It’s a little tricky for The Guardian to complain about Trump putting his relatives in positions of power when the editor’s husband gets a national soapbox where he now struggles to find more things to whinge about...
The bizarre truth – as I heard it – is that they became romantically involved after he’d been writing the column for a while. Which absolves Kath Viner of nepotism but raises an awful lot of other questions about her character.
You think she should have sacked him, or he should have recused himself, when they became a couple? That’s a degree of purity I don’t think you’ll ever have found in Fleet Street.
Well, if you’re a paper that pillories politicians and autocrats who employ their spouses - especially if the relationship is not apparent - then yes, he should have recused. Or the column should be retitled “Idle thoughts from the editor’s husband” and always end with “(Will this do?)”.
it's a bleak vision of the future where we all wear headphones so we don't hear each other, i agree, but if it's eating his very soul it might be a price worth paying
I like to sit and read on a Tube; I actively don't want to listen to music, mine or anyone else's, and I deeply resent the fact that I often do end up listening to music simply to block out some arsehole who thinks headphones are for losers
I sometimes sit on the train with noise cancelling headphones on but nothing playing, just to shut out the talking / music / chomping / annoying breathing coming from other passengers
I’ve the instrumental version of Dr. Dre’s 2001 downloaded specifically for drowning out my fellow commuters. Every year my Spotify Wrapped is like “Wow, buddy, you’re not going to believe this—!”
Also, get your card out of your handbag/wallet/purse whilst in the queue for the ATM, not once you get there, it should come as no surprise to anyone to be greeted by an ATM at the front of said queue...come Adrian we are counting on you.
Compulsory screenings of “Do the Right Thing” in all classrooms now so that kids can learn about the cautionary tale of Radio Raheem and the potentially fatal consequences of playing loud music in public.
So your argument is people on public transport should wear noise cancelling headphones by default, so the people being antisocial can be antisocial without bothering anyone else?
Not just that, although very much that! But noise cancelling headphones still have to be playing music or something. When I first heard the name I thought they cancelled all the noise. They were some kind of soundproof boothlets for your ears. But sadly they are not.☹️
Not an argument, at all. Just saying if he is upset by noise then....surely he can just block it out 🤔
Only, that is what I do. I can't bear hearing people's music or conversations or eating, so I whack in my earphones and put on a podcast and life in my happy wee world.
Any politician running on the sole issue of stopping arseholes playing music on their phones without headphones would be set fair for a lifetime tenure
I used to get irritated by the tsst tsst tsst of leaky headphones, but now I simply think "at least they're trying". It was for this reason headphones *at all* are not supposed to be used in Quiet Carriages. Whereas now most folk seem to think "Quiet Carriage: headphones; elsewhere: anything goes".
I really wish transport providers would step up a bit on this: some big posters about not being a dick to other passengers, perhaps even a little light enforcement
I guess that's what happens when you get rid of the option to use cheap $5 wired headphones in preference for the $130+ status symbol of air pods. People can't afford the luxury tax and go without, ruining other people's days.
Comments
I’d say you are confused, yes.
Only, that is what I do. I can't bear hearing people's music or conversations or eating, so I whack in my earphones and put on a podcast and life in my happy wee world.
Courage.
Heck, Amazon has a pair here in the UK that I can get for less than £5 delivered.