who's not on facebook anyway happy birthday? It's done with the sole purpose of everyone else seeing it's your kids birthday, so you can get likes on it. Any time there's a status from someone wishing a close relative I just feel like saying can't you give them a card and wish them happy birthday in person, does the whole of Facebook have to see it you attention seeking whore. Pick up the phone for fuck sake.

Thought process and public announcing are the two most annoying things on Facebook. The worst thing for this is pregnancies. If you follow me on twitter you will have seen me commenting on the number of pregnancies on Facebook recently. Now, I don't have an issue with the pregnancy itself, but it's just the impression I get sometimes that the persons first thought has been to get the news on Facebook to get likes on it. What do likes even achieve by the way? Does it just help people feel better about their mundane lives?

Another thing I see on Facebook that really irks me is the arranged photo, and again it is down to the thought process. The 'designed for Facebook' vibe it gives off. To explain, the arranged photo is an evolution from the old status of someone explaining what their night would involve in an attempt to portray a certain lifestyle that person is leading. In order to give an example of this I've stolen a previous example someone used in an article: "Time for a bubble bath and a large glass of champers methinks." You get the idea, the kind of thing that does not need to be made public, yet is made public to present this image of a person. Anyway, this has been evolved, mainly due to the catalyst that was Instagram, to become the arranged photo. If the example above was to be taken, this would involve the person posting a photo of said bubble bath, with said bottle of champers being neatly placed in shot to look very appealing to the viewer. The kind of photo that is not a natural snapshot of a situation and again does not need to be shared with the public. Arranged photos, I fucking hate them.

These days, I hate Facebook. It's become tedious, and like I said it is just a competition, a my life is better than yours. People post things that follow a similar pattern, whether it's the posts I mentioned above or just the use of certain words or phrases that are Facebook popular at any particular time. Yes, I do still have Facebook, but the honest reason for that is just due to the fact my life's photos are stored on their and I can't be bothered to save them all. Someone once said that Facebook is like a girlfriend you've spent years with and are bored of, but you don't want to end the relationship because you've put so much into it. That is very true.

@adamheath

Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire

Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire, or as I like to call it, the one when Emma Watson got fit. I decided to do this blog because I've always really thought of The Goblet of Fire as my favourite Harry Potter film, but I Sky Plussed it yesterday and was watching it today, and I realised that it's actually shit.

To be honest, I've never been a big fan of the Harry Potter films just because I like the books so much. I've always had a problem with books I like being made into films, and nothing irritates me more than when things from the book are changed for the film. And like, in The Goblet of Fire, this happens right from the start. I'd let them have the opening scene as a job well done, but that's until I'm watching it and fucking Doctor Who turns up uninvited:

Barty Crouch Jr wasn't even in that scene in the book, but there he is making an appearance from the start of the film. I know for a film they have to work it differently sometimes because there's less time to tell the story, but this pisses me off straight away because it alters the whole narrative of the story, because in the book we find out about the history of Barty Crouch as it progresses, which leads to the big reveal at the end that his son is still alive. The thing is, with the Harry Potter films, because they don't have that much time to tell the story, it often feels like they're just listing the events from the book. Which is shit. If you've read the book it's okay but not as enthralling, and if you haven't I could completely understand someone turning round and saying Harry Potter is shit. Anyway, on with the story... we're up early and we're walking somewhere, no explanation as to where, but here's Amos Diggory, who we're supposed to be meeting but we're supposed to just know that cos we've read the book:

It's a bit weird that he's out in the woods on his own isn't it oh wait... 

He's with Edward Cullen who's sat in a fucking tree. They've never explained that. There he is falling back to earth. What a dickhead. The way they make Cedric in film I was actually quite glad he died at the end. I should really point out the spoiler there but to be honest if you're reading this and haven't seen the film it's a bit pointless anyway.

The way they introduce new characters in this film is the same every time as well, it's always just by someone saying that's them. "There's Amos Diggory", "This strapping young man must be Cedric." Why did Arthur Weasley say that by the way? That's the weirdest thing he says in any of the films, why don't you just neck him Arthur. He loves Cedric more than he loves plugs. 

Apparently, my Emma was impressed by Cedric hiding up a tree then falling out of it to surprise them. Can we just revisit it again sorry, why was he up that tree? I really don't get it. Anyway here's Hermione and Ginny looking all impressed by it:

Interesting side note, whilst this was the first film Hermione was fit, it's also the last one that Ginny and Neville were ugly. The change that came over Neville is quite disturbing, he did puberty right that kid. 

For some reason now, they give us a proper unnecessary shot of the portkey looking all majestical

And how do I know it's a portkey I hear you ask, well because Harry, in a lucky coincidence, asks the question that's on the viewers' mind, "why are they all crowding round that manky old boot?" And not one of the Weasley twins, but both of them, answer his question. They always have lines together The Weasley twins, it must have been great for the actors they'd never forget their lines because the other one would just remind them. And also, the lines are hard to forget because the dialogue is pretty dreadful at times. Like that manky old boot line, who talks like that? 

Why does Arthur Weasley tell them to let go of the portkey? Surely it's designed to take them to a certain place and if they let go they won't get there? They might die Arthur, Molly will be fuming. He's just a fucking prankster isn't he.

Because after they let go it just turns into a fucking nightmare for them, they all proper hit the ground at full pace whilst Arthur, who didn't even let go when he told them too, floats down like a fucking feather and has a perfect landing. Next time Arthur Weasley tells you to do something Harry I'd just do the opposite mate. Here's Robert Pattinson being Twilight (being a cunt) 

Floating to earth like a fucking fairy. Arthur Weasley just made Cedric look good at the expense of his own kids. Reckon Malfoy's dad has a point about him you know. It's moments like this were I was just like "Cedric just die already will you", like in the book I don't even remember being that arsed about Cedric but in this film they made him a bellend. It doesn't help that they used Edward Cullen for the role like but still.

Smell my fingers... Kristen Stewart

Harry's far too happy getting helped up by Cedric, and Cedric hasn't even said a fucking word yet. All he's done is sit in a tree for no reason, fall out of said tree, then show he's an expert in portkey travel. And whilst Harry's being helped up you just hear someone go "total shambles as per usual" just dead randomly, cos nothing's happened to suggest it was a shambles. It's just a line from the book that's been thrown in without the necessary precursor to explain it.

Welcome to the Quidditch World Cup. That one line explains all the shit that's just gone before it. Books in film don't work! Actually, Fried Green Tomatoes worked, I'm like emotionally involved with both the film and the book of that. I weep over them.

Anyway, there's the Quidditch World Cup looking like Glasto on magic (two meanings there) 

That's like another moment were, if you hadn't read the book, seeing a load of tents introduced as a World Cup you'd just be like what are you on about mate. Look there's a man juggling to emphasise how fun and different it all is

That's Arthur Weasley who's now randomly wearing a giant top hat by the way. Oh this Quidditch World Cup is so much fun. I hope that hat's FIFA approved.

Emma's impressed...

My list of ways to impress Emma Watson is steadily growing. Number 1: Hide in trees and fall out of them. Number 2: Juggle.

When I've mastered juggling whilst sat in a tree I will propose to her.

"See you later Cedric!" Can I stop you there. Are you fucking messing Fred or George? You hate Cedric. Cedric doesn't even reply to them as well, he hasn't spoke at all in this film. I wish he didn't talk in Twilight the sparkly twat. Kristen Stewart says like one word then bites her lip for like 10 minutes, what's all that about? I watched the Twilight films then read the books just so I could be in a position to fairly criticise them, and I can honestly say they're fucking dreadful. Like if something's intended for girls and I don't like it for that reason, I can accept it and still appreciate it's quality as a piece of work. Unfortunately, Twilight is not this.

Hurry up and die Cedric.

Shocked Harry is used for the anticlimactic reveal of wizard tents. The wizard tents are only explained in this book because 3 books later Harry, Ron and Hermione practically live in one for a year. Clever JK. Wizard gypsies.

Remember he lived with muggles for 11 years until one day a giant man broke down his door in the middle of the night and told him wizards were real and he was one. Seems legit. It actually does work in the book that bit, but again it doesn't transfer to the film. If you'd never read the book and were watching the first film you'd just be like nah bail it.

It was at this point I realised there's no way the whole films getting covered in this blog. But anyway, back to the action...

Harry loves magic

I have nothing to say on this, I just thought that screenshot was great and had to include it.

The Quidditch world cup final is being held in a big hole in the ground apparently 

And there are wizards there from all over the world, as can be seen by the inclusion of these stereotypical African looking people 

Or that might just be Kinglsey Shacklebolt, it's hard to tell the difference. Excuse the casual racism there (oh no he didn't). A big deal wasn't made about Kingsley Shacklebolt being a black Minister For Magic, because wizards are dead cool and liberal and that.

"Put it this way, if it rains, you'll be the first to know."

Lucius Malfoy's character is entirely based on class divides. He wasn't really arsed about Voldemort and evil stuff. I think he would have preferred the Tory party to be in power over Voldemort. He definitely doesn't read the Daily Prophet, he's got Daily Mail written all over him.

"Do enjoy yourself, while you can"

They proper set up the whodunnit's in this film, like JK Rowling's story wasn't good enough or something. Was it the mysterious man who might be Doctor Who that we seen at the start? Is it Lucius Malfoy? What are we even supposed to be suspicious about?

Apparently Irish wizards are very good at creating CGI leprechauns that belong back in 1998 on Windows Movie Maker 

A big thank you to Fred and George here (yes they share this line as well) for letting us know that "there's Troy, Mullet, and Moran". We really need to know the names of the Irish players, when we don't even get to see the match and we never hear about them ever again. It really bugs me that we don't get to see the quidditch world cup final, it's like the biggest quidditch match that happens in Harry Potter and we don't see it, and also it's important for the character of Victor Krum. We need to see that he catches the snitch and ends the game even though he can't win, cos like, that builds his character and that.

After the game, Ron practically whips his cock out and knocks one out over Victor Krum. Meanwhile, Fred and George act like dickheads

Stop destroying the characters Mr Movie Maker. At least Harry seems happy though.

Not for long though. You know how Harry is like one of the most famous wizards in the world, and everyone loves him cos he destroyed the most evil wizard in history? Well someone decided it was okay to web him in the face and leave him for the death eaters. Fucking great that isn't it

I reckon if that was Victor Krum Ron would have stuck a finger in.

When Harry wakes up Doctor Who is back

You know I've never watched Doctor Who, so if that fella wasn't him that reference is terrible. But anyway, more interestingly than that, Trigger's there as well 

He's proper fuming about the dark mark. He's dead scared by it. Unfortunately I don't share his fear, because like the Irish Leprechaun the dark mark they use in this film was fucking made on Windows Movie Maker

Terrible! Anyway, thus far the film has not created the story like the book did at all, and now the feeling of them just listing the events that happen in the book continues as they're already on the Hogwarts Express back to school. 

Harry gets a boner over Cho Chang, who's buying two pumpkin pasties the fat bitch. She's Scottish and she's Chinese. Just because.

In the first film Harry buys everything off the trolley, like he has no consideration for anyone else on the train. What an absolute tit. I'm starting this new school were I'm famous and I just want to keep my head down, I shall start by buying all the food on this train so no one else can eat anything for the rest of this 5 hour trip. Malfoy had a fucking point about Harry as well.

Before they've even explained that the Triwizard tournament is taking place, there's just a fucking huge flying horse and carriage coming to Hogwarts. Again, if you hadn't read the book you'd just be like what the fuck is this shit 

Then a boat comes out of the lake

Is that Johnny Depp?

Everyone at Hogwarts is proper impressed by what they've witnessed. There's so many scenes in this film that show people being impressed by magic. You wouldn't think they lived in a fucking wizard world

After all this has happened, Dumbledore then explains about the Triwizard Tournament. Like in this film version of Harry Potter, the people arriving at the school in a flying horse and carriage and a magical submarine boat were a proper surprise, yet no one even questioned what was going on. They just got all impressed by it. Weird. Anyway, this is where the film really gets stupid, when the foreigners make their entrances into the great hall. The French birds just do like this proper weird thing were they skip for a bit then stop, turn their heads to the side, and sigh. Why did they do this? It was so unnecessary. 

Just stop it, now. Imagine when you were at school if you visited another school and you had to make your entrance through interpretive dance. Also, they decided to just bring one gymnast with them who's dressed like a medieval jester. Seriously, this is where the film proper lost it for me.

"You can do gymnastics. You have to dress like a twat"

Now Durmstrang arrive. They have fire sticks and they can run really fast. They also have a few gymnasts, I think that's one of the rules of making your entrance. Must be some gymnastics displayed. This ones not a bad break dancer as well

Victor Krum enters after his mates, he doesn't look happy though. I reckon they should of had him enter the great hall to Stone Cold's entrance music. 

Again, they proper struggle on ways to introduce new characters. They've already overused the someone saying that persons name technique, so they go with something new to introduce Mad Eye Moody. For some reason, the ceiling just decides to go west, and Moody fixes it. I swear I fucking hate this film you know, why throw something out there like that without explaining it, like it happens in all the films or something. People question things. Well I do anyway.

It was at this point in the film were I gave up watching it, and then did this blog. To be honest I wasn't intending it to be this long but it's gone on for fucking ever and if it started off a bit humorous (probably giving it more credit than it deserves) it's just boring now. So I'm going to leave it here for now, might do a part two if I can be arsed watching the rest of the film and if anyone actually reads this. Enjoy

@adamheath 

No Pyro No Party

Pyrotechnics seem to be making a return to English football stadiums. Whether it be flares, smoke bombs or fire crackers, fans across the country and across the football league are setting these devices off at the match. Liverpool fans in particular have led the way with this trend, sparking debate amongst supporters and media alike whether this is right or wrong.

Liverpool at Fulham

As a Liverpool supporter, I have noticed this debate become particularly prevalent after the reds trip to Fulham at the weekend, as the pyrotechnic trend seemed to reach it's peak. I watched the match on the internet (yes, I wasn't there unfortunately) I thought the displays from our fans looked great, and added to the fun end of season atmosphere. However, as I was watching the co-commentator (I can't remember who it was) criticised the supporters for their behaviour, labeling it as dangerous. I have since seen Liverpool fans agreeing with this around the internet, causing a divide in the support.

I believe the issue with pyrotechnics comes from a problem in modern football and the way modern football fans are being manufactured. If you watch a European match on English television, with some of the biggest teams in Europe, you will nearly always see some sort of pyro at the games. If you take, for example, the two Champions League semi finals from a few weeks ago, both teams who are no finalists, Borussia Dortmund and Bayern Munich, set off smoke bombs, fire crackers and flares regularly at their home games. When this happens the English commentators praise them for it and say how great it looks and how good the fans are. Why should it be different for English teams? If the media in this country believes pyrotechnics are dangerous in football stadiums, are they basically saying it's okay for them because their foreign? Because that's not right is it.

Pyromaniacs in Dortmund

A lot is often said, and particularly in recent weeks with German teams doing so well in Europe, about how good it is for fans of German teams, and how the clubs are run properly and care about the fans. Likewise, the fans are often praised for their behaviour. It wouldn't fit the script to criticise supporters for their dangers pyrotechnic displays. On the contrary, modern football has raised an attitude and a breed of football fan in this country totally different to what they have in Germany. The Sky Generation as they are known. These fans are middle class, and want go the game and stay seated for 90 minutes and enjoy the show, just like they are going to the theatre. In the majority of cases, it is this type of supporter that is not happy about Liverpool fans and their smoke bombs. It goes against the Super Sunday script.

Now, I know it's not quite as black and white as that. There may well be a safety issue when it comes to pyrotechnics, it probably won't be a nice experience for a young kid trying to enjoy a football match to get caught in a load of red smoke. However, this is where football in England and countries like Germany is different. In Germany, they allow the fans who want to take part in this behaviour to have their own section of the ground to do this in. The same goes for standing at football, which is another issue that throws up questions about safety. In Germany, if the fans want to stand they can choose to go in the standing section. The fact they have the choice is very important. In this country, the powers that be try to make everyone conform to their way of thinking. Pay your money, sit in your seat, stay quiet, and don't make any sudden movements.

Football in England is like a dictatorship, football clubs are a law to themselves when it comes to controlling the fans, they try to blanket ban everything rather than try to work out resolutions to suit everyone. When smoke bombs started getting popular, Liverpool issued this statement to supporters:

The answer to everything is ban them. Again, it's the same with standing at the game. If people are standing in the Kop the stewards go to them and tell them they'll get kicked out. Now, it is unfair if you standing up effects someone's view who wants to sit down, the same way it's unfair that someone should have to be around pyrotechnics if they don't want to be. But again, people should be given the choice. Liverpool have had a problem for years, whereby they have sold the Kop to tourists on the atmosphere, so the tourists buy their Kop ticket and there's no atmosphere, because all the regular fans are being replaced by tourists like themselves who don't sing. Similarly, a tourist will want to be in the Kop then they will be unhappy if they can't sit down and watch the game in peace. But anyway, that's just a bit of a side note that kind of leads on to my next point...

The reason other European countries such as Germany allow their fans to stand up, and set off flares and take part in other behaviours such as this that are outlawed in England, is because they know that these fans are the loyalest and most hardcore group of supporters. These fans, who are sometimes referred to as Ultras, but have different names in different countries, may act in such a way that does not always make the club look great to outsiders, but they will always be there. Football goes in cycles. At the moment Germany is a major European footballing power, so the stadiums are always full, but it hasn't always been that way. Around 20 years ago even the biggest teams in the counrty weren't attracting fans. You'd often see the likes of Bayern Munich's Olympic Stadium almost completely empty. But the ultras section was always full and bouncing. The same applies to the likes and Italy and Spain who have also gone through bad patches. Without these hardcore groups of supporters, many clubs wouldn't be here anymore as they would have gone bankrupt. But the hardcore supporters were always there, buying their tickets, and just about keeping the clubs afloat. The clubs haven't forgotten this, so even now when they're going through good times, they still aim to keep the hardcore supporters happy because they know it might not last forever and they'll need these supporters to stay loyal in the future.

England has been a major European power in football for the past 15 years or so now, and has used this to try and get rid of the old fashioned hardcore football fan rather than keep them. Football clubs believe that by replacing the traditional working class fans who have followed the teams for years, with new middle class fans, they will be able to make more money from it. The Liverpool fans who are letting off the smoke bombs at the games are the hardcore supporters. They're the ones who are going to every game, whether the club are doing good or terrible. The club has no issue giving these fans banning orders, as they know they can sell their tickets for more money to the middle and upper class fans, or even to corporate sponsors. But what the club has to ask themselves is will those fans and those sponsors be there in the bad times. And I'm not just talking about bad times for the individual club, I mean for football in this country in general. It can happen, it's happened in major countries in Europe only recently, the biggest clubs in the world have had empty stadiums game after game. The Sky Sports supporter might complain about the dangers of the smoke bomb, but he's probably watching the game on the telly anyway.

I have gone off on a bit of a rant from the original subject of this blog, but I'd just like to conclude by saying that it is important for clubs to allow fans some breathing space in regards to how they behave at the match. Not all fans are the same, some want to stand up, some want to sit down, some want to show their support by letting off a smoke bomb, some think smoke bombs are dangerous. However, the people who do want to stand and set off smoke bombs, the ones you try to ban, may just be the fans who will still be there when you need them the most.

One Internet Journey...

When I woke up this morning, I'd completely forgotten that last night I made a purchase on the internet.

What happened was, I was sitting on the internet bored for a few hours, and what tends to happen in situations like this is that I just go from one site to the next, and I find myself being taken to a totally different place from where I started. 

This happens quite a lot, sometimes I might just be going from video to video on youtube via the related videos. This tactic has lead me to seeing some crazy stuff, I'll start off by innocently looking at a short clip of a goal or something, and I end up finding myself at the opposite end of the internet staring at a video of a supposed mythical creature being caught on tape or something.

Next thing I know it's 3am and this fellas judging me

On other occasions I'll visit one of the many sites I use to just pass the time. I think the correct term is procrastination (ironically, writing this blog could be described as that as well). I've built up a fair collection of sites I use to do this over the years, there's the aptly named killsometime.com, there's break.com, my current favourite tickld.com, and others such as failblog, worldstar and liveleak. The other thing I do a lot on the internet is just search for stuff. I'll see things mentioned somewhere and I'll find out all about them. This sometimes leads to other epic quests across wikipedia clicking on links on a page and just continuing.

Anyway, it was sort of a combination of these two past times that lead me to the forgotten purchase last night. The website of choice last night was Failblog, and after getting to about page 12, I came across this picture:

It's basically a diagram of how you're effected when you have a hangover, and a cure for each part of this. So I went on a little googling spree, I was trying to find out what opioids were, what foods contained B vitamins and what rosiglitazone is, the plan being that I could crack the hangover secret and prepare a little recovery pack for the next day (recovery wank is still my number one tip though). But when I saw the oxygen one, I was a bit puzzled. Oxygen is already in the air, so how do you get more oxygen when you're hungover? Naturally, I went to google: "oxygen hangover". And to my surprise oxygen as a hangover cure is a well known thing, and of course people have made products for this.

To cut a long story short, last night I bought an oxygen tank. A fucking oxygen tank.

Bearing in mind I bought this in the middle of the night, but I don't know what possessed me to do it. So today, I woke up and I'd completely forgotten about this, then a bit later on the thought popped into my head and I was like I must have dreamt that. So I check my Amazon account and there it is. I bought a fucking oxygen tank.

I don't really know what I'm going to use it for, I'll give it a try on a hangover and see if it does do anything. What I'm probably going to do is when I get it I'll give it a little blast and do a blog reviewing my findings from the test, cos I'm sure everyone will be dead interested to know. Anyway, that was just a little blog about something really of no interest to no one about my life. Thanks for reading.

"It's oxygen, not steroids, I promise"

@adamheath

Internet Job Websites and Scam Jobs

First of all, I wouldn't say I'm actively seeking a job at the moment, in case anyone from my work is reading this. Just every now and then I like to have a little look on the internet job sites and apply for a few vacancies that look half decent. I usually go for the ones that offer lots of money and I know I have no chance of getting, just because I'm one of those people who thinks somehow one day I'll will just have a good job that pays well without having to do any work to get it. Apparently that's something to do with being a Pisces.

Anyway, recently I joined the website Monster because I'd heard of a few people getting decent jobs from there, and then I saw an advert on the telly for the site that's actually just called Jobsite, so I joined that. On a side note about that advert, even though it sort of worked because I went and joined the site, I don't think the fella on it is the best person for an advert. You know, the "new job phobia" guy? He looks like a sex offender, and it takes one to know one. That was a joke... maybe.

sex offender?

Anyway, one of the main reasons I only look for jobs on the internet every now and then is because of the amount of crap jobs that the websites throw up. I think it's to do with the agencies they use, but they bring up a load of these jobs that I like to call "jarg jobs", in other words, they're scams. I know about these jobs because I was unfortunate enough to fall for it a few years back when I was out of work after quitting university. There was no monetary loss on my part, I just lost a day out of my life and to be honest I felt a bit stupid for it at the end.

Basically what happens is the job is advertised on these sites under a company name to make them seem legitimate and professional, there was one I was looking at the other week called 'Red Planet Marketing', and there's a few being advertised at the moment called 'Encore Interactive Ltd'. Then they advertise the job in such a way were they don't say what the job is, but they make it sound like it's a brilliant career move that will make you successful and rich. Here's an example from Jobsite.co.uk of these type of jobs coming up on a search, when I searched using my postcode:

Now as you can see them first three jobs are all with the same company, offer the same money, and have the same job description, yet they have different job titles. The are two more jobs lower down the page that can't be seen on that screenshot, that are the same again, but have the job titles "Customer Sales Advisor" and "Graduate Trainee". Can you see the different ways they are trying to draw people in, and also how they are trying to have their vacancy appear in as many job searches as possible. As you can probably tell, each one of them jobs is the same, just marketed differently. The company are quite clearly desperate to get people to join them, and the reason for that is because they are a form of pyramid scheme. If you were to apply for any one of them vacancies now, just as an experiment, I would guarantee you'll get a call back or some form of response in the next few days.

Before going any further I think it would be best to explain exactly what the job is. My 18 year old self, clearly more naive than my present self, and after just dropping out of uni and being desperate for work, fell for one of these job advertisements. I was called a few days after applying, and invited to an "appointment" the next day. I think they call it an appointment because it's not an interview, but they don't want to reveal to you what it actually is. In fact, even when you get there they try and conceal from you what the job is until the last possible moment. That is because the job you've applied for is door to door sales. Walking the streets all day, knocking on doors, and trying to sell things to people. Not what you expect after reading the advert. 

So I go to an office building in Liverpool, all suited up to meet the boss, along with quite a few other people. The office is another disguise for the true business, one receptionist and a fella who is the boss. The Pharaoh, as he would be known in the pyramid scheme. Anyway, long story short, I spoke to this boss who told me how he was earning £80k a year, how he had a business plan, all these business terms he used to entice people in, then I went out with someone who who already worked for them, and he told me about his business plan, and how he hoped to be up to that £80k mark one day, how he'd have groups of people working for him (probably expecting me to be one of them), and all this. Then after all that talk you're knocking on people's doors trying to get them to switch to Virgin Media.

So, the way the pyramid scheme works is that, quite simply, someone sits at the top and has people working for them, who in turn have people working for them, and so on. The idea being that everyone in the pyramid makes a payment to the person above them, or they get a cut. So the aim is to get higher up the pyramid to get a bigger cut. The description of this sort of scheme, as provided by Wikipedia, is: "a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sales of products or services to the public." Can you see how this fits in with these jobs? The key part of that is probably the "non-sustainable" bit. To go into further detail about how these types of employers try to draw you in, we can go back to Wikipedia which says: "A successful pyramid scheme combines a fake yet seemingly credible business with a simple-to-understand yet sophisticated-sounding money-making formula which is used for profit." 

The thing with the pyramid scheme is that in some cases it is actually illegal, and that is because it is basically a scam. A few people at the top may make a small amount of money off it, but it's impossible for everyone to make money. The people at the bottom almost always have to be at a loss. So if you go to one of these job's and they feed you the stories of how much money you can make, first of all it's only so they can make money off you, and secondly you might only be intended by them to be the person at the bottom who does in fact lose out.

So lets now have a look at one of these job descriptions on the internet, and see how this all fits in, and also how you can spot them when browsing vacancies:

The main thing to notice is that you never get an actual job description. You get all the language that describes how amazing the job is, but they never actually tells you what the job is. Straight away you should be suspicious of that. This "specialist marketing team in our respected Liverpool city centre office" sounds great doesn't it, but it is in fact a group of door to door sales people who work for one man and his receptionist in a one roomed office in Dale Street. They don't tell you that "the opportunity to represent international clients throughout Liverpool and Merseyside" means you will just be travelling all over the city and knocking on people's doors trying to get them to sign up to broadband. 

They love their jargon and business terms that they try to use to sucker people in, "increasing our client's base by meeting with customer's face to face", and what exactly are their "b2b"'s and their "b2c"'s. The event based campaigns they mention, well that's when you see someone standing in Asda with a Talk Talk stand trying to get people to sign up. "Representing some of the largest names in the Home Energy, Telecommunications and Security Industries." Notice these are all areas that involve people signing up to things. That's how they make money off people, by getting them to sign things. They're not at people's doors flogging a physical product, they make their commission with a signature on a direct debit form and the companies involved deal with the consequences later when someone sees it on their bank statement and doesn't know what's happening. Or they just hope the person doesn't notice, or doesn't want to go through the hassle of cancelling. The problem is the only people who usually do sign up to the stuff are the old and vulnerable who let the sales people into their house because they're lonely and fancy a chat and end up signing their life savings away.

Now I don't mean to offend anyone who works for a company like this doing a job like this if you're reading this blog. By all means put me right. In fact, I'm sure someone will have something to say about this, because in my research for this I came across a number of occasions were people were questioning or criticising this type of job on internet forums (usually student websites actually) and there would always be a comment stating how this job is great and how they're earning £350-£450 a week. However, the fact that these comments from different users followed pretty much the same script were a bit of a giveaway to the fact they weren't normal people.  

You see the people who do this door to door job, sometimes on the train travelling to their latest victims area, or if you're unlucky you'll have them knocking at your door. They wear their smart suits and believe in their business plans. But the problem is they've just bought into a lie that was sold to them by a fella in an office who thinks he's Alan Sugar, but really he's more like David Brent. They're cold calling at people's houses, which is often illegal, and they're part of a pyramid scheme, which is also often illegal, and they think they're some sort of entrepreneurs.

I don't know, maybe there is something good about this type of job, but when I see them on the internet I stay well clear.

@adamheath 

Brendan Rodgers, Rafael Benitez and Liverpool fans

Brendan Rodgers is manager of Liverpool Football Club. Rafael Benitez is not. However, if you were to listen to quite a few Liverpool supporters you would think it was the opposite.

There is no denying that Liverpool have declined somewhat over the past few years. It's not been as great a decline as some media outlets might have you believe, we've gone from finishing second three and a half seasons ago to playing in the Europa League and being current League Cup holders. With this slight demise, and also the increase in social networking, the voices of our fans who hark back to the days when we did come second are louder than ever.

I have no problem with people remembering the times we had under Rafael Benitez, but I think now, especially with him being Chelsea manager, things are going a little too far. A lot of our fans seem to be defending him all the time, and when he gets abused by the Chelsea fans they treat it as them abusing our manager and not their own. He's not our manager, and people need to let it go, it's getting embarrassing.

Another thing that annoys me is that, when Rafa was our manager, I found myself arguing his side all the time. He had nothing like unanimous support from our fans, I'd say it was a lot closer to 50/50. I remember hearing all the time that "winning the European cup just papered over the cracks", you don't hear anyone say that any more do you.  "He doesn't take the Premier League seriously", remember that? And even in the season that we did finish second, a good portion of our fans were not happy with the manager, blaming his defensive play, inability to beat the smaller teams, and even his rant about Manchester United for us not winning the league.

Rafa papering over the cracks

The problem is, Liverpool fans have this tendency to grasp onto something nostalgically and believe it's return will make everything better. We've done it for years. Ever since Michael Owen left there's been a large section of our support who have wanted to bring him back, with a false hope that for some reason playing for Liverpool will prevent him being injured for entire seasons. We burdened Robbie Fowler and Kenny Dalglish with the roles of saviours. Since Fernando Torres left he's been terrible, even in his last season for us he wasn't great, but for some reason we think just by being back at Liverpool he'll return to the player he was in 08/09. And now the same nostalgia is present with Benitez.

Don't get me wrong, a return of Torres and indeed Benitez could bring about a change of fortunes for the club and see us miraculously catapult back to the pinnacle of European football, but is there any point in lingering onto this false bit of hope? We're turning into a group of supporters based on if's and but's, if Benitez had stayed, if Torres had stayed, if Alonso had stayed, if it hadn't been for Hicks and Gillett... Sounds a lot like a criticism we make about another set of supporters, doesn't it? Well the truth is a lot of our own supporters are just as bad if not worse these days.

A lot of these same supporters who are constantly calling for a return to Benitez, are the same supporters who refuse to give Brendan Rodgers a chance. The reason I decided to write this blog was because a photograph has surfaced of Rodgers wearing a tshirt that has The Sun newspaper on the front of it. Many Liverpool fans straight away vilified him, which is what lead me to claim on twitter that they are "embarrassing". Fans of Liverpool football club who will publicly slate our own manager whilst they continue to show unwavering support for the manager of Chelsea. Makes sense doesn't it.

Brendan Rodgers wearing a "The Sun" tshirt

Now I hate The Sun, I understand why no one connected with Liverpool football should have anything to do with the rag, but it's better to try and get the full story before making a verbal tirade against your own manager. The photo was taken in June 2011 after Brendan returned from climbing Mount Kilimanjaro for charity. Part of a team led by Chris Kamara, the climb aimed to raise £500,000 help provide free nursing care for people in their own homes. So what's Rodgers supposed to do when he gets the call off Kamara, "hey Brendan it's Chris Kamara, will you climb Kilimanjaro with me to raise money for a charity that provides free nursing for people in their own homes." "Sure Chris, who's taking part?" "A load of ex footballers, oh and it's sponsored by The Sun." "Did you say The Sun are sponsoring it Chris? Well fuck the people who need nursing care in their own homes as they can't leave the house and can't afford private care, I'm having no part in this."

I'm not even going to use the argument that he wasn't the Liverpool manager at this time, because the response to that is that he should have morally known not to be involved with The Sun. However, how can you question a man's morals when he climbs one of the world's toughest mountains in aid of charity? When you look at the moral credentials of the manager of Liverpool, is it not more important to see that he did this charity work than the fact he wore a tshirt once? Brendan Rodgers did not make The Sun newspaper any money, and nor did he make any money himself off them. Lets not forget our own captain has made a fair bit of money in the past off exclusives for The Sun's sister paper, The News Of The World. But people are a lot quicker to forgive when it comes to the captain.

Liverpool fans seem to be in a strange place these days. I don't know whether it is to do with the current standing of the team, or whether it is just more noticeable with the increased platforms to air their views such as twitter and facebook. If we have a bad game, they're saying how poor of a manager Brendan Rodgers is, if we have a good game and get a good win he's a great manager. If Stewart Downing or Jordan Henderson have a bad game they're terrible wastes of money who need to be sold, if they have a good game we hear that they might come good. You can't back the winner after the race is over, you have to be behind it from the start. This is what is happening with Rafael Benitez now, because we haven't been back to the position we were in when he was manager, so it's easier for people to back him than it was then. But at the time I can guarantee that a lot of the same supporters did not like him.

I'm no Paul Tomkins, I'm not PR for the club, I accept that when the team are poor you can have a go at the players and the manager. I won't try and tell you that Downing did in fact make three passes with his right foot that all had 100% completion rate, which shows he is in fact a very versatile player. Criticise poor performances by all means, but keep to a certain level. If you're going to go all out on a player or manager, if you say they're never going to be good enough for the red shirt, don't then turn around and claim you backed them all along if they come good.

And for the record, I myself am completely behind Brendan Rodgers and I think Jordan Henderson is a great player, but Stewart Downing is a terrible waste of money and needs to be sold (you can hold me to them statements).

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed this quick rant and it's given a few people something to think about.

@adamheath