A Slightly Awkward Victim Tribute

THIS BLOG INCLUDES PERSONAL SPECULATION ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD OR INVOLVED IN ONGOING PROSECUTIONS. THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY.

Towards one of my The Conqueror Challenges I have set myself the task of cycling a kilometre for every year of age of Lori Vallow Daybell's victims. This is, in part, because I abandoned my challenge to follow her first trial* - if you will excuse the term - religiously. I have been following the case since early 2020 when the kids were still missing and I will continue to do so for Chad's trial, Lori's trial for the murder of Charles Vallow, and any related proceedings that should arise. I have never been so emotionally invested in a court case my whole life.

* Lori Vallow Daybell's trial for conspiracy to murder Tylee Ryan, JJ Vallow, and Tammy Daybell ran from 3rd April to 12th May 2023. I have a file containing multiple family trees, timelines, over 100 pages of notes of salient points from Nate Eaton of East Idaho News live tweeting the case.

When the guilty verdicts came in my internet glitched so I was standing out in the street using my phone data instead... and I F*CKING HOWLED in sheer relief. Especially on the counts relating to Tylee cos I feared there wasn't enough evidence in her case. I am a big believer in innocent until proven guilty but Lori Vallow Daybell is my one (1) exception. No way in hell can an innocent woman go off to get married with no idea or care where her two minor children are, especially when they later show up buried in her new husband's yard. I can usually imagine at least one alternative scenario, no matter how far-fetched, but there's nothing; and Lori didn't even offer a defence.

So that's what led me to where I am now... cycling a tribute to each of her victims. But the reason for this blog entry is the slightly awkward reasoning involved in a few of the tributes.

1) Joseph Anthony "Joe" Ryan Jr, 1958-2018 (59)

3rd husband of Lori, biological father of Tylee.
This is the first slightly dubious tribute. Officially he died of natural causes but there's plenty I find suspicious, including that his ex wife whom he was on particularly bad terms with was his next of kin, dealt with his death and was particularly slow in informing his family (see also Charles).
Then there's the suggestive history... Lori's brother (see also Alex) had served a short sentence for assaulting and threatening Joe. It's also worth noting that the benefits Tylee received from her father's death was part of the motive for her murder.
Joe had been accused of child molestation by Lori, her son from her second marriage - Colby, and his own daughter Tylee. Now, I'm NOT calling Colby a liar but the authorities believed Lori had coached her kids - I feel it's possible he has false memories she planted and / or he was molested by someone else (my money would be on Alex). The thing is, having made these allegations Lori refused to co-operate with the investigation whereas Joe co-operated fully. Child abuse isn't taken lightly so it's an unusual conclusion for the authorities to reach, and Lori's refusal to push for a prosecution is just plain weird to me. Also, making claims that her exes were abusive is part of a pattern with Lori so I take it with a pinch of salt.

2) Leland Anthony "Charles" Vallow, 1956-2019 (62)

4th husband of Lori, adoptive father of JJ.
Charles was, by all accounts, a great dad. But he'd started reaching out for help claiming Lori was a danger to the kids... and he ended up dead. Shot by Alex (see below) in alleged self defence. Tylee spoke well on the police interview tapes - she was an intelligent and articulate young lady - but do I believe she could have been biased towards her mother and uncle? Hell yes. Do I believe she reported what she *believed* happened that morning? Also, perfectly plausible.
The trial for his murder is yet to take place but so far everything points to Charles being at risk from Lori, rather than the reverse. Also, after his death Lori heartlessly informed his sons from a prior marriage of their father's death by TEXT.
Just as Tylee was killed, in part, for the money she received from Joe's death so was JJ killed, in part, for the money he received from Charles' death.

3) Tylee Ashlyn Ryan, 2002-2019 (16*)

Biological daughter of Lori and Joe.
Tylee's death is the one that hits me in the feels most. In part it's because so much attention went to JJ - if JJs biological grandparents hadn't raised the alarm over his whereabouts would have even realised Tylee had also disappeared? It would have been so easy to say Tylee had left home, gone to uni, decided to go NC with the family... 
It is unknown how exactly Tylee died but what was done to her body after death is vile beyond description. She was not killed and buried like the little brother she adored, she was annihilated. The wounds found on what was left of her pelvis are highly suggestive to me; I suspect she suffered a lot more than anyone knows before she died. Her remains were dismembered, partially burned and buried on Chad Daybell's property.

*Although she was likely 16 when she died Tylee is often listed as 17 due to her birthday falling after the last time she was seen alive and long before her remains were discovered. I am doing 17km accordingly.

4) Joshua Jaxon "JJ" Vallow, ne Canaan Todd Trahan, 2012-2019 (7)

Adoptive son of Lori and Charles; biological son of Todd Trahan (Charles' nephew) and Mandy Leger.
JJ was described as a sweet, loving kid. He had been born prematurely to bio parents with addiction issues and had autism. Lori registered him as homeschooled and got rid of his service dog shortly before he was last seen alive.
He was asphyxiated with a plastic bag and duct tape, and buried in the yard of Chad Daybell. His body was not desecrated the way Tylee's was.

5) Tamara Michelle "Tammy" Daybell, nee Douglas, 1970-2019 (49)

Wife of Chad, whose death cleared the way for him to marry Lori only days later.
Tammy is described as a wonderful, intelligent woman who loved children and animals; she was the mother of five. Divorce was supposedly not an option for Chad because of his 'spiritual standing'.
Days before she died she was shot at and believed it was a teenager pranking her with a paintball gun... it was almost certainly Alex with a very real and deadly weapon. Tammy died of supposed natural causes - later an exhumation and autopsy found she died by asphyxiation.

6) Alexander Lamar "Alex" Pastenes, ne Cox, 1968-2019 (51)

Brother of Lori.

I have listed him as Alex Pastenes as this was his legal name at death - he is 'Alex Cox' in almost all accounts, inc. Lori's trial.

Definitely the most controversial inclusion on this list as he was certainly responsible for Charles' death and heavily implicated in Tylee and JJ's. He had previously assaulted Joe, shot at Tammy AND shot at a survivor - Brandon Boudreaux, estranged-and-now-ex husband of Lori's niece Melani. He supposedly died of natural causes like Joe.
HOWEVER, his death was entirely too 'convenient' and it bore marked similarities to Tammy's death - which was also initially ruled as natural. 
There is no doubt in my mind he was murdered, possibly because Lori (& Chad?) thought it would all get blamed on him and they'd get away with it but certainly because he knew too much.
It is a 'pity' he was killed because he for sure knew and could have answered a lot of the questions Lori (& Chad?) almost certainly never will. He also should have faced justice for his involvement. I don't like to call him a 'victim' but I believe it likely he was used and I believe that he was killed. That isn't right, whatever he did. I find it uncomfortable to include him but maybe I can think of his kilometres as being additional tribute for the kids - it doesn't seem right that they should get so few kilometres when they were robbed of so many years.
Alex is described as a funny guy, emotionally immature following a brain injury in his teens, and exceedingly devoted to Lori.  Lori gives me Cersei Lannister vibes and I have suspicions that she manipulated Alex just as the fictional Cersei manipulated her brother Jaime; the siblings are described as having had a peculiar, over intimate relationship. It's also worth noting that none of the deaths benefited him directly - they were all for Lori.

7) Mandy Nicole Leger, 1976-2022 (46)

Biological mother of JJ.
Mandy certainly DID die a natural death unlike the others but she is the most forgotten. I count her as a victim because the death of her son destroyed her. She may have lost custody but that doesn't mean he wasn't her world.
An account I read stated that she had surrendered her parental rights to JJs grandparents with the intention of getting him back when her circumstances were improved... instead they adopted him out. Then he was killed and all hope of an eventual reunion was lost. I have heard birth mothers of other murder victims speak on the devastation that comes of losing your child twice - being considered unfit to raise your own kid and then the sheer horror of the supposedly better 'suitable parent' killing their child.

I've used '& Chad?' a few times. That's because his trial is still pending and I have no idea what defence may be presented. It's hard to imagine how he could be innocent of any or all charges, especially Tammy's murder, but to me it's just a tad more plausible than Lori being innocent. I see Lori as the manipulator and mastermind and all the deaths directly benefited her, only Tammy's was directly to the benefit of Chad... Tammy was the family breadwinner so he needed her life insurance to start over with Lori. Chad clearly thinks he's amazeballs and a spiritual leader but personally I see him as a pathetically weak specimen, "led by the storm". He probably still thinks he was so clever and is still oblivious as to how he was played... although that's no excuse at all.

POSTSCRIPT

I had already roughed out this blog before I heard this call between Lori's brother Adam and Chandler PD after Charles' killing and it's like confirmation that my theories aren't totally OTT, especially regarding Joe Ryan's death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBriE0jW9GA

Can ye believe it?

Once again, The Heggie Zone is kinda embarrassed to present and expanded & explained Twitter rant.
This one is on the linked article, entitled "Kanye West Is Publicly Struggling. We Need To Give Him Grace"
(source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/elaminabdelmahmoud/kanye-west-mental-health-dangerous-media-narratives?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc)

A quote from Craig Jenkins included within reads

“The lack of context regarding his [bipolar] diagnosis...in coverage...

which questions the viability of the presidential bid

but never entertains the possibility that the man giving all the

outlandish pull quotes might not be doing so well right now,

illuminate our inability to step back and ponder the ethics

of the internet content mill…”

But is this even TRUE? How is there a lack of context?! I'm not American, I have never heard anything he's done BUT I know he's bipolar and super irresponsible about it.
West's struggles with Bipolar Disorder have been widely reported and discussed. It'd be like adding context that Stevie Wonder is blind - it is a really well-known factor. We all KNOW he's 'not doing so well' but he is deliberately putting himself out there to be seen.
He is also putting himself out there to be ELECTED. The press' ethics must be first and foremost concerned with protecting the public more than Kanye West.

My tweets in bold, copied directly from my feed 29/07/2020.

It's a challenging read but I can't say I fully agree with it. Mercy & compassion have their place but Kanye & HIS ENTIRE TEAM are guilty here of some f*ck*d up sh*t that negatively impacts anyone living with mental health issues.
Kanye West is not an individual, he is a person with EXTENSIVE management and a very famous family of in-laws. It seems that not one of them, let alone all in a unified action, is capable of 'controlling' the situation. Not that I blame Kim for example - but she's begging for understanding after the fact each time. I can understand she loves him... okay, I can't but I get her commitment to her marriage, but I don't understand why she is 'letting him do this' to himself, her, and their children. It's ultimatum time, dearie. Get help, step away from the limelight, or I take the kids and leave.
Most of us would be subjected to an intervention - and probably sectioning under the mental health act. If you had a meltdown at work your boss would (hopefully) send you home cos no way can you be doing this sh*t in front of customers / clients / members of the public / co-workers. But more than this, every negative bit of press Kanye-and-team whip up affects EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL WITH A MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER. He is perpetuating all the negative stereotypes of mental illness.

I feel it is wrong to blame the media for the media hungry Ye machine. They don't seem to be inaccurately, cruelly, or especially unkindly representing him. And plenty of similar speculation has been applied to Trump's incoherent ramblings. It's par for the presidential course.
The press aren't hunting out these stories - they're attending 'campaign rallies' and interviewing him (probably at invitation) to promote the albums he endlessly fails to deliver.
I have seen lots of articles questioning Trump's sanity, his 'fitness to lead', and speculating as to whether he's had a stroke. Now, whether or not Trump has a diagnosable disorder he is clearly several sandwiches short of a picnic. I am bothered by the stroke speculation as a brain injury does not necessarily make him 'unfit' although if it was covered up in his medical that's a pretty serious business.
Kanye cannot possibly expected to run for POTUS without speculation, analysis and criticism. Saying he should be exempted from such scrutiny on grounds of his well-publicised mental health problems is a really irresponsible stance that could theoretically help him into the White House!
It takes a lot for me to defend the press. But here they are not being intrusive, sensationalist, dishonest, manipulative... which is quite remarkable in and of itself. What they are is standing back and letting West rip himself apart. If you're asking "but should they?" how do you think journalism works?! Reporters don't start or end wars, they write up what is going on. Criticism is fair when they are unfair... but West's rants are his own.
And now he's running (however implausibly) for POTUS his instability becomes a matter of American National Security and needs to be reported as such.

IMHO Kanye risks making people believe that all bipolar people are... wildly unstable, incapable of holding responsibility etc. and that is TERRIBLE. The stigma of mental illness is bad enough without him taking it back DECADES.
The article keeps going on about Kanye's pain and trauma. We all have pain, we all have trauma, not all of us are bipolar but even those who are don't all act out so badly.
Mental health has long been taboo but headway has been made in recent years - so why is Kanye being encouraged / enabled / excused from f*ck*ng over every other person battling their demons?!
I am 'only' struggling with 30 years of depression but this angers me so much. People are mistreated, outcast, shunned, denied housing, denied work - and West, a bloody billionaire, is making their lives harder and causing people to be afraid of people with mental health problems.

What I think Kanye / his team *should* have done is take him down a Kate Bush style path - all the creativity, minimal public appearances. Let him have dignity in mystique. Especially after the first few meltdowns. NOT about hiding but saving him from himself.
At a time when Black Lives Matter is a major headline West is accusing Harriet Tubman of selling out black people, he has previously called slavery a choice. If he were anything but a Black person himself he would have been 'cancelled' by now! He says the most appalling things and is given a pass, time and time again, because of his diagnosis... but is it right to do so? Oddly enough you can be an asshole AND bipolar; the one does not necessarily stem from the other.
Being a creator does not mean you have to be constantly on stage, giving interviews, etc. You can release albums, even play concerts, but you don't need to keep talking shit. If this was his first major incident I would be more forgiving but at this point there have been MANY. You would think that the prior experiences would keep him on his medications and off his soap-box...

How can you treat Kanye as multiple people? Even if he had multiple personality disorder the 'man who knows what he's doing' is the same being who is saying these outrageous things. The same person who admits not taking his meds is running for POTUS. That CANNOT BE IGNORED.
This comment is particularly aimed at the following quote:

"The truth is you have to be rather callous to laugh at the unwell person

in front of you. But you don’t need that callousness

when you imagine it’s the West who knows what he’s doing,

the West who is immensely capable of processing his pain."

Can you actually run for POTUS without knowing what you are doing?! He knows he needs his meds, he knows what happens when he is off them, he knows he has embarrassed himself, humiliated his wife and offended his entire race several times before now... More to the point his extensive support team - managers, agents, assistants of every kind - know what he's doing and they are LETTING HIM. It is the moral equivalent of watching someone neck a bottle of vodka and then take their truck for a drive. THAT IS NOT ON THE PRESS.

Should the media be *accountable* in the articles they write about a misician [sic] having a spectacular and uninhibited public brain fart or should they be responsible and accurately represent a man who is running for the ultimate public office? Literally can't be both.
IF West was JUST promoting another undelivered album... no, even then - cos he's consciously, deliberately seeking promotion. This is not press intruding into Harvey Price's hospital room, unresearched speculation on royal doings, or any other number of invasive examples of sensationalist journalism.

If Kanye was a private individual, or an involuntary public figure like a royal or a WAG, I would totally agree that the media needs to step back... but there's a world of difference when the person you're writing about is actively courting publicity.
As I put a moment ago - royalty never asked for publicity, children and spouses (or other relatives) of celebrities shouldn't be hounded, used or abused for the sake of a story. But Kanye isn't an involuntary celebrity, he's not even a private celebrity - he is a courting publicity, letting it all hang out as publicly as possible celebrity. Even then, if he was a recording artist having a mental breakdown there'd be an argument that they should back off* but he's RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

*In the UK right now Johnny Depp is suing the press for calling him a wife-beater and Prince Harry & Meghan, Duchess of Sussex are also suing the press for unwarranted breaches of privacy. The press, as a whole, are SHIT. They don't back off, they hound people until they break. Then they make a big deal out of the obituaries. Kanye West is not being hounded - he is feeding them.

How exactly is the press supposed to address the negative depiction of someone battling mental illness when this is what they're handed on a plate? I dare say there are lots of positive stories they could write for balance but a lot of people don't want their diagnosis 'outted' [sic].
Again, as I said before, this negatively impacts a lot of people. Lots of people with bipolar disorder and other mental health diagnoses are out there, doing good, being responsible, getting on with their lives but they shouldn't have to put their stories out there JUST to counterbalance West's breakdowns so the public can get a more nuanced view of mental health issues.

I have nothing against Kanye West as a human being. I hope he gets the help he needs. I just have a problem with blaming others for the harm he is doing.

More At Risk From Reducing Risk?

People put at risk by the lockdown, arguably more so than they are at risk from coronavirus (Covid-19)
Examples are chosen from a variety of sources and contexts - no single issue is exclusive to any one nation or group of society, many more examples exist.

At Risk Children
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-52370968
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/opinion/coronavirus-child-abuse.html
The Very Poor 
And the soon-to-be very poor - businesses are already collapsing, entire sectors will be decimated
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/09/coronavirus-could-push-half-a-billion-people-into-poverty-oxfam-warns
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-uk-lockdown-pubs-hotels-restaurants-industry-closures-a9475921.html
https://www.ft.com/content/5d198135-b38f-4512-b611-9f017f76929d
People Suffering Domestic Abuse 
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/apr/21/domestic-abuse-women-in-herat-afghanistan-may-survive-coronavirus-but-not-lockdown
People With Cancer 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/04/coronavirus-crisis-is-stopping-vital-cancer-care-doctors-say
People With Other Health Issues
Due to the cancellation of just about every service people are suffering needlessly. For some this means no monitoring of low risk conditions, but others will permanently lose mobility due to lack of physiotherapy, for example. Meanwhile, others will die awaiting diagnosis, treatment or surgery. It's like people's lives don't matter unless they have the 'right' illness!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-nhs-operations-cancelled-cases-deaths-hospital-a9464726.html
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/19/dad-pulls-tooth-cant-get-dentist-lockdown-12579357/
People With EXISTING* Mental Health Issues
* no one seems to have clocked that the pandemic and lockdown will be triggering mental disturbances in the previously mentally well
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52302066
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8192449/Coronavirus-lockdown-led-increase-suicides-police-chiefs-say.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-suicide-rates-uk-mental-health-support-a9451086.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52295894
People With Addictions 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-suicide-rates-uk-mental-health-support-a9451086.html
People with Eating Disorders
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52365945
Future Generations
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/22/we-do-not-have-to-worry-about-paying-off-the-coronavirus-debt-for-generations

I have my doubts whether history will look kindly on the lockdown. I think the fact that we shut GPs / community centres / schools is bad enough, took away community support from those most in need, and hid away in our homes from a disease in selfish fear rather than helping each other is going to be received poorly by future generations. For me, the closure of the churches and other places of worship has been the most brutal thing - in the face of death so many people look for spiritual solace. Saints of past plagues were those who went forth, ministering to the sick and dying with no thought of their own safety; the 21st century 'faithful' chained the doors shut. Personally I think that has a lot to say about the kind of people we've become.

I also have my doubts as to whether it will actually achieve anything. They talk of 'flattening the curve' but they might just be extending the duration of the pandemic rather than actually saving lives. They talk of creating a vaccine but viruses are notoriously hard to vaccinate against - even if it is possible chances are it'll mutate...

So what we have here is that people are suffering and dying, perhaps entirely needlessly, of treatable conditions; people are suffering and dying needlessly because of isolation and anxiety; people will CONTINUE to suffer and die from being terminally separated from their families by being denied the chance to say goodbye or attend funerals; people will suffer and die from poverty and financial hardship, unemployment and the destruction of their livelihoods for MANY YEARS TO COME.

Of course it sucks that people are dying of Covid-19* but people are mortal and communicable diseases exist; it's a normal and natural occurrence. What is not normal and natural is allowing - or more accurately - causing others to suffer and die for the sake of a disease they don't have! Nor is it normal or natural to throw the entire planet into a financial crisis that will take generations to pay off.
*Current thinking is that most people who get Covid-19 are asymptomatic, most people who get symptoms get better without medical interference so still only a small proportion of those affected are actually dying and most of those were either sick already or had massive viral loads!

A lot has been said of the inaccuracy of comparing Covid-19 deaths with those from seasonal flu... but now this virus is here chances are it'll stay (unlike SARS or MERS) and seasonal flu - even outside of its pandemic forms - claims millions of lives yet NOTHING is ever shut down or limited during flu season. Those 'at risk' just have to take their chances while life continues on as usual. Why is it okay to put immuno-compromised people at risk of one disease and not another? It makes very little sense.

Personal pet peeves:

• Someone I was at school with is currently in danger because her essential surgery was cancelled - so she's in hospital for 'pain management' and being put at risk of rupture, sepsis AND of contracting Covid-19 (or other hospital-acquired infections)! Ludicrous! 
• I have seen a company produce a t-shirt calling people who are outside their homes 'dicks'... You cannot tell if someone is a key-worker by looking at them. You don't know if they're shopping, getting exercise or our for their mental heath. Whether they're out for the first time that day or the first time that month. 
• I don't buy into this whole idea that people breaching lockdown are putting the NHS at risk. The NHS is already at risk from decades of gross mismanagement (not underfunding) and as Covid-19 has no treatment they're just using (non consenting) humans as guinea pigs. Chances are the cure (if there is one) will come from people developing antibodies...but they don't want us developing antibodies?! Also, the more people who contract it the more chance it has to mutate to something less deadly. Not to mention that most people who contract Covid-19 recover spontaneously without any medical assistance.
• My youngest is at uni having her education fucked over [yet again] and incurring a huge debt for the privilege. Meanwhile other young people are being granted or denied qualifications based on predicted grades...when I was at school the biggest factor in a predicted grade was whether a teacher LIKED you or not! I fear for their future cos employers will know that the class of 2020 didn't sit their exams.
• My mum has been having a crisis the last few weeks - we honestly thought she was about to die (and in all honesty she still might) and we had to face it all knowing there was no outside help to be had - no care, no equipment, no support. We've coped...heaven knows what others have done! I reckon there are currently a lot of people dead in their homes that no one knows about yet...
• I lost my 20s to child-raising, my 30s to working minimum wage to get off welfare while putting myself through uni, now I'm losing my 40s to caring for my stroke-survivor mum...only now the world is gonna be completely decimated so there's literally no chance of my ever being able to rebuild my life. Imagine being in the current climate, out of work, in poor health and / or approaching retirement age... imagine knowing full well you'll probably never get hired again, you've used your savings to survive lock down and now you face an old age of poverty through no fault of your own? This is BLEAK. Money may not be everything but it helps put a roof over your head and food in your belly.

Additionally it's not just people suffering. Animal charities have been severely affected - rescue centres still caring for animals without being able to claim re-homing fees, stables caring for horses when the income has dried up, zoos threatening to cull their animals... https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/20/zoos-may-cull-animals-lockdown-continues-12582877/ Yet another reason why vegans can't support zoos imho!

A couple of months ago we were in an eco boom - reuseable, recyclable, repurposing were key watch words - now people are buying immense quantities of single-use face masks (with no one asking why the CDC has suddenly decided to endorse them after YEARS of saying all evidence showed them to be ineffective and might increase your chances of respiratory infection). Streets are littered with masks, many more will go straight to landfill...and don't get me started on the NHS PPE plastic face shields! People literally only care about the environment when it's convenient to them.

There's people simultaneously cooing over goats roaming Llandudno or Venice's canals running clear... and then demanding PPE for medical staff despite it's straight-to-landfill nature. Completely oblivious to the hypocrisy. Hopefully I'm not a hypocrite - in general terms I dislike my species and the planet would do well to be shot of us.

Save the planet, not homo sapiens!

Generation RANT

A tweet I saw today (04/03/20):

“Young people are so privileged” says member of generation

that bought up all the houses on the cheap and got free uni education

and loads of free shit and voted to remove young people’s rights

and opportunities and burnt up the planet so young people are screwed.

I disagree with this on so many levels. Buckle yourselves in - RANT AHOY!

Generations 101:
LOST GENERATION born 1883-1900 (currently dead)
GREATEST GENERATION born 1901-1927 (currently 93+)
SILENT GENERATION born 1928-1945 (currently 75-92)
BABY BOOMERS born 1946-1964 (currently 56-74)
GEN X born 1965-1980* (currently 40-55)
MILLENNIALS born 1981-1996* (currently 24-39)
GEN Z born 1997-2010* (currently 10-23)
ALPHA GENERATION born 2011 or after (currently 9 and under)
* dates disputed

For the record my parents are Silent Generation (1942 & 1944) I'm Gen X (1978) my eldest is a Millennial (1996) and my youngest is Gen Z (1999)

Disclaimer: this rant is from a British perspective - I am well aware that the generations in other nations struggle with entirely different issues.

1) Young people are so privileged
Well, lets see... today's young person usually comes from a smaller, wealthier family than their parents' generation, they have better education, better diets, better health, longer life expectancies... Today's young people have greater legal protections and better working conditions than ever before so, yeah. Privileged. More on this topic to follow.
The theme of younger people blaming the older generation for their woes, and conversely older people bitching about how easy the younger generation has it, are timeless - go look at Aristophanes' The Wasps (circa 446-386 BCE) for a generational conflict over two-thousand years old. There is eff-all unique about this.
It is basic, timeless human nature: parents always think their kids have it easy (and in many ways they do) and kids always think their parents fucked it all up (and in many ways they did) - each generation has different difficulties and challenges, that is the way of the world. One day you will be the older generation and to blame for every complaint the current youth have.

2) says member of generation
Right, can I just stop you right there. Being a member of a particular generation does not automatically follow that you have lived a life with any particular privileges. 
My generation largely grew up in the thriving 90s - boom years for many but especially hard on those of us who were welfare dependent - no food banks in those days! (And let's just mention here that the supposedly blessed Silent / Boomer generations had to deal with dig for victory and rationing!) 
From that perspective today's youth ARE privileged because so much is available, and not just in terms of food. In my youth if you wanted to know a thing it was hours of research at the library IF your parents let you go, now immense amounts of information are just a click away and accessible everywhere... so long as you have the tech, which not everyone can afford.
'Available' is a loaded word because whilst it might be present not everyone has it. Not every household in the '60s had indoor plumbing, not every household in the '80s had a phone, and here I am in 2020 still sans automobile. Don't assume the two are synonymous.

3) that bought up all the houses on the cheap
Yes, houses were cheaper in the past and even allowing for lower wages and so on have you SEEN what interest rates were like in the 80s and 90s?! Also, if they hadn't bought those houses what would you be living in? If your landlord hadn't bought that property for you to rent would you expect it to still be sitting there, in livable condition, at a 1970s price?! If people HADN'T invested in property there'd be a lot of people living in squats and a lot of those homes would be rotting shells.
Seriously though, if people hadn't bought property in the past where would the youth of today be? I have a roof over my head because my parents invested in property, my daughter works in property rentals, my youngest is renting in an investment property at uni.
And here comes another privileged generation comment: back when your parents or grandparents or landlords bought their house or investment properties (dependent on specific dates, obviously) here are some of the other things they may have been contending with: 

• No minimum wage
• No statutory sick pay
• No maternity paid leave and for many older gen women they were actively excluded from the workplace after having a child

That oh so 'lucky' older generation usually had a sole (male) breadwinner paying 15% interest on a mortgage and heaven help him if he got sick or laid off. Women didn't have it any better being expected to stay at home... suffering from financial dependence, thwarted aspirations and worse if the marriage was unhappy. There weren't the refuges and help against domestic abuse like there are today and marital rape wasn't even outlawed until 1991! Now OBVIOUSLY not all domestic violence / rape victims are women but given that almost all the currently available support is geared to female victims the point is negligible. A woman had little choice but to stay because although divorce has been available (there's that word again!) for generations it is fairly meaningless if one party has no where to go and minimal means of supporting themselves.
The younger generation has minimum wage and sick pay and maternity pay and civil partnership and rights for co-habiting partners and work welfare and maximum working hours etc etc etc precisely because of the shit your grand/parents endured. Debt might be higher now but there's far better terms and conditions.

4) and got free uni education
FFS GO LOOK UP UNIVERSITY TAKE UP RATES. Just 4% in the early 60s (when my parents were 18-ish and working rather than studying) according to this source:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jun/24/has-university-life-changed-student-experience-past-present-parents-vox-pops
It might have been 'free' but very few got the chance. And then Labour fought against the state footing the bill because university was seen as privileged, elitist, intensely Tory... 
My kids have spiralling uni debt but they wanted degrees and understood the concept that if you want it you have to pay for it.

5) and loads of free shit
What on earth are you talking about now?! My parents never got anything handed to them. Neither did I.
My dad left school at 15 with no qualifications, worked his arse off in the building trade, got zero support when he got sick in his 50s and lost his job. He paid that 15% interest rate and went without for every damn thing he has.
My mum's parents forced to quit her education after her O-levels because education wasn't valued. She was forced out of work when she was expecting me in the late 70s, she cared for her parents at home until they died in 2000. Tell me, what did she get free? Or that she doesn't deserve what little she has.
I was a teen mum, forced to subsist on welfare because subsidised childcare didn't exist. my youngest attempted suicide after I was forced back to work and she was left home alone. I put myself through 5 1/2 years of uni only to end up living off my mum's pension caring for her full time as a stroke survivor. I am nearly 42 and I haven't even started supporting myself yet. Nor am I ever likely to be able to.
But yeah, sure, all us oldies got handed everything on a plate. Whatever.

6) and voted to remove young people's rights and opportunities
Is this a Brexit comment? I suppose it must be cos it doesn't make any kind of sense.
First up, we never voted into the EU. I thought we voted into the EEC (which was a good idea) but it turns out we joined in 1973, BEFORE the 1975 & 78 referendums (and the youngest person to vote for the EEC would now be 60!). 
The EU came into being in 1993 (although the fate was sealed with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992). This was never a democratic process. And that, for me, is a huge problem. We never voted to give anyone EU "rights and opportunities" so why should we be vilified for voting to leave a situation we the electorate never chose to be a part of? A few alleged perks don't negate the restrictions our nation has suffered.
Freedom of movement has, to a large extent, meant that work hungry migrants (who, I want to make perfectly clear, I have no problem with whatsoever) have been willing to take the jobs so many of our native young people turn their noses up at. I've encountered a fair few barely literate young adults who think that their GCSE grade D in PE entitles them to better than scrubbing toilets for minimum wage. What is it about our society that results in such a shoddy work ethic?!
As most young British people are working in the UK I'm not clear what Brexit is supposedly doing to harm them. People travelled / worked / studied abroad before this, they still do and always will. Not to mention, a lot of people travel / work / study OUTSIDE the EU.
Young people HAVE rights, and opportunities - loads of which are unconnected to the EU. Given the fact that Brexit is the ONLY example of direct democracy in recent British history you could only ever blame GOVERNMENTS, not an electorate, for any other perceived slights to the youth of today... and neither the gov't nor the electorate is all Boomers anyway so you still can't blame a specific demographic! 

7) and burnt up the planet so young people today are screwed
The industrial revolution is where today's environmental woes began and given that dates back to 1820-1840 no fucking way are you blaming that on people born over a century later. 
It was far older generations than mine who were responsible for Bhopal and Chernobyl, my generation has suffered for the actions of previous generations; the kids who died at Aberfan from the coal board's greed would have been Boomers; the smogs of my parents' youth were the fall-out from their great-grandparents. The young people of the past were screwed over too.
But contrary to popular bullshittery we didn't just sit there and take it - the activism of previous generations is WHY there's a growing vegan movement, why there are renewable energies to invest in and electric cars to buy... It was Boomers who were protesting at Greenham Common, Silent Gen behind CND, both for Greenpeace... The oldies were trying to save the bloody planet before the disillusioned youth were conceived! 
Environmental activism isn't a 21st century phenomenon and nor is it mid 20th century people's fault it's not fixed.

But here's what for me at least is the kicker:
The man who tweeted this is actor / comedian / director David Schneider who, according to Wikipedia, was born May 22nd, 1963. Making him a Boomer like the people he's so harshly criticising. He doesn't even seem to have any kids whose futures he is worried for.
He apparently went to an independent boys school and then uni all the way up to doctorate studies. He is exactly the privileged generation he bitches about on social media. Maybe this is his definition of comedy?! I for one am intensely annoyed by incredibly privileged people like this guy spouting outrage about the conditions of a working class they have never been part of.

Further Ranting About A Twitter Rant

Today I got blocked on Twitter by some dumb c*** who accused me of defending Jimmy Savile. NOT what I was doing. I was defending, as usual, the principles of due process and 'innocent until proven guilty' - pointing out that there can't be a case against Savile because he is dead as the dead cannot present a defence.

More to the point, the row started because of nasty allegations calling Prince Andrew a proven sex offender.
1. He had an acquaintanceship with a man who was later convicted of sexual offences - which is not a crime
2. He has since also been accused - which does not make him guilty
3. He has not even yet been questioned

I have tweeted at length about this too.
An ordinary person will spend time with hundreds of people in a lifetime, a person in Prince Andrew's role will encounter thousands. If you think you KNOW the people around you, you're an idiot. Every rapist, murderer, child molester, whatever was someone's relative, friend, co-worker. If you think that "they must have known" you have got to be crazy.
I've lived a fairly sheltered life - I have spent years stuck at home as a full-time mum and now as a carer. When I have worked it has never been with lots and lots of people. But can I say I have never associated with a person who has groped, molested or raped? Of course I can't! I knew fairly little about most people I worked with. I didn't know if they were married or had kids or spent their weekends in babygros and adult diapers.
I've never done well with friendships but the few people I would count as true friends I know only a little better. I am aware I know what each person CHOOSES to present to me, that I only see the tip of the iceberg about another person's personality.
As for relationships I've done even worse but the fact I ended up as a single mother, twice over, is pretty indicative that you can be fully intimate with someone and still not know them.
There are allegations that Prince Andrew has failed to co-operate with the FBI...there are also counter claims that the FBI has not attempted to contact him. Either way, his co-operation is entirely voluntary at this point. Who knows where the truth lies?
Meanwhile, it's hard for the US to take the high ground after refusing to extradite Anne Sacoolas, wanted in connection with the death by dangerous driving of 19 year old Harry Dunn. Nations have a tendency to protect their own - just the way things are. Briton's expect the nation to come to their aid when they're jailed abroad or whatever - and I've tweeted at length about how dumb I think that is too.

The fact that Prince Andrew knew someone who turned out to be a sex offender is, imho, not particularly meaningful. You honestly expect any of the royal family to know everything about everyone they know?! That's not even a thing that regular people with far smaller circles of acquaintance can be expected to know.
As yet there's no proof he knew of any wrongdoing or committed any crimes himself, only allegations - hence my arguing for due process. The other tweeter brought Savile into it and I pointed out that the two cases are entirely unalike as Savile is dead and there can be no case brought against him...and that is where it all started - with the assertion that a complaint filed does not equal proof of guilt "that's what courts are for, not social media" - mind you, you can't argue with the type of idiot who actually believes 'there's no smoke without fire' (probably thinks they sank a real ship for the film Titanic an' all...)

My tweets on this read as follows (copied & pasted direct):

• I'm blocking you for defending witch-hunt and thinking due process is an optional extra. Moron.
• I have no sympathy for Savile but we have a legal process for a damn good reason. THAT is what I am defending.
• If YOU would expect a fair trial, a weight on evidence rather than hearsay, DEMAND that principle is applied for others
• Every person who supports trial by media deserves (IMHO) to be accused of heinous crimes they didn't commit.
• I think my abhorrence of this comes of being bullied at school. Especially by teachers whose word was law.
• My daughter too got punished for being in fights... as the victim of a persistent bullying campaign.
• [This tweet is edited as it involves an allegation of child sexual abuse as told to me but turned out to be false] I reported it, as you do. Police got back to me: Kid didn't have a stepfather. Kid had a history of not knowing fact from fiction, and a psychiatrist.
• I blocked the kid. But I know others who believed them.

"In the year to the end of March 2017, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated:

• 20% of women and 4% of men have experienced some type of sexual assault since the age of 16, equivalent to 3.4 million female and 631,000 male victims
• 3.1% of women (510,000) and 0.8% of men (138,000) aged 16 to 59 had experienced a sexual assault in the last year."

(Source: https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/statistics-sexual-violence/)

So if one in five WOMEN will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime how likely do you think it is that those acts were perpetrated by just a handful of 'monsters' you personally will never encounter? I'm not going to go so far as to suggest each victim has a separate assailant but we're still not talking about a small group of serial rapist and gropers. We're talking about a significant number of people here - do you even know which of the women you know have been sexually assaulted? Do you even think they would share with you? An awful lot of people never tell their nearest and dearest such things. If you don't know the victims in your life how do you expect to know the perps? Do you think they're easily spotted by their sinister moustaches and black hats or what?!

I am an exceedingly opinionated potato and I believe a lot of things about a lot of people, usually based on little more than intuition. I try to be careful about how I express those opinions, if I even do.

I don't even have much faith in due process. But it's the best we have - we all deserve a fair hearing and assuming someone's guilt based on social media bullshit and the tabloid press is just DUMB.

White-privilege or targeting the vulnerable, regardless?

I've seen a lot of commentary about the racism at play in the press regarding Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and this article in particular emphasises the crap she's had to deal with, comparing headlines about her with virtually identical instances featuring Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal?utm_source=dynamic&bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc
This pair of headlines from the Daily Mail sums it up rather well as they're by the same writer, only weeks apart:
"How Kate went from drab to fab! From eyebrows and pilates to a new style guru, our experts reveal the Duchess of Cambridge's secrets to looking sizzling" - Sarah Vine 14 Jun 2019
"My memo to Meghan Markle following her Vogue editorial - we Brits prefer true royalty to fashion royalty" - Sarah Vine 29 Jul 2019
If you don't want to click the link other examples include: 
Praising Catherine's simple and elegant choice of wedding flowers (inc Lily Of The Valley) to claiming Meghan put her bridesmaids lives at risk...for using Lily Of The Valley. 
Saying simply that William and Catherine would be spending Christmas with the Middletons in 2016, pointing out that they also had in 2011 - the first year they were married; but accusing Meghan and Harry of snubbing the Queen when they chose to spend Christmas with her mother in 2019 - the first year with their son. 
Positive coverage of Prince Louis' Christening (which the Queen did not attend) and criticising the Sussexes planning because the Queen was unavailable when they'd scheduled Archie's Christening.
Note: these examples are all tabloid press - The Sun, The Express, The Daily Mail and so on.

That stories are handled differently whether they are about Catherine (with or without William) or Meghan (with or without Harry) is pretty clear.
It is also worth noting that the press is pretty disrespectful of BOTH Duchesses - Catherine is repeatedly called Kate although she is supposed to be styled Catherine. Both are repeatedly called by their maiden names of Middleton and Markle despite being married with children - although many women choose to keep their name after marriage it is traditionally a great insult because it strips a woman of her married, and in this case Royal, status and implies illegitimacy of her children!

The question is: 
Is the press prejudice against Meghan RACIST?

Whilst quite probably there are racist motivations for the press' shitty attitude toward the Duchess it's a problematic assumption to make as nothing provably racist has been indicated; although certainly the public comments on these various stories can be overt.
I understand, to an extent, the accusation of white-privilege - that because I am white and see no racism in the press' words doesn't mean it's not there. However, the reverse also holds true - it is possible to be black (or indeed any ethnicity) and see racism which is not there. [Edit: claiming racism purely on the basis of Meghan's skin colour is itself an unfounded racial bias]

Back in the dark ages of my youth the press was being shitty to Diana, Princess of Wales (the former Diana Spencer) and Sarah, Duchess of York (the former Sarah Fergusson). The spouses of Anne and Edward largely seem to escape such attention - possibly a throwback to the idea of an heir (Charles) and a spare (Andrew), which would apply to William and Harry also.
Both of them were white but the press had a whale of a time hurling abuse at the both of them. It's easy to remember the hell they put Diana through as she died as her car attempted to out-race paparazzi but Sarah's marriage was destroyed and press attention / intrusion caused her a great deal of harm as well. I have decided to include their examples in this blog in the hope it might create a slightly better basis for comparison.

Is this 'simply' a matter of the press, limited in the shit they can throw at the royal family themselves feeling justified in targeting the 'outsiders'? In which case, why has Catherine been virtually left alone? Perhaps they decided to give her a pass because she is mother to the heir to the throne?
Certainly a lot has changed in the decades since Diana's death but the press are still happy to target Meghan - why?

If an argument is to be made that this is racism in action we'd need to exclude other factors which could cause prejudice.

First, nationality.

• Diana, British
• Sarah, British
• Catherine, British
• Meghan, American

Meghan is certainly different in this regard. Anti-American sentiment isn't usually a thing in Britain but then the last time and American got close to a Prince it almost brought down the whole monarchy. I don't really credit this theory but it can't be ignored as a factor in making Meghan an 'outsider' and a target for negative press attention.
Prince Philip similarly started out deeply unpopular because he was Greek and whether that xenophobic streak is still relevant it's hard to say. Prince Harry's former girlfriend Chelsy Davy is Zimbabwean but their relationship never reached the point where she was targeted by the press - whether she would have been welcomed (as a white woman) or vilified as a foreigner cannot be known.

Secondly, pre-marital styles and social class.

• Diana was the Honourable Diana Frances Spencer - daughter of the 8th Earl Spencer. Parents divorced 1969. Both parents remarried and her stepmother was the only child of romantic novelist Dame Barbara Cartland.
• Sarah was Miss Sarah Margaret Fergusson - daughter of Major Ronald Fergusson. Parents divorced 1974. Both parents remarried - her stepfather was Argentinian.
• Catherine was Miss Catherine Elizabeth Middleton - daughter of Michael and Elizabeth Middleton who are described as 'upper middle class' and remain married.
• Meghan was Miss Rachel Meghan Markle - daughter of Thomas Markle Sr and Doria Ragland who divorced in 1987. Neither parent has remarried.

All four are considered 'commoners' but all commoners are not created equal - Diana's father was an Earl, Sarah's was a Major. With three of them come from broken homes it seems unlikely to be a factor.
Public opinion seemed clear at the time of the wedding that sympathy was strongly with Doria - who had largely raised Meghan as a single mother (Diana and Sarah's mothers both having new partners to support them) - and against Thomas - whose heart attack ahead of the wedding meant he could not attend seemed suspiciously unverified and curiously timed as his attendance had already had doubt cast upon it. Doria has handled herself well, as has her extended family. In contrast Thomas has courted media attention, as has Meghan's half sister Samantha Markle and, to a lesser extent, her half brother Thomas Markle Jr.
Personally I find it curious that Mr Markle has been given a platform at all. Nothing I have seen from him has been in any way 'in the public interest'. Is his voice being heard because he is white? I don't think so, personally. I think he's being heard because it makes it easier for the press to legitimise Meghan as a target - a royal target they haven't had since Diana's death. I can't think of any example of a royal bride being undermined by her own family in such a way. Even Diana's dysfunctional relationship with her stepmother never sunk to such depths.

Thirdly, pre-marital life.

• Diana, age at marriage: 20, occupation: kindergarten assistant, status: single.
• Sarah, age at marriage: 25, occupation: worked various jobs which are not clearly documented, status: single
• Catherine, age at marriage: 29, occupation: worked in her family's business doing 'catalogue design & production, marketing and photography', status: single.
• Meghan, age at marriage: 36, occupation: actress, status: divorced.

Again there is a bit of variety here but three distinct factors stand out - Meghan was the oldest royal bride by nearly a decade although I have no idea why that might make any difference; she was previously in the 'disreputable' business of being an actress*; she was divorced - bringing to the fore the comparison to Wallis Simpson again.

* Although unlikely to be considered nowadays actresses were historically associated with prostitution and a career in which deception is kind of the point led to even more successful actresses being outcast from polite society. it is worth noting that whilst Meghan's acting skills have been unkindly critiqued she's also dismissed as a 'consummate actress' any time she shows emotion.

Whether any of these factors in any way explains the press vilification of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, it seems clear to me that there are multiple potential reasons why she has been singled out as a particular target, none of which can be definitely excluded.

• American (xenophobia, comparison to Wallis Simpson)
• Raised by a single mother (classism, the tabloids have long enjoyed slagging off single mothers)
• Undermined by her father and step-siblings (family collusion in targeting her)
• Older bride (ageism, although unlikely relevance)
• Former actress (classism)
• Divorcee (possible classism? Comparison to Wallis Simpson)
• Mixed race (racism, colourism) 

What is also clear is that Meghan herself has done nothing whatsoever to warrant such vile and unreasonable treatment.
I have every sympathy for the couple and support their decision to step back from the front line.
Whilst I fully support the Queen sharing out the workload, Charles has expressed the desire for a slimmed-down monarchy. The royal family are damned if they aren't seen to be doing enough to 'earn their keep' and damned if they want to live their own lives it seems.

On Ethical Veganism as a Protected Philosophical Belief

On January 3rd 2020 a UK court decided Ethical Veganism can qualify as a philosophical belief protected under law https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

Jordi Casamitjana believes he was sacked for being vegan; his former employer cites gross misconduct. Before the case could be heard the status of veganism as a belief system had to be established. 

Some people are purely dietary vegans - they don't eat animal products for health reasons for example - but most are, to some extent, ethical vegans - they don't eat animal products because they believe it is wrong to do so, and avoid animal products in all aspects of their life. To even the more relaxed of ethical vegans it is blinkin' obvious that veganism is a philosophy to live by, not a 'diet' or a 'fad' or a 'cult' http://theconversation.com/veganism-has-always-been-more-about-living-an-ethical-life-than-just-avoiding-meat-and-dairy-129307

Short version:

What makes YOUR belief more important than MINE?! Basically, that mindset is the entire problem with religion.

Full-length version:

Each human being lives their life by some sort of moral code, even the seemingly immoral will (usually) hold some kind of belief that they are entitled to live as they do. For many, the moral code is rooted in religion - even those whose code is founded on the laws of the land and the social norms of their era can trace those fundamentals back to religious doctrine.

I have seen a bunch of deeply unpleasant comments about this but the remarks here, by people who've declared themselves to be deeply spiritual or allied to a certain faith particularly appal me (https://www.themonastery.org/blog/veganism-ruled-protected-class-in-uk-comparable-to-religious-belief?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Agriculture+Shock&utm_campaign=January+8%2C++2020) 

The comment from Annie Macleod begins:

I have no problem with some vegans considering themselves 'ethical vegans'

and having it recognized as a religion.

That is, as long as they don't try to impose their religion on anyone else,

just as Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam etc

should not try to impose their beliefs on others.

Right, let me nit-pick this a moment... All faiths impose their beliefs on others. Religions are, at their core, a set of rules by which to live and why most societies have or had a religion as their foundation. By setting laws we impose one set of core values on others.

Most religions also seek new members - from Sunday schools and Boy Scouts, to evangelism and propaganda - various methods are used to bring in new people. In this way a belief system maintains its hold on a society.

And most of us accept this fairly willingly. This blog will focus on 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - whether we adhere to a faith or not, most people will accept that killing another is fundamentally wrong. We impose this belief on others. Sometimes we might hold a particular view on abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment or war that is at odds with someone else's interpretation of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - and we will argue our point, often heatedly, regardless of which side of the line we stand. This is an important issue most take exceedingly seriously. Our respect for the right of others to hold their own belief is sorely tried.

One key point of Veganism is that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' applies to all life, not just humans. Vegans often term this mindset as 'speciesism' and liken it to past times where Christians saw infidels or whites saw blacks or men saw women as 'other' - not entitled to the same rights and privileges. Vegans see all sentient life as fundamentally equal; Vegans see this as no different to telling you not to kill and eat your neighbour. The difference is most people don't even consider eating their neighbour if it's a human...if it's a cow, on the other hand...

Carnists (people who believe it is their right or even obligation to eat animals) often say 'you live by your principles, I'll live by mine' and this 'live and let live' argument is really galling to Vegans. The point is that YOU can live AND let ANIMALS live too.

This one from Daniel Grey is hilariously stupid:

Lolol what a bunch of hogwash! Being vegan is now like a religion in England? 

Are they mad? There is no such thing as a Vegan or Vegetarian and never will be.

It's a medical fact that the area around your face sheds dead skin cells

when you sleep. Now these cells get on your pillow and blankets

and when you move they get stirred up. And you still have to breathe as such you ARE breathing in dead skin cells,

which are considered meat; and your body is digesting them.

So unless you sleep with a vacuum over your face to suck up the skin cells,

then you DO eat meat no matter if you want to acknowledge it or not.

Jeez, dude - how DUMB are you? Who, exactly, considers naturally shed skin cells as 'meat'?! Meat is defined as the flesh of animals, flesh is defined as a soft substance consisting of muscle and fat...not as its individual constituent cells! Whatevz. If you are so stupid as to believe that inhaling your own dead skin cells is equivalent to a cheeseburger then you deserve to be killed and eaten by a peckish neighbour.

A vegan mother might well devour her placenta after giving birth as a means to ward off post-natal depression. This is 'flesh' but no animal has died / been killed to provide it. This is effectively eating your own flesh and has no ethical problem tied to it. In the same way, breastfeeding is vegan because it is your milk to do with as you wish (including wet-nursing / milk donation) but a cow's milk is not yours to take. The whole problem with meat-eating is the taking of a life, the causing of pain & suffering to assuage your own desires.

Some Vegans will even eat meat if it is naturally occurring roadkill or meat that has been thrown away and will otherwise rot. This is because their interpretation of their moral code is that they are not taking a life (directly or by supporting the industry). And before you start - Jews are protected whether or not they keep kosher, Muslims are protected for wearing hijabs despite it being a cultural and not a religious requirement - faith is protected regardless of the individual's interpretation of their faith.

Honestly though, this guy's opinion gets on my tits - how can you possibly suppose that a moral argument against killing something to eat its corpse can ever be nullified by inhaling dead skin cells?! Ludicrous! Just as a vegan is no less vegan if there's a fly in their soup - no one killed that fly, its presence is a tragic accident. The choices and deliberate actions we make are what matter.

You might imagine that religious people would be the most understanding of the rights of others to have their belief systems protected but is seems this is not the case. Many wars have been fought on a 'my-religion-is-better-than-yours' principle but bashing on veganism?! Given that many faiths have dietary restrictions in their texts it seems a bit cheeky to say the very least.

People seem very insulted by the idea of veganism having the same status as a religion...and very much unable to differentiate between faith and philosophy!

Veganism is not a religion, it has pretty much one rule which is virtually the same as the medical profession's 'first do no harm', it does not require you to pray or to build special places to worship vegetables, it is never going to encourage you to go to war with anyone, it doesn't tell you who you can or can't marry...in fact, it doesn't impact how you live your life at all beyond not harming animals to do so.

Jordi Casamitjana, by the sounds of it, is a bit of an extreme vegan - apparently he won't use buses in case bugs die on the windshield. Most vegans use public transport, drive, live perfectly ordinary lives virtually indistinguishable from anyone else's...they choose not to eat meat, dairy and a host of other animal products; they choose not to use wool, silk and leather; they choose kindness over convenience.

Yet people call Veganism a cult because their precious cheeseburgers are threatened?! And the endless asking of "but what about bacon?" like strips of salted smoked pig flesh are godly. Honestly, y'all will believe in some supreme, omnipotent yet curiously absent deity but not that animals have feelings.

People are too damn weird.