An apology to twitter
There’s so many sites out there in the big www, all vying for our attention drawing us in, calling us back. It’s difficult to find the right balance. For a while I concentrated on twitter, but then I realised that I was neglecting my friends on facebook, when I concentrated on facebook it was twitter that I had to skip.
It’s difficult to find the right balance, facebook has my work friends and family, and I’ve met a lot of great people on twitter. Sure, I have a couple of apps that filters my social networks into one stream but the problem there is that twitter takes over, facebook’s threaded comments help the user to sort through the conversations they’re interested in but bring down the noise to signal ratio.
Don’t get me wrong, both of them have some great benefits, but I just haven’t found a way to give them both equal attention.
So, back to my apology, I’m sorry for ignoring you twitter and I promise I’ll be back soon, honestly!
No Raoul Moat Facebook group
It seems that the Prime Minister is moving towards the Big Brother style of government that his predecessors ran. There’s a story on the TV news and the new look BBC News website that say David Cameron has condemned anyone supporting or sympathising with Mr Moat, even going so far as to ask Facebook to remove a group set up for this. I find this concerning.
While I disagree with what Raoul Moat did and I sympathise wholeheartedly with his victims’ families, it’s vital that we remember we live in a democracy and everyone is given the right to freedom of speech. I am a libertarian, I believe wholeheartedly that we mustn’t stop people from being able to voice their opinions. As soon as we start down this path it becomes a slippery slope.
Where does it stop?
The argument I heard was that the Facebook group had some anti-police sentiments.
Where does it stop?
The law that protects LGBTQ people from discrimination can, and is, abused.
Where does it stop?
The BNP, in my opinion, are an abhorrent organisation but I still believe that they should have their say. Gag them and they become martyrs, victims and gain support from this.
Where does it stop?
I truly believe that the Prime Minister should be able to stand up in parliament and speak to the people about his feelings on such an emotive national issue. But I also feel that he should remember that he’s the leader of a democracy that supports free speech, and react approriately.
Facebook – my take on the privacy row
There has been a lot of coverage online recently about the Facebook privacy row, people deleting their accounts in protest, web apps to check how much you’re sharing and lots of people crying doom. I don’t want to be one of those who screams that the sky is falling in, but I must admit that (as an average user) I’m concerned.
Like my real life, my online life is compartmentalised. I use twitter for its real time interaction and the challenge of reducing my verbosity to less than 140 Characters, this blog is for my more in-depth thoughts. I have seperate email addresses for companies that I deal with, and a LinkedIn profile that connects to an online CV. I have a seperate telephone number for job applications so that I can publish that on LinkedIn and my CV. And I have a Facebook account to keep in touch with friends, work colleagues past and present, and selected family members.
Ben Parr wrote this article in which he puts forward a slightly more balanced argument, although there are a couple of things that I disagree with. He uses the “children in Africa” argument for one, which is, in itself, an overdramatisation designed to belittle the concerns of thousands of people. But he also seems to suggest that, because we agreed to share with one another using Facebook back in the distant days of privacy, we should be grateful to them for allowing us to keep connecting.
I disagree. Facebook is a fantastic tool that I have become more and more disenchanted with over the past couple of years. The only reason I still use it is because it’s ubiquitous – I’ve been able to get back in touch with people I thought I’d never see again and keep up to date with work friends after leaving companies.
I don’t mind companies sharing the data I choose to hand over or using it to target me with more useful ads (it’s better than friggin’ pop-ups!). But I dislike being somewhat bullied into sharing information with the whole world automatically, where a simple API search can be set up to trawl groups for telephone numbers and more.
Facebook have announced that new privacy settings are coming soon (maybe even today) but I’m wondering – how long will it be until they ‘enhance’ them again, and how much longer are we just going to sit back and accept it?
So, Facebook, here’s your chance to improve your relations with your products (I’m well aware I’m just data, your product, not your customer), don’t worry – I’m not planning to delete my account, it’s too useful, but I can guarantee you that I will amend my data to be inaccurate and, by logical extension, useless to you and your customers.
The world is watching. Show them you know this is more than just another “Facebook changed the way my page looks, Oh noes!” whinge, please?
National Bullying Week
www.areyoubeingbullied.com
So, a little Birdie tells me that this week (16-20 November) is National Anti-Bullying Week. This little birdie is called Percy the Pigeon and he supports the fantastic BullyingUK in their hard work to help people who are affected by bullying. Now there has been a lot of discussion in the media about cyber-bullying over the past couple of days and I’m no expert, but I just wanted to say. If you read this (I know there’s not many people that do, but if you fall on this post by accident!) and you’re being bullied then know that you’re not alone.
There are a load of resources available online and offline for you. If you’re a member of a social networking site and feel intimidated or bullied then remember that most sites have a safety policy or some way to deal with harassment. Bebo‘s report button has been quite widely publicised but, while Bebo’s big, it hasn’t got the same coverage as the big three. So, if you want to know what Facebook, MySpace and twitter do about this sort of thing then the links above will take you straight to their safety pages.
But we know that bullying often doesn’t just take place online. It’s not uncommon for bullies to bully a target in person and then carry this on through new technology. This can be through your mobile phone, and BullyingUK has a great article about what to do if you’re being bullied by phone. The thing to remember though is this:
It’s not your fault. You don’t deserve to be bullied and have every right to feel safe.
If you, or anyone you know is being bullied then speak to an adult who you trust. This can be a parent, teacher, another family member, school counsellor, police officer, anyone that is there for you. If you feel unsure then remember that Childline is available throughout the UK. If you call from a landline then the calls are free. The number is 0800 1111. Remember though, you are never alone. There are lots of people out there who’ve been bullied at some point in their lives. I talked about my experiences a few months ago. But do you know what? We got through it and made a success of our lives – and so can you!
But bullying doesn’t only happen to young people. Adults can experience it too, at work, at home, out with friends. And it can sometimes feel even more difficult. But there are resources available for adults too. BullyOnLine have some great resources for adults so, if you’re being bullied have a look. And if you don’t know whether you’re being bullied then have a look at this list.
To sum up I have to quote my little feathered friend because: Percy Says “Stay Safe in Cyberspace”
Download the widget stay safe in cyberspace – National anti-bullying week 2009
more widgets at Widgadget at widgets community!
Email to Paul Dacre et al
Dear Mr Dacre
I am aware that you have received a number of emails from people about the awful homophobic, disrespectful, badly researched and ill-conceived article written by Jan Moir that the Daily Mail decided it was appropriate to publish on Friday 16 October 2009 – the day before Mr Gately’s funeral! I know that many of these are extremely well worded and clearly make a number of points. I’m not sure that my verbosity allows me to be as concise as those people but I must make myself clear.
Don’t get me wrong. I have never, and will never, buy a Daily Mail in my life. Your stance on immigration, homosexuality, crime, gender differences and your general politics jars the very core of my being. But – and I think even you must agree with this – the article written by Jan Moir was distasteful at best, and at worst it was a clear and shrewd act designed to make the author a martyr to the “heavily orchestrated campaign” that she mentioned in her clarification.
It has been 4 days now since the article was written, and yet still the feelings that I have about this piece scream out to me that I cannot stand by and let this lie. And nearly 30,000 other people on Facebook, and goodness knows how many on twitter and out in the real world feel the same. Contrary to what Ms Moir may think, I have indeed read the article that she wrote, both the original (“Nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death”) and the slightly sanitised “A strange, lonely and troubling death…”
It seems clear to me that you, as the head of the Daily Mail, seem to have decided to revel in the further notoriety that the article has gained you. It is disappointing that – despite what is clearly a feeling that is shared by much of the general public (and indeed it seems, a large proportion of your own readership) – Neither you, your publication nor Ms Moir have seen fit to publish even an apology. Personally I feel a full an unreserved retraction is in order. I have seen that you have however decided to mobilise Janet Street-Porter and Suzanne Moore to try to mitigate the damage. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but IT HASN’T WORKED. We’re still here, we’re still appalled by the article and we’re still angry.
If you want to know what to do it’s simple. Stand beside Jan Moir and apologise – both of you – apologise for the timing of the publication (come on – even you can’t agree that the day before the man’s funeral was appropriate! Was this a time-sensitive piece that simply couldn’t wait two or three days? I think not!) and the distress that it could have caused for a grieving family. I understand from more reputable and thoughtful publications that it seems many of the family have chosen not to read the article – you should be very grateful for this.
Ms Moir’s apology should then continue to apologise to the family, the medical professionals who performed the post mortem, the public and her profession for the incorrect, ill-informed and baseless allegation that she made when she said “Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again. Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one.” As I am sure you are more than aware, the results of the post mortem confirmed he died of “natural causes by acute pulmonary oedema”. A court reporter confirmed, “Stephen’s death has nothing to do any alcohol he drank that night, it has nothing to do with drugs and he did not choke on his own vomit,”.
This would also be an excellent opportunity for Ms Moir to use her notoriety to raise the profile of the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young (c-r-y.org.uk) who use their freedom of speech to raise the profile of this sort of situation. In fact, according to the charity, twelve apparently fit and healthy young people die in the UK from undiagnosed heart conditions every single week.
Of course, once the personal apology is out of the way, I would then expect you both to apologise to those people who have been justifiably outraged at the underhanded assault that Ms Moir made against the Gay Community. The article insinuates that Gay men have ‘dark appetites’ and ‘private vices’. This, combined with the idea that if a partnership of consenting adults choose to invite someone home (whether it be for a game of canasta or even for sex), and that partnership is Gay then the circumstances become “more than a little sleazy” is a direct and blatant attack on the Gay community.
I have seen a number of people discuss this part of the article, and many of them state that most Gay couples don’t involve themselves in threesomes and more. Personally I think that the argument is a moot point and entirely irrelevant. What consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own homes is their business. And I think that even your readership will have to agree with me as it is them that discuss the use of male escorts in your own Femail forums: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/chat/r/t-10008606/index.html?threadIndex=13.
But of course, the attack on the Gay community doesn’t stop there. She chose to continue with “Another real sadness about Gately’s death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. … Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately’s last night raise troubling questions about what happened.”
I have read this section a number of times and I still do not understand what questions that a suicide by the FORMER husband of Matt Lucas and the unfortunate tragedy that affected Stephen Gately may raise. The only question that these two disparate deaths raise in my mind is “how on earth can anyone link the two?” But of course it did allow Ms Moir (who is allegedly on the record as supporting Partnership Registration you know!) to explode the “happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships”. She is however correct, equal rights activists (not just the gay ones Jan!) are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same -sex relationships because they are just the same as heterosexual ones. We laugh, we cry, we argue, we make up – we even (believe it or not) raise well ajudsted and supported children who turn out to be heterosexual! Certainly sometimes Gay men and Lesbians stray, sometimes the couples choose to do something to “spice up the relationship” – in exactly the same way that heterosexual couples do. But one thing that we have not said is that Partnership Registration is a ticket to happy-ever-after.
I understand that the PCC will investigate the matter in response to the unprecedented number of complaints received about the article. In recognition of this, and of the fact that this article was at best ill-judged and at worst, malevolent, I urge you to consider your position and retract the article in advance of that investigation.
Yours sincerely
Ethan Kristopher-Hartley
Please note, I have published this email on my blog – you can find it at http://efan78.com/140/JanM2. I will also publish any response that you send to this email.
Jan Moir – A more in-depth opinion
Taken from http://www.nmauk.co.uk
There’s probably very few people who would possibly read this who haven’t heard about the furore caused by Jan Moir’s article “Why there was nothing ‘natural’ about Stephen Gately’s death“. Granted, The Mail then decided to rename the article to “A strange, lonely and troubling death” but haven’t changed the copy text in any way, shape or form. I was in a training course on Friday so, although I had seen some sketchy info on twitter and facebook on my mobile, because 3G isn’t ideal I didn’t read the article until I got home.
I was gobsmacked. In the 21st Century the idea that someone could write such vitriolic bile in the name of journalism is disgusting. Now, I just want to make something clear – I am not, nor have I ever been, a Boyzone or Stephen Gately fan. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan of bubblegum pop and boyband-y type stuff so I like their music but (unlike my Kylie collection) I have one Boyzone album and A New Beginning – One of Stephen’s solo singles. However I do believe wholeheartedly that unwarranted personal attacks on a person, disagreeing with the official announcement of the cause of death, and using this unfortunate tragedy to further a homophobic cause, is wrong. I wrote an Open Letter to Jan Moir over on my Posterous blog (as it’s where I put the less detailed posts) which is nowhere near as insightful and witty as Charlie Brooker‘s fantastic response (the man is a legend!) but it was the most polite response I could give at the time.
Of course, when the stars got wind of the story they too waded in and were able to make sure that the story reached even more people to allow them to make their own decisions. Stephen Fry, Darren Hayes, Gok Wan, Antony Cotton and Pam Ann along with many others. This however led to what Jan Moir said in her apology/clarification was a “heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones.”
Image from www.pinknews.co.uk
Now, come on – heavily orchestrated? Is it not possible that Jan Moir’s story actually hit home with a number of people who wanted to make their voices heard? No, it seems that the gays have been “mischievous in the extreme” and decided to rally together to fight her, because they simply haven’t read or they have misunderstood her fair and balanced article.
A few of the people that I’ve come in contact with on twitter and facebook have also commented on this. I think everyone’s probably heard about the “The Daily Mail should retract Jan Moir’s hateful, homophobic article” facebook group but I’ve also seen one of my twitter friends (Snedwan) who updated his blog with this opinion piece as well as JaeKay who has just written this excellent and thoughtful piece decrying the community’s lack of focus until this comment. But I think that’s kind of the point – The huge swell of support against this article and also (whether right or wrong) against Ms Moir herself – has had the effect that we’ve been noticed. If this sort of concerted effort happened all the time then there would be a couple of issues, firstly most people wouldn’t be able to keep up a concerted effort for very long, it’s not only emotionally draining, but can be mentally and physically too. And of course it wouldn’t get the rest of the press to sit up and take notice, it would simply be a *sigh* “Look at what the gays are whining about again…” moment.
I can however see why Snedwan may have mistaken the homophobic nature of the article, Ms Moir has certainly worded her comments in such a way as to cause the very “misinterpretation” that she decried. Personally, I think this is because she doesn’t have the courage of her convictions and so she felt it necessary to give herself a way out in case those “mischievous” gays decided to orchestrate an internet campaign against her. But Snedwan, if you read this I can show you exactly why we’re offended. And exactly why this piece is homophobic…
The original title of the article was indeed a suitable one for the type of article that Jan Moir wrote. By using the term ‘natural’ in inverted commas she manages to remind her Daily Mail readers that the gays aren’t natural. The words that she chose to open with also clearly show her agenda. After the coroner clearly stated that Stephen Gately died due to fluid on the lungs caused by a congenital heart disease she starts by comparing this tragic death of a young man to those of Heath Ledger and Michael Jackson (both of whom died as a result of drugs) but just in case we don’t quite get what she’s saying she decided to ram home her point by talking about the “dark appetites” and “private vice” of the stars.
Later in the article she shows her support with the phrase “In the cheerful environs of Boyzone, Gately was always charming, cute, polite and funny.” - How could she possibly be using this story to forward her own agenda? She called him charming, cute polite and funny! But of course she then goes on to say that “he could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk.” She seems to forget that he not only played Joseph in Joseph & The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat at The New London Theatre but also The Child Catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang at The London Palladium. Of course anyone can get a leading role in the West End so this doesn’t in any way suggest that she was wrong, does it?
Then, as Snedwan mentioned, she talks about the fact that Stephen was “smoked out” of the closet instead of choosing when and how to come out himself. But did she use this opportunity to show that sexuality is irrelevant? Or did she instead decide to state how reluctant he was to be a beacon for those scared gay people out there?
Taken from www.whatsonstage.com
Of course the warm and welcoming way that she decided to discuss Stephen’s relationship “In 2006, Gately entered into a civil union with internet businessman Andrew Cowles, who had been introduced to him by mutual friends Elton John and David Furnish.” wasn’t in any way a clinical and dispassionate description designed to skim over the fact without all those awful emotive adjectives in the way – really! She’s even on record as supporting partnership registration!
But then we get to the detail of the story – her opinion on the reasons that Stephen Gately’s death was not ‘natural’. This is where her journalistic skills can come to the fore, where she can show – in support of what is obviously going to be a controversial article – her true mettle. Where she can demonstrate her skills in collecting and presenting information. She decided to start this part of her article with the phrase “All the official reports point to a natural death, with no suspicious circumstances. The Gately family are – perhaps understandably – keen to register their boy’s demise on the national consciousness as nothing more than a tragic accident.” This is an excellent opening line, throwing doubt into the readers mind without actually stating that they were wrong. Surely her expert medical training and access to hidden information will be able to blow this myth completely out of the water…
But no, there’s no hidden information, no evidence to the contrary, only a snide aside about how quickly the family had stated how they thought that Stephen’s death was due to natural causes. (No inverted commas here strangely.) Followed by Jan’s opinion that this was all spin. And then we get to one of the most confusing points that she decided to make, “Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.”
Wait a moment, what was that? That’s great news, I think Jan should take her vast medical knowledge across to the people over at C-R-Y (Cardiac Risk in the Young) so that they can be aware of this and ensure that they can leave their misguided charity work and do something more suitable. But she does go on to say “Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one.” OK Jan, what yardsticks are you talking about, because the phrase “natural causes” is a clearly defined medical term meaning that the cause “was a naturally occurring disease process, or is not apparent given medical history or circumstances.” (from Wikipedia). But we don’t have to wait too long to find out what yardstick she’s using – it’s “that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy.” Ah, there we go – we’re reading the Daily Mail – I just wanted some confirmation and thankfully Jan has been able to remind us of this.
And what was so unnatural about the death? Why the fact that Stephen and his partner had met a man and decided to take him home. Now Jan seems to be a little squeamish – she doesn’t want to say the word threesome to her bigoted, close-minded readers, so instead she simply states that “a game of canasta … was not what was on the cards”. So? What consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own homes is entirely up to them! And this isn’t just something that affects the gays – in fact, if you Let Me Google That For You, you’ll see that the primary responses are for heterosexual threesomes. But that doesn’t phase our Jan, oh no! She finishes her skirting around this issue with the phrase “What happened before they parted is known only to the two men still alive. What happened afterwards is anyone’s guess.” That’s absolutely true Jan, it’s also COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the cause of death.
Taken from www.disneystore.com
But now that she’s picked apart the poor man’s demise she decides to attack Partnership Registration. Now this is obviously a subject that worries the Daily Mail’s readership – I mean it almost gives the gays the same rights as “Normal Folk”! But thankfully this tragedy along with the recent death of Kevin McGee (the former partner of Matt Lucas) “strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.” The Happily ever after myth, which one is that Jan? I’ve never heard this one I must admit, maybe you could provide us with the source of this myth? If not then surely, as someone who is on the record as supporting partnership registration (read “throwing a scrap of perceived equality to the gay community”) you should be showing that this is no better or worse than the thousands of marriages that have problems?
But, as Jan helpfully pointed out – before Stephen Gately was even buried – “the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see.”
#WeLoveTheNHS
I think most people have heard about the #welovethenhs hashtag. It’s come into effect in response to the recent coverage in the US about the British National Health Service and some of the… interesting… views that have been promoted in refutation of President Obama’s move to offer social health care to the masses.
One of the stories that I’ve seen retweeted today has been this one from Fox News. Now I’m not a fan of Fox, or it’s UK sister station Sky news either, and this sort of spurious logic always confuses me. It’s up there with the idea that “10% of the population are Gay, 10% of the population are left handed, therefore all gay people are left handed” The gist of this news bulletin is that the terrorist attack in 2007 was performed by Muslim doctors who work for the NHS. Because the NHS is underfunded we need to “import” doctors from Muslim states and so they will recruit terrorists to attack the west.
The logic is fundamentally flawed, obviously, but there are a couple of issues in particular that worry me. I am sure that there are people out there (and I don’t think it’ll be one or two) who believe it. But there’s also a few people out there who don’t seem to have noticed that this article was from TWO YEARS AGO. so those people who are using this to show current ignorance to the story may also have missed the point somewhat.
My opinion on the NHS/Social Health Care issue is probably quite obvious to anyone who knows me. I think the NHS is a fantastic organisation and the idea of free medical treatment for all is the only humane option for any caring nation. To expect only those people rich enough or well enough insured to be the only people entitled to full health care is a monstrous and heartless concept. Come on US, care for your citizens, sort out your social health care, and those people who want to feel superior can carry on using the private system.
FaceFeed #ffsalefail
This post has been updated from my mobile, I’ll prettify and tidy it up when I get to a real computer!
There are a lot of people talking about yesterday’s announcement that FriendFeed’s been bought by Facebook. Mashable, TechCrunch and the like are discussing the wider impact on social networking but I’d like to look at the personal effect that it has on me as a user.
I joined Facebook quite early for my group of friends and it was fun. I was able to get in touch. With people that I didn’t see much of and even catch up with people that I hadn’t seen in years. But then came the Facebook explosion, millions of people joining and with them came the “apps”. Oh God, the apps!
Don’t get me wrong, I’m an Android user – I love Apps and spend a good 15-20 minutes a day looking through the Android Market, but Facebook apps don’t add anything to my life, they’re mostly games/contests/pointless wastes of time. Now that’s great for people who want to spend their time online but I have a purpose when I use social media. I want to find out about the people I know and what’s important to them.
Twitter’s great for that and I usually dip in and out throughout the day. FriendFeed was great too, even though I only really checked it once a day I was able to get an overview of the things that people thought were important – I because I was following like-minded folk I usually agreed!
The dev team for FriendFeed were also really approachable, they listened to the community and based development on their vision linked with what the community wanted. Facebook on the other hand, don’t.
I was finally getting to grips with FriendFeed, working out how it fitted into the rest of my social network, and how it could improve my web use. The move by Facebook has led me to believe that we’ll shortly have an influx of ZombieNinjaMafiaVampireWerewolf Hunter Wars and Scrabbulous style games, and that doesn’t add anything to my experience that I can’t get elsewhere. (Don’t believe me? It’s already happened to twitter <L>)
Social networks take time to build and I’ve had to ask myself if I seriously want to throw myself into FriendFeed knowing Facebook’s track record.
And the simple answer is no.
#Sunday7 Week 4
Right, twitter’s fucked, it’s well known now and I seem to be hitting it just at the wrong time at the moment ‘cos I keep getting timed out whichever way I access it! I am not a happy bunny!
But that doesn’t mean that I should scrap my #Sunday7 suggestions goddammit! It just means that I’m stuck with leaving my suggestions here. Grrr!!!!
Any hoo, here we go…
- I still say @karmadillo‘s a bad influence after our #twibbon competition! But she’s worth following! #Sunday7 (And on a seperate note, sign up for your @BullyingUK Twibbon while you’re there!)
- Did you know that @edwardclarke is officially the best cook on twitter? TWO awards already! Showoff! #Sunday7
- Scathing wit, timely comebacks and a great guy (for a frenchman!) ;-P It must be @zefrog! #Sunday7
- Handbag house never died, it just became more cultish. With an L! Just ask @Yorksville when you follow her! #Sunday7
- He’s big, he’s new to twitter, and deserves a huge… Following! @BigNige1977 is well worth a #Sunday7 to break him in gently!
- He’s in Paris at the moment so he won’t get a big head if I suggest that you follow @anthonyjh as a #Sunday7. He’s a Mac too, bless ‘im!
- And my final #Sunday7 suggestion this week has to be @TheFuckingQueen, G’awd bless ‘er! Remember, Mam like ham not Ma’am like farm!
So, when twitter pull their finger out I’ll hopefully be able to get these actually posted up. Grrr! >:-|
#Sunday7 Week 3
I bet you all thought I’d forgotten to post them didn’t you? But no, I named my #Sunday7 this morning!
Just in case you’re wondering what I’m wittering on about, I’ve been a bit overwhelmed with the whole #FollowFriday thing so I’ve decided to pick out one person each day throughout the week for whatever random reason and then let you all see them in all their glory on Sunday. So, it’s like #FF but with restrictions – a bit like twitter!
You see, 7 people, 7 days, 7 tweets – it’s so easy even I can do it!
So here are my choices for this week for your delectation:
- Have you met @Fudgecrumpet yet? He’s plucking great! #Sunday7
- He seems to think #Barrowman’s a good thing, but I can’t hold it against him too much. @Gazebow #Sunday7
- Fight #chocolatediscrimination @edwardclarke is! #Sunday7
- She should be NHS Tzar, we’d have no more of the #swineflu panic! @EmmaRhoyds #Sunday7
- He’s not a car, the brum stands for Birmingham… @benjibrum‘s my next #Sunday7
- She wrote Element of Risk and knows about the Bigg Market, I think that deserves a #Sunday7 shoutout for @authorchristine
- And finally, she gives me a warm fizzy feeling and is just my cup of tea! @FizzyDuck‘s my final #Sunday7
