Gulp...

It's scary how "accurate" adverts can be these days.

Yes, I know it's just an automated script, but isn't it slightly eerie how, upon translating a word vaguely related to religion, you are presented with a company attempting to figuratively buy your heart?

To be fair, it's a well placed ad; if you're spending your free time talking in French about religion on the internet (which I wasn't, I was writing an essay about Monsieur Sarkozy et sa nouvelle femme), then perhaps it is time for you to find yourself a partner of similar beliefs!

Nonetheless, things like this push us ever-so-closer to that scene in Futurama where Fry gets adverts broadcasted into his dreams. Now that would be scary.

----------------
Now playing: Yan Pascal Tortelier: BBC Philharmonic Orchestra - Peter And The Wolf - I. Introduction
via FoxyTunes

Richmond Council targets 4x4-driving-mums - good for them!

I read with interest an articlein The Independent, reporting on Richmond Borough council's plans to start charging parents up to £75 to park outside their local school. I quote:

A pilot project in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames starts in September, affecting 13 schools, and the Local Government Association says similar schemes are likely to be extended across the country.

In Richmond, where the plans have already drawn fire from families and motoring organisations, the permits will allow parents to park in bays near the school for 15 minutes.

The price will be linked to the car's carbon dioxide emissions - drivers of small, low-polluting cars will get a free permit, but parents with people carriers or four-wheel drives will be charged the maximum £75.

Seems like a good plan to me; some parents these days think it is their right to buy a big Range Rover to get their little darlings safely off to school. There are a dozen of them parked outside my school every weekday afternoon. So I think the policy of charging owners of gas-guzzling cars make sense.

Obviously, parents and motoring organisations have attempted to fight back against this new policy. But their arguments are rather weak. This quote in particular made me laugh:

Paul Watters, the AA's head of public affairs, told the paper: "People carriers may be in the higher carbon dioxide bands, but they are very efficient at getting kids to school, considering many are seven-seaters. It might be a better idea to remove the many smaller cars that clog the streets up."

Well yes. But who has 6 children? Since the sitcom 2point4 children, the average number of children per family has decreased to about 1.6, yet the number of parents driving their children to school in ridiculously big cars has noticeably increased. Doesn't make much sense to me. Now, if two or more families choose to share lifts, that's fine, but in those cases the cost of the permit would be shared, right? Furthermore, isn't it the point of buses, not people carriers, to remove cars from the road?

Once again, well done Richmond, for leading the way in discouraging parents from buying ridiculously big 4x4s. I commend you. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to drive my 50 mpg car to lifeguards, picking my friend up on the way. Every little helps, as they say.

----------------
Now playing: The Kooks - You Don't Love Me
via FoxyTunes