Socking it to 'em

Who knew that socks were a muse?

It got so late this morning that Hubby decided to risk life and limb by suggesting I swap my PJs for actual clothes, and maybe comb my hair and find some earrings. That didn’t go down well because: a) I was warm and cosy, b) I wasn’t going out so why bother, c) I was busy writing a blog and d) he’s not the boss o’ me. 

Having obviously got out of bed the wrong side himself, he persisted with, “Another bloody blog?” 

Donations in lieu of flowers, please.

I stubbornly stayed how I was until I felt the need for some face-moisturiser, and shuffled upstairs with my third coffee of the day. I grabbed some M&S knickers (I keep the Bridget Jones for nights out), my loose-fitting jeans, my over-sized plaid shirt, and then went to the sock drawer where progress slowed markedly. The first pair that came to hand were covered in sparkly snowflakes. My Bro had bought me them for Christmas. Was it bad luck to wear Christmas socks after twelfth night? Just in case, I put them back and found a black pair that Hubby had bought me for Christmas, but I was wearing blue jeans, and my inner Mary Quant got the better of me so back they went. The third pair seemed ok, in a garish kind of way, shocking pink with orange hedgehogs that Sis had bought me for Christmas. 

Gone are the days when my Christmas pressies comprised silk scarves, sexy undies and manicure sets. I cheered myself with the thought that animal rightists would foam at the mouth at me trampling hedgehogs with my sweaty feet, those same 'rightists' who eschew real dairy products and try to claim the moral high ground, despite alternatives such as almond milk being more damaging to the environment because of water consumption and transport miles.

Then my train of thought shot out of the sidings … What’s the moral difference between hurting/killing fish by pollution and by fly fishing? Has anyone asked fly-fisherman Fearful Sharkface that? Further, why has he thrown his toys out of his pram because Tory election candidates are being briefed about river pollution so that they can contribute meaningfully to discussions and, it has to be said, counter the misinformation that he and his cult spread because it’s easier to wallow in ignorance than do some proper research?

Consider this. When it rains, the sewers fill with extra water from roads and other hard surfaces. In sufficient volumes, the capacity of the sewage treatment plants (STPs) is exceeded and the excess diluted sewage is ‘spilled’ into nearby waterways in preference to having it back-up into people’s homes. These spills are legal. This is how the system was designed to work. Because of new monitors that are being installed, we now know the duration of such spills and where investment should be prioritised.

Despite claims to the contrary, 'dry spills' that occur when it’s not raining heavily are likewise necessary and legal because it can take several days for rainwater to get to the STPs from landfall.

I mentioned above that monitors have been installed to measure the duration of spills, which is a good thing, right? Not on your nelly. It can’t be acknowledged that the water industry does anything right or for the right reasons because that would be on a par with denying climate change. Oh. Wait. I’ve already got that T-shirt because I once suggested we shouldn’t rest on our laurels but instead revisit the science periodically. Now I have another T-shirt, but the way I wear 'em (despite my age), I’d win a wet T-shirt competition.

Investment in these monitors was recorded in the companies' accounts, quite rightly, as an operational not a capital expense. Because Ofwat (industry regulator) limits how much the industry can invest, operational investment increased and capital investment decreased. Of course, the Titterarti ignored the former and complained about the latter. More recently, their complaints have turned to the monitors themselves because they don't record volumes of spills, only duration, and this is tantamount to the eighth deadly sin. Dear Lord! It’s much more difficult and expensive to measure volumes compared to duration, and volumes are no more informative without knowing the concentration of pooh per litre. Measuring duration provides a good indication of where to prioritise resources, without spending squillions more for no extra useful knowledge.

Now consider this. Top industry bosses, especially water, are lambasted for their huge salaries. Footballers, actors and so-called singers – mentioning no names – aren’t. Inconsistent moral grandstanding, n’est-ce pas?

One last thing, before I think of another last thing: plagues of locusts have arrived with news that Ofwat has “weakened language on how water companies manage future sewage pollution”, according to The Times, and swallowed hook, line and stinker by the usual suspects, even though Ofwat explained, “The edits in question are drafting-changes in a supporting annex and do not change or modify any of the commitments or reporting requirements we are introducing.”

In other words, the textual changes don't make a blind bit of difference to the intended outcomes. Was this 'story' therefore worth reporting? No. Was it worth Tweeting? Answers on a postcard ... nay, on a postage stamp.

I'm blogging a lot at the mo because I'm having some much-needed R&R from email and SM (that's Social Media and not you-know-what). I thought I might catch up on important stuff like prepping my PhD, cleaning the car, pruning the roses and plucking my eyebrows, but I just can’t quash my urge to write, challenge falsehoods, and put the record straight. So when I saw that non-story in The Times, I downed another gin, ventured onto Twitter and was compelled to kill not just that story but, as a bonus for y'all, several other sh-t-myths (that's not easy to say without biting your tongue in several places). You wanna come to a different conclusion from mine? That's ok as long as you get there intelligently.

What will I blog about next? I've no idea, but I’m kinda hoping the inspiration doesn’t fall out of my bra drawer.