An e-mail to Amazon.co.uk.

Hi,

I am typing this message with regards to your e-mail service in which you provide recommendations, offers and, at times, little feedback reminders to registered customers.

At precisely 2:10 AM this morning, I was woken up by my iPhone - in the middle of the most beautiful sleep I have had in a good while - when it made a rather loud noise. My initial thought was that someone had contacted me in a state of emergency or for some other important reason. I picked up my phone and noticed I had received an e-mail. Initially, I wondered who would send emergency notices via e-mail, besides the Microsoft Outlook staff. After clicking onto the icon, I discovered that the e-mail had come from Amazon.co.uk. Again, I found myself somewhat confused. What is so urgent that Amazon has considered it a good reason to wake me up in the middle of the night? The subject was 'Pacific Rim'. I then opened the e-mail and was met with this message.

"We thought you might be interested in knowing that customers who bought "Pacific Rim [Blu-ray + UV Copy] [2013] [Region Free]" also bought these items."

I don't mind telling you that I was absolutely gobsmacked. I was delighted to hear that a random human being somewhere in the world who had also bought 'Pacific Rim' - which, incidentally, hasn't even been released yet - was also interested in a host of other films. I was even more pleased to be informed that I too could purchase any of those films and I was equally glad that you wasted no time in letting me know this by e-mailing me at ten minutes past two in the bloody morning!

I'm sure most of you at Amazon UK are up to date with technology, at least enough to know that smart phones provide audio notification when an e-mail is received. I suppose I could have turned the volume down, turned it on silent or switched it off altogether, but that isn't much use if my grandmother phones me from the bottom of the stairs with a suspected hip injury.

I understand that the public have the right to know these things, but that doesn't mean you must inform them at a moment's notice. I fail to understand who would appreciate this information at that sort of hour. Does Dracula have an Amazon.co.uk account? I'm sure he'd be interested to know what kinds of toothpaste other vampires are using these days if you fancy e-mailing him at 2 AM. I'd have no desire, for any reason, to know what some idiot I've never met has been adding to his/her Blu-ray collection even if I was some sort of nocturnal creature. I don't lose much sleep wondering what other customers have decided to spend their money on and just because they've bought the same item I have bought once does not mean I will buy every other item that they have ever purchased.

I scrolled down the e-mail and caught sight of something in the small print.

"We hope you enjoyed receiving this message."

I think you can probably figure out how I felt receiving the message by now, but I'd like to express something about that statement. I'm not sure the process of receiving anything is particularly enjoyable to most people. They may have enjoyed reading the message, but I'm sure you'll agree that there is little to be desired between hearing a sound and clicking an icon. Furthermore, in this case, the message itself was hardly on a par with a trip to Las Vegas. Unless you were offering me all of those Blu-rays for free, it was never going to be a massive highlight.

I then noticed the option to stop receiving e-mails - which, in your terms, must be like refusing to party with Jay-Z and Beyonce - but I feel that would be a hasty decision. Should I forget to leave a review on any of my purchases, if I don't have you to remind me to do so, the repercussions could be catastrophic. I do not wish for the manufacturer to hunt me down and force me to write a report on their product at gunpoint.

All in all, if you check my order history you will find that I am a loyal customer and that I very much like to use your service. I have no problems with the site itself or anything else involving delivery or products on offer. Sometimes it's the little things which stick out like a badly infected sore thumb.

Sincerely,

Marc

My e-mail to ITV complaining about 'This Morning'.

Hello,

 I am typing this e-mail with regards to your ever popular television show, This Morning. Although I am not an avid viewer of the show, I have seen episodes in full on the various occasions when I have found myself watching daytime television with my grandmother for some reason. I feel I have seen enough of the show to be able to form an opinion such as the one I am about to share with you.

 I'm sure many people would agree that television between the hours of 10:30 AM to 12:30 PM is never going to be the most scintillating experience of one's day, but This Morning seems to take that fact for granted. I must admit that I am not one hundred percent sure of exactly what this type of show is supposed to consist of. On the other hand, nor am I sure that it's supposed to consist of the banal, tedious and, at times, downright inappropriate level of pointlessness This Morning serves up.

 Look, I am no saint, but anyone who thinks it is remotely appropriate to broadcast a lengthy and in-depth (pardon the puns) discussion on the man with the world's largest penis - not to mention having him in the studio for the whole country to behold, as well as an ultra-curious Holly - on live television in the AM hours of the day has to be quite disgusting. Do you think that my 80 year old gran, usually a fan of your show, wakes up each morning wanting to hear about some bloke's third leg? I can tell you she most certainly does not.

 That brings me to this "Sex Week" which you seem to be so fond of having from time to time. I am fully aware that sex is a perfectly natural practice. In fact, some say that 'morning sex' is the best form, but I don't believe too many of that 'some' are part of This Morning's audience. Furthermore, I doubt many viewers wish to hear about a stranger's inflamed vagina in the manner you may hope. Sure, it may attract some Jeremy Kyle fans to This Morning, but you risk sacrificing and stressing the loyalty of some of your existing fan base. Also, isn't This Morning's clientele mainly pensioners, housewives and young mothers? Okay, I will let you off with the young mums, but I can confidently state that the other two should not be in a position to be worrying about STD's. However, I do understand the importance of making people aware of STD's. What I fail to understand is the importance of how pleasurable every human being's sexual experiences are and what can be done to assist them. It's not the filthiest of shows on television, but most of the content I have questioned so far would put me off my Weetabix.

 Now, onto the "Hub." 'Why not have your say?' What a breathtakingly unoriginal and worthless concept. Obviously, in questioning the lack of originality, I accept that This Morning is not the only show on television which boasts such a concept. It is, however, one of the few which are so Twitter-heavy that it is pretty much unbearable. Like I have said previously, a very large portion of the audience is old-age pensioners. I'd say that around sixty-five percent of those pensioners don't own any internet related piece of technology and the remaining thirty-five percent don't know the first thing about it. Still, you expect them to 'follow' the show and get hash-tag silly on a regular basis. My gran asked me why her DVD wasn't showing on the TV screen the other day and I had to inform her that, in order for her chosen DVD to show on the TV, she would have to insert the disc into the drive first. She thinks she has slipped into another dimension when Phillip and company start their 'www.hashtagthis.com' nonsense. I doubt many of the housewives are as clued up on this, as we've come to expect in this day and age, either. I'm sure they are fine with web addresses, but I'm not so sure about social networking. I haven't had a re-tweet from any myself. I imagine they have far more important and interesting things to do with their time.

 From a more general stand point, there isn't much point to the "Hub" is there? My guess is that it is merely a time filler. Would I be correct? I hope so, for I cannot see it serving any other purpose whatsoever. People like to get their two-pence worth in, that's understandable because I suppose it gives them a small sense of worth. Even if it is your plan to aid them, I don't feel like there's any need for you to then forward that two-pence worth to the other viewers. Who really cares about what @Sally83, from Watford, thinks about any subject matter? The opinion of some random human is meaningless to another random human. Why would you promote something so meaningless? Maybe you're scraping the barrel, I don't know, but, judging by everything else on the show, I'd be surprised if there's anything left of the barrel itself.

 Despite everything I have said in the last five paragraphs, I would just like to state that I find the detailed chats in which victims of gang rape and heinous assaults with a sprinkle of relatives of murder victims have their noses rubbed into their respective ordeals especially entertaining and I think This Morning should push itself more in this direction. (Note, sarcasm.)

 I do not wish to cause any offence with this e-mail. If people are allowed to complain about my favourite television shows - sometimes successfully having them axed completely - then I must be free to do the same with the ones that I don't agree with.

Sincerely,

A Very Mild Rebel

P.s, could you also tell Holly to refrain from hovering around that kitchen, like a hot fart in a cold waiting room, and getting in the chef's way. It may be force of habit for her, but I get wound up by it on behalf of the chef. Also, don't encourage them to interrupt the chef with a question when he/she is in the middle of answering a previous question or explaining a part of the cooking process, which is the entire point of asking the questions and indeed the entire portion of the show itself.

Thank you.

The greatest blog post ever?

I decided to take a brief detour - on my way to giving Liam Gallagher the textual beating I feel he requires - to talk about something which was brought back to my attention yesterday. It ties in with this trend that we, the current generation of sycophants, have for attempting to claim every most recent thing/person/achievement as the 'greatest of all time' which, quite frankly, is a moronic conversation in any circumstance. Allow me to explain exactly how I arrived at this topic.

I watched the Mexico-Italy match on BBC the other day and found myself listening to the dorks in the studio talking about a recent Spain side possibly being the best team ever assembled. They then decided to hold a fan poll on what the greatest football team of all time is and included the gargantuan total of two teams. A choice of either Brazil (1970) or Spain (2010). On what basis is it a two horse race? And why is anyone having this discussion? It is a waste of time. The only way we will ever find out the greatest side ever is if scientists developed a way where we could bring every team that won every competition since professional football began and throw them into a tournament, but even then the result would never be absolutely definitive. Some teams wouldn't play against each other and there would always be a certain way of playing that some oppositions wouldn't be able to handle no matter how good either side is. A lot of results depend on how the players feel and/or perform on the day. One bad game and your potential title could be screwed. You've also got the possibility of the tournament lasting about a decade in which players would age, lose some of the talent they once had and probably retire in the middle of it. Plus, the two horse thing is a joke. It's all based on statistics which mean almost nothing. Did you ever consider that Spain may have won those titles not because they are that good, but because the opposition was that bad at the time? No, of course you didn't. It's not just about how good the winner is, you also have to consider how garbage the loser was. Another thing which should be accounted for is each individual person's interpretation of a great team. There are those who believe that the best teams win everything there is to win, but others judge on things like entertainment value and/or how skilled a team is.

We are living in a generation where we are strangely desperate to claim that we had the 'best ever' at most things, especially in sport. A guy for some football team scores a decent goal for once in his career and, just because the commentators go bananas, all of a sudden we're attempting to claim that this guy is the best ever!? I don't understand why we can't just watch and admire without comparing things which are not even comparable. It's a dumb debate and not one that those bums on the BBC or anyone else should be wasting their time on. If you can't accept it then too bad for you.

Time to Silence The Voice: Paving the Way for the Forthcoming Textual Destruction of Liam Gallagher

As I've been typing these blog posts over time - not as consistently as I would like, admittedly, but I have a lot of unpublished 'drafts' on here that I haven't been able to finish because my mind travels through so many topics at such an alarming rate - I've talked a lot of trash about the X-Factor. I'm not about to retract anything I've said because I really do hate everything about it, but I'm aiming this one more towards the new(ish) blood. The Voice.

I remember a time, around about when The Voice was first advertised, where the general public were sitting up, like the mutated puppets they are, and saying things like 'it's totally different to X-Factor' and even going as far as 'the format is better than the X-Factor' which isn't the most demanding of challenges, but it was as if The Voice was going to be far more legitimate and credible. Like most people, I fell for it to begin with. However, unlike most people, I had enough presence of mind to realise early on that it was a sham. I can't say that it's exactly like the X-Factor, but it's as close as it could ever be without actually being the X-Factor. After all the talk about how 'different', 'fresh' and 'exciting' it was going to be for the entire talent show sub genre, it was neither here nor there.

The format is as simple as it always was - people who either reckon they can sing or reckon they can be rich, attention seekers apply for auditions, they "perform" to a few witless and tediously boring celebrities, who are given the title of judges, and another irritating bunch of lunatics, AKA the studio audience. This is where things do get slightly different, just not in the revolutionary and exciting way that was being made out. The judges are not looking at the performer during the audition, they are facing the audience. This is to give the impression that the applicant is being praised/criticised (poorly) solely based on their singing talent, as opposed to their looks. If any of the judges like what they hear, they have the opportunity to press a button which revolves their chair - thus making them look like half-naked Daleks with a loose wire - to face the stage which signifies that the judge has picked the performer for their 'team'. Then it returns to the all too familiar theme of the judges competing against each other using their respective teams, only they get to pick their teams as opposed to being given a categorised group.

I really wish I didn't feel like I had to explain all of that, but when you've got so many gullable monstrosities who clearly don't see things for what they truly are, you really don't have much choice. All I want to know is what people do see in this garbage excuse for televised programming, without receiving the same dull and thoughtless answers like 'it's a laugh', 'it's only a programme', 'there's nothing else on', 'each to their own' and all that crap. I'm talking about a genuine definitive reason to tune in. I want someone to try and sell it to me. I'd bank on that being virtually impossible. Even Britain's Got Talent has ran its course. How many more times are we going to be so shocked and get wet at a child being able to sing? You've seen it a thousand times now, get over it. I'm sick of this 'oh my god, I can't believe that kid has a decent voice.' Of course they do. Do you actually think that it takes years and years of training to be good at singing? If you answered 'yes' then you are down right stupid. You're even more delusional if you think it's something that just occurs suddenly when you reach a certain age. BGT is slightly more entertaining at times due to the fact that it welcomes all kinds of talent and you get folk walking on stage and doing some ridiculous acts. Other times, you're just embarrassed to be British.

One thing that annoyed the hell out of me during the current series of The Voice (I don't watch it, I just hear/read about things randomly) was the appearance of the band Beady Eye, fronted by former Oasis arse Liam Gallagher, to perform. As I'm typing, I'm contemplating an entire future blog post dedicated to my thoughts on Liam Gallagher as a human and as a musician, so I don't want to say too much about him. I will conclude this post with a one line teaser...

Having Liam Gallagher so much as appear on any talent show is as absurd as having a badly disfigured John McCririck appear on Britain's Next Top Model.

Snap[chat] out of it!

I decided to dedicate a post to the new whirlwind, out-of-the-blue craze known as Snapchat, not because I think the App deserves the attention - as if it needs more attention anyway - but because I feel like the pointless fake fun it offers commands a verbal beating. If you have never heard of it and, thus, are unaware of what Snapchat is, good for you and stop reading now because my advice is that you keep it that way. Snapchat is not worth the spot in your memory.

"You control how long your friends can view your message - simply set the timer up to ten seconds and send. They'll have that long to view your message and then it disappears forever."

Has there ever been anything more pointless? Ten seconds!? What self-respecting human being dreams of being able to view a message/picture for ten seconds or less? It's a stupid idea for stupid people by stupid people. If you post a message that takes no more than ten seconds to read, it is most likely meaningless and you should be ashamed to have spent any amount of time creating it yourself.

"Rated 12+ for the following: Infrequent/Mild Sexual Content or Nudity, Infrequent/Mild Alcohol, Tobacco, Drug Use or References to these, Infrequent/Mild Profanity or Crude Humor, Infrequent/Mild Mature/Suggestive Themes."

'Girls post pictures of their tits and stuff!' Why act as if viewing a girl's breasts for a very, very short period of time is the best thing ever when you live in a world where many girls will show you them willingly for a much longer time frame? Even failing that, you have a seemingly endless line of websites where you can watch far better looking women do far filthier things for hours on end if you really have to! Besides, you could find yourself staring at things you don't want to see by the same token. At least the creators are clued up enough on the adolescent mentality to know that this is the sort of bullshit that people will use it for, even if they have slightly misjudged how far people will go by putting the words 'infrequent' and 'mild' next to every entry. Even so, if you're uploading a picture of your penis for as little as three seconds, it's not exactly going to get a chance to have much impact on anyone.

"Build relationships, collect points, and view your best friends!"

Indeed, it appears they forgot to explain how someone is supposed to find any points to collect in an application as supremely pointless as this one. What do they mean 'build relationships?' If you've built a relationship based on photographs which last the same amount of time it takes Usain Bolt to run a hundred metres, I put it to you that it is about as meaningful as Wayne Rooney's belly-button fluff. Also, if I wanted to "view" my best friends, I would call them up and ask them to come meet me or I would go to their house. You can't have those things as a temptation because they're either worthless or nothing we can't get on a regular basis anyway... or both.

Through all of this rise in technology filled with social media - such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram - I have buckled under peer pressure just about every single time, but this is by far the easiest social networking 'fad' there has ever been to ignore and say 'nah, I'd rather chew on my own testicles than download that shit.' It's about time we scrapped this whole social network crap and got on with our lives without feeling the need to tell every other person as if it's worth the energy it takes to look at it.

200,000 at the Vatican to hear old man talk about stuff.

Easter isn't really a big deal to me anymore. Sure, it's nice having some extra chocolate to nibble - on those boring nights in front of the telly watching a movie so dull that you can almost hear your eyes begging you to call it a night whilst your ears attempt to amplify their pleas in agreement - but that's about it. Us non-religious types are not so much celebrating Easter as acknowledging its existence, just so we can claim the holidays that come with it. I remember my younger days, when I was innocent and didn't know any better, drawing funny faces onto boiled eggs and launching (rolling, for the less violent) them down hills until there was nothing left of them except the tiny fragments of shell stuck in your tear ducts. Counting how many chocolate eggs you had received to see if you had beaten your personal record and/or your friends' totals. Those were fun times, no question. However, as with most other things in life, we mature and grow out of things becoming more aware and, in my case at least, develop more detailed and cynical views towards them. Some people choose to retain their childish mentality towards festive periods and sacrifice their intelligence and integrity.

Witnessing any religious event take place is like having a V.I.P ticket to a parallel universe and the Easter "celebration" at the Vatican was no different. To be honest, it felt like a pimped up, modernised reconstruction of Jesus' funeral. The music was bleak, the movements were slow, the people were cold and silent. Fair enough, Easter is supposed to be the [alleged] story of Jesus' death, burial and subsequent resurrection, but it really couldn't have been done in a more tedious fashion. I fail to understand the dress code for these events as they appear to have fuck all to do with anything. It's a bit like some morbid musical about a bunch of 60s bus conductors who are held hostage at a music festival which has been infiltrated and fallen into the control of the Catholic community. I paint a vivid picture, don't I? Apparently, somewhere in the region of 200,000 to a quarter of a million idiots showed up at the Vatican. I base those numbers on one source claiming 200k and another claiming a quarter of a million. Now, 50,000 is an almighty gap if you ask me. How can anyone be missing the total by such a colossal margin? Either one source thinks that 200k is a quarter of a million - in which case, the people responsible should be brought to task immediately - or whoever counted 200,000 received a random phone call from an experienced hit man, with an undisclosed motive, telling them that if they reached the number 200,000 they'd have a bullet in the head before they could say 200,001.

Less interestingly, this was the first Easter "celebration" for Pope Francis and he chose to make it as unmemorable and unspectacular as a Pope Easter address usually is. I like to think of the search for a new Pope being in the style of X-factor-like auditions with the winner being the one with the most unattainable and rediculous ambitions for the world (and the likeliest resemblance to a paedophile corpse). The reason I say that is Francis' message was as pointless and unlikely to achieve as anything else. He wants world peace, way to state the fucking obvious, Frank. He kept spewing out all these things like he was announcing what he wanted from Santa Claus this year. Things like 'the end of civil war in Syria', 'Korean disagreements to be overcome' and 'political solutions to conflicts in African countries.' That's where I question his wisdom. Well done him, he seems to have pointed out a few problems in the world. I could have fucking done that. Any ideas on HOW these tasks can be met, Frankie? It's like taking your car to the garage because the clutch is fucked and the mechanic putting on a hat and some bling before standing on a podium and announcing 'yeh, your clutch is fucked.' I know that, you prick! How exactly do you propose we fix it? Pointless.

Well, at least I have South Park on my side!

The other day, I made some comments about homosexuality through my personal Facebook profile which drew a bit of criticism from, well, one person, but I can confidently assume there were more less than happy faces behind the scenes. Here is the quote.

"All the hysteria surrounding the 'battle' for same sex marriage is getting me irritated. I'm going to stick my neck out and say I don't agree with same sex marriage, but with the way people are talking I guess that makes me a bit of a cunt, right? Why? What sort of fucked up world are we living in where you have to like everything that's put in front of you? This isn't about acceptance, that's already there. I accept that homosexuality exists and that people want to take it up, but why do I have to like the idea? If people want to be gay, be gay, but I'm sick of all those fuds - who have definately used homosexuality as an insult at least one time - jumping on the bandwagon calling people like me all the bastards just because we don't like the thought of two men/woman getting married. Personally, I think it's manky even without the concept of marriage and if that makes me the bad guy, so be it and fuck you."

Let me start with the confession.

I can see where any sort of hostility and/or anger would come from when I read it over again to myself. It comes across as somewhat confrontational and dismissive of any alternative opinions. Although I knew there would be another side offering their opinions and their part of the debate, the results I received were not the ones I had intended. My comments were labelled 'discriminating' and my intelligence came into question. The main gripe seemed to be the part where I mention people 'taking up' homosexuality, as opposed to it being a thing of nature. I happily accept this as a bad choice of words, but it had little bearing on the point I was trying to make. I partially understand the distaste in me spouting these opinions over Facebook - I could just as easily have kept them to myself - but I still think that there's more substance and interest in that subject than the usual things, like what I'm having for lunch.

Now, to my defence.

It's no secret that I am a sucker for controversy. Rain, hail or snow, I love the feeling of being under someone else's skin. At times, I can take it to the extreme and come across as a bit of a prick. I'm fine with that. Always have been, always will be. In this instance, I picked a 'fight' with a very touchy and emotionally charged group of people in the midst of a battle they have been waging for years. An absolute minefield of a topic at the best of times - though I struggle to understand why - and came out of it looking like someone I'm not.

I consider myself the most honest individual on planet Earth and, when I say 'honest', I don't mean I've never lied about going to class or watching pornographic movies like some sort of saint. I have never been a saint in my life and I don't intend to be. I mean 'honest' in my thoughts and opinions. I will always stay true to myself no matter the consequences and/or who's toes I happen to step on in the process. In today's world, the truth is lying on increasingly thin ice with a sign stuck in it reading 'Tread Carefully' and I feel like there is a disappointing lack of people willing to run the risk and just give their God's honest view on matters. That's all I thought I was doing and I stand by it.

My view on homosexuality has remained since the concept first crossed my mind. I find it a bit disgusting. That line alone would be throwing myself to the wolves, albeit gay wolves, but I wouldn't say it without an explanation. However, my explanation may come across as quite strange. I was like everyone else at one point, I kept any serious opinion on gays to myself, yet actively insulted people using words like 'poof', 'faggot' and 'dike'. When you're young, you don't really think about these words or their meaning in any great detail. As long as it insults people and sounds funny, you use it. At the same time, I knew where I stood when it came to homosexuals, but I didn't know how to explain them. Then I saw this episode of the American animated comedy show, South Park.

For those unaware, too ignorant or too stupid to realise, South Park is more than it appears to be. At first glance, it looks like a foul-mouthed, incoherent, acid trip of a programme full of immature jokes and smut. Pay more attention and you'll find that each episode carries a very honest message on a variety of social and political topics. In this case, the topic was tolerance. The episode centres around the main school teacher, Mr. Garrison, who is openly gay. In an attempt to sue the school for millions, he decides to try and get himself fired by performing acts of a homosexual nature with his partner, Mr. Slave, in class. Several characters are disgusted by his behavior, but they are deemed 'intolerant' and sent to a 'tolerance camp' similar to a wartime concentration camp. 'The Museum of Tolerance' decide to award Mr. Garrison with the 'Courageous Teacher' award for overcoming adversity, but he breaks down and shouts the line that should explain my point all by itself. 'Tolerating something doesn't mean you have to approve of it.'

If that hasn't cleared things up, let me paint a little picture. Let's say I'm living in a semi-detached house and my neighbors are a gay couple. That's fine, I can live with it. I will acknowledge them, be friendly with them and respect them for who they are. However, when the thought enters my mind that they are wholeheartedly in love with each other and are [probably] having sex together, I would be lying to myself and everyone else if I said that it didn't make me feel physically nauseous and slightly worried. I put it to you that, if you don't feel the same way, you're either gay yourself or a fucking zombie.

This does not mean I hate gay people! Some of them can be the nicest people you'll ever meet and some, by the same token, can be the most irritating. I accept that homosexuality exists and I'm happy for them fighting a cause they believe in, but what I feel when the thought of two men/women in love enters my head remains the same. I keep hearing about how you don't choose to be gay, that you are born gay. Well, I can't help my feelings towards homosexuality. I don't care if it makes me a bad guy, discriminating or whatever else you want to throw at me. It's the truth. I won't exactly be popping the champagne or dancing on anyone's grave if they lose their fight, but I can't say I'd be heartbroken either.

There's not much more I can say to explain my stance, I've said it all. If you're still unhappy, then may I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself one simple question. 'Am I gay?'

Thank you.

I hope you read this some day, Rio...

If there is any human being alive that I really despise, I am not going to say because it's a pretty long list. However, one man is very near to the top of that list, if not quite there, and his name is Rio Ferdinand. Every time that man opens his mouth - or logs into his Twitter account which he's so fond of doing - I feel an overwhelming amount of stupidity and pointlessness putting immense pressure on my eardrums and/or brain. For someone semi-famous, this guy oozes irrelevance and idiocy.

Remember the time he went on a Twitter 'rampage' after he failed to make the England squad? I remember actively searching for a conclusive way to shut his illiterate face. He was so focused on things that didn't carry any merit, such as the racism row between fellow England defender and downie John Terry and his brother Anton, and forgot that he isn't that good of a footballer. I've never thought much of him in a footballing capacity either. When he signed for Manchester United I suppose he was half decent, but that's about all he ever was to me and clearly Roy Hogson agrees. Rio doesn't want to believe he sucks, so he blames his exclusion on other stories which were just as worthless as he is.

Anyway, let's fast forward to more recent shenanigans.

On Friday night (I think), England trounced a happily accepting San Marino side 8-0. Anyone who tells you San Marino ever stood a chance is incapable of thought. Rio was picked by Roy Hogson to be a part of the England team - not sure what he was thinking, I wouldn't have picked him for San Marino - but decided to refuse in favor of a comfy seat inside the commentary box. To be fair, I'm sure he is just as competent as a commentator as he is as a philosopher. He claims 'I pencilled in to have certain treatments, had them and I've come away to have some rest time and to recuperate and get myself ready.' In the words of Glasgow comedian Kevin Bridges, 'did ye, aye?' That means 'did you, yes?' to those who don't speak the language of cool. Is there any chance we could get Rio to pencil himself out of our lives forever and give ourselves some fucking rest time? His words are meaningless as always, we all know he did it out of spite because he is a dick.

I had to laugh at the news headlines though - 'Rio Ferdinand Blasts England Football Team'. Hahaha! Getting 'blasted' by him is like someone throwing a ball of cotton wool at you. Inconvenient, but ultimately harmless. 'Rio Sticks the Knife In'. I bet it was a butter knife made of cardboard. I assume when he uttered these next words, that I am about to quote, he was thinking about himself and decided to disguise it by pinning his thoughts onto the England team because, San Marino or not, it's hard to see the negative in winning 8-0 away from home in any sport. I'm going to show you what I mean by putting the word he really means into brackets next to the word he actually said. 'We (I) need to have a real good look at ourselves (myself). Whether it's a mental thing or if we're (I'm) just not good (intelligent) enough, that's what we're (I'm) trying to search for.'

Whatever it is Rio, I'm afraid it may be incurable.

The value he gives to Twitter and his 'followers' is nothing short of astounding. He has a lot of fans on Twitter, but then they are all just as mentally stunted as he is, if not more so. Has anyone ever been remotely curious as to what a professional footballer could type in 140 characters or less? The only thing that caught me by surprise is that any of them had enough words in the tank to take up that challenge. A game of Scrabble to them must feel like Chinese torture. Forget the fame that comes with being a footballer, these are people who, when they walk into a room, you can hear a blue-bottle puking on a dish towel. Unintelligent, unappealing and uninteresting. Rio is the cream of that crop, in my opinion. Get off of twitter, Rio, and get real.