Valentine's Day = Violence Day

Here are three amazingly unfunny jokes which I noticed when reading a misogynist forum that I visit (for practical info) occasionally. It never fails to let me down. There is always, but absolutely always, some crass 'joke' about women that has all the men laughing in the aisles. Reading things like this - under the heading of Valentine's Gifts - just leave me wondering why radical feminism is not the norm. 1 I got my wife a new bag and new belt... Can't understand why she's moaning, at least the hoover works now! 2 Got mine leather goods.........A boot in the ar5e and a belt in the mooth!! 3 Bought mine a lovely high backed chair..... miserable cow wont plug it in though. Woman as 1) Unpaid domestic slave 2) Someone to assault and physically abuse 3) Someone to kill None of them are funny. Women are not here to clean up after lazy idle men. They are not free cleaners. But that's the least of the offensive jokes. The other two are truly repugnant. Making jokes about violence against women, to the extent of killing them is not remotely witty, amusing, or clever. Just sick, sad, and indicative of some very screwed-up thinking that goes on inside what purports to be brains inside some mens' heads.

Radical feminism?

Once upon a time, there was a radical feminist forum. It was interesting and lively, with lots of thoughtful and stimulating discussion. So I joined.

As with all forums, there were also arguments. And cliques. And moderation. Some of which seemed fair, some of which didn't. Nothing unusual there.

But there was obviously something deeper running. A private disagreement - almost a war - between some of the members and the moderators. And then the board owner closed it down.

So on-line radical feminists needed a new home. Or rather new homes, because a number of new forums started up. One of them was an interim forum, where those of us who were keen to start up a new one discussed what we wanted to see. It was good to take part in the discussions and develop a shared vision.

After a while, it became fairly clear that people wanted to see a democratic community that was in keeping with the principles of radical feminism. No autocratic dictators, or oligarchy. A genuine voice for all the members - elected moderators, an ombudsperson to mediate between members and mods. A hands-off approach. Self-moderation wherever possible in an adult fashion. Voting on new members, and voting on any potential bans. A committee of volunteers to develop policy.

Here are the words at the beginning of one of the new forums, from a keen feminist who was willing to start up some new space (on a domain paid for by her male partner). Rationale: The goal of this website is to offer blamers and other radical feminists a space to discuss, vent, rage, and otherwise consciousness-raise that is relatively safe and absolutely free from the misogyny we face every minute in the "real world." ... I am attempting to manifest my vision of radical feminist leadership.... * decentralized, shared responsibility for leadership and direction * as little hierarchy as possible, leading to flexibility, diversity, multiplicity, and compassion, not just tolerance or acceptance * hands-off moderation on boards hand-in-hand with strong defense of boards against users with ill intent * respect for the independence and intelligence of women * belief in women's good faith and ability to choose for themselves * respect and compassion for the anger, rage, and passion a lifetime in the patriarchy instills in women, feminist or not * radical listening and deep empathy for others, especially women and others oppressed by the patriarchy * a space in which women and radical feminists feel invested, empowered, safe, and free to examine their lives through the lens of feminism without insult

Policy was developed. Rules - a minimum - were established. Volunteers for mods signed up, as did volunteers for ombudspeople. The volunteers for mods became part of a steering committee with a couple of policy volunteers. They had meetings behind Closed Doors in a Sekrit Room. Where they discussed things like the appearance of another radical feminist forum that appeared to be invitation only. Most of these people had not received an invitation to the other one so were rather unhappy. They talked about members behind their backs. And they discussed the direction of the forum without the participation of the community. After voting took place for moderators - these unelected members retained their place on the Sekrit Committee in the Sekrit Room. And despite a pretty clear instruction on the Volunteers for Ombudsperson thread: ....Volunteers for this position should not already be in the moderator pool... one of the volunteers in the mod pool was also allowed to stand for election as ombudsperson. I'm sure it is coincidence that she happened to be one of the admin's biggest sycophants.

Was something rotten in the state of Denmark at this point? I didn't say anything but waited for the outcome of the ombudsperson elections and jointly won the poll. I agreed to go first. I waited to be allowed into the Sekrit Room complete with the non-elected members. It didn't happen. It seemed to me that if I was to be expected to later mediate in the case of any problems, it would be helpful to at least know the history rather than making an arse of myself going in ill-informed.

One of the mods made a decision that was initially supported by the site administrator, but the admin later retracted her support when the unelected members criticised the mod's actions. Not only that, the mod got a public rebuke and a few members weighed in with their comments too. Unsurprisingly the mod initially quit, although later agreed to serve out her term.

The admin decided that she didn't want to keep sending out the boring weekly newsletter on her own and it should become part of mod duties too. So she dumped that on them. One of them objected. Not allowed to object. It is not up for discussion. It is now one of the moderators' duties.

I made the mistake (by PM to the omnipotent admin) of suggesting the OBP could have been involved when someone asked for their account to be deleted. I also asked why unelected members were having a say behind closed doors in the Sekrit Room - whereas, as an elected representative, I was excluded.

These comments did not go down well. It was pointed out that when I was elected I should have foreseen the way things could go and made suggestions about the role of the OBP. Actually no, I didn't think it was my role to get elected and then determine what I thought I should do. The whole principle of having a democratic community was for the members to say what they wanted - not to elect someone for her to suddenly decide to create an all-powerful role.

I did get admittance to the Sekrit Room. But not for long. Less than two weeks after sending my pm to the admin questioning the remit of my role - I was sacked, along with the two moderators. We didn't even get the courtesy of a pm - it was just announced in public.

So let's go back to those first few principles (the bolding is mine) - * decentralized, shared responsibility for leadership and direction * as little hierarchy as possible, leading to flexibility, diversity, multiplicity, and compassion, not just tolerance or acceptance * respect for the independence and intelligence of women * belief in women's good faith and ability to choose for themselves

Wait. I have missed something. Where does it say outright sacking of elected representatives because they question the way things are going? It doesn't. But that doesn't matter. Because this board belongs to one person. And it is run by her, and only her. Way to go sweetheart. Way to go reinforcing the patriarchy lock, stock, and barrel. Given that this woman is not much older than half my age, and so are many of the members who support her autocratic style, it doesn't give me a lot of hope for the younger generation of radical feminists who want to spout idealistic tosh while remaining safely enclosed in a patriarchal hierarchical microcosm of society.

Radical feminism isn't about getting a few equal opportunity measures passed. Or playing at something that is fun and exciting while you are at university. Radical feminism is about dismantling current societal structures and changing them. Radically. Otherwise it wouldn't be called radical.

Fortunately, I do know other younger women, who do not just lie down and take this garbage and do what they are told. While I might have stopped posting on the supposedly radical feminist forum, others haven't. Doesn't do them any good though. One woman was moderated for daring to disagree with the majority viewpoint. She wasn't happy with this and asked if she could appeal against the moderation. NB don't forget there aren't actually any moderators since the sackings four months ago, so the admin is jury, judge and executioner.

Here was the response she got.... It's not up for debate. The complaints of the other member are well justified and more than evident in the ..... thread. If it comes to it, the third strike is when you'll be able to lay out your case and challenge the claims against you. Until we reach that point, if we do, just consider this yet another warning to watch your tone and your attitude while posting. Thanks.

So this is what it has come to. In just over six months, a vision of a shared online radical feminist community is run by an autocratic dictator where any dissent is quashed. Actually it didn't take six months, it only took three - when we were all sacked unceremoniously.

And what is the worst thing? Nobody notices, or if they do, they don't care. Let's overthrow the patriarchy and re-install the same system. Why does this make me think of Animal Farm?

ETA: For a much shorter and pithier perspective on the same issue - check out WhyI'mBitter's Weblog

Where are the women....... (2)

Thanks to one of my American internet friends who alerted me to Obama's reversal of the so-called Mexico City Policy - or the Global Gag Rule. This, for anyone who didn't know (like me), was a particularly insidious piece of legislation first introduced in 1984 by Ronald Reagan, repealed by Bill Clinton in 1993, and re-instated by George Bush in 2001. So what is this hot potato? Abortion of course. The one where men get to say what women can do with their bodies. The policy banned non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from performing abortions or providing abortion counselling if they wanted to receive American state funds. So - good that Obama has reversed this misogynistic policy? Yes. And in Obama's words; ".....it is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development." Just a minute. Promote economic development?? In the words of my internet friend: "Instead of 'It is right for us to rescind this policy because women are human beings who are entitled to personal sovereignty.' "And, it can't just be for women, nooo. It has to have global economic benefits too I suppose. "Not impressed." Thanks Ph, for alerting me to it and for your comments. I'm not impressed either. I'm losing track of the number of women in Obama's cabinet - and other high level positions. Every time I look it seems to be a different number, someone has dropped out or hasn't been confirmed. There still aren't enough though. But on my travels I found this: "Hilda Solis Labor secretary This 51-year-old former California congresswoman, who is Hispanic, is comfortable with car issues -- her husband owns an auto repair center. " - Courtesy of The Detroit News - Now, in case anyone wonders why I do not like this comment - it is patronising, patriarchal, and quite frankly, vomit-inducing. I am not interested in what Ms Solis' husband does. It is of no relevance whatsoever to her political skills, ability and intelligence. Even though I am not American, I do understand there is a connection between Detroit and cars. And as a journalist I also understand the need to add some local relevance. But that is just tosh. However it seems Ms Solis has managed to achieve something in her own right: "In the California Assembly, she fought to raise the state's minimum wage in 1996 and focused attention on sweatshops." Great. So why not put that first? Who. Gives. A. Fuck. about what her husband does? Deb Price - either your reporting sucks, or your sub-editors suck. Someone does. And as a minor point, either give the ages for everyone - or not at all. How inconsistent. Anyway, I am just looking forward to reading about how all the really important men in the world are capable of doing their job because of their wife's career. Ha!

Where are the women - in American politics?

I've read lots of enthusiasm and warmth and excitedness about the inauguration of Barack Obama as the new president of America. (Some) People are genuinely relieved to see the end of the Bush regime, and hope that this new Democrat government will herald a new start. I hope so too. But on the down side.... Firstly. I remember similar - almost euphoric - feelings when Tony Blair and the Labour Party won the election in the UK in 1997. I remember the results because I was on holiday in Portugal - and we saw coverage on a television in a bar in Estoi in the Algarve. (Very nice place by the way, some fine Roman ruins there, and a palace that we couldn't visit). When I got back to work, I discussed the election with colleagues, many of whom were excited in the same way much of America is right now. Some years later, that excitement and enthusiasm had turned into such disillusionment. I hope that America, a few years down the road, doesn't share that same sense of disappointment. And secondly. I first read about Barack Obama a few years ago, and the article was touting him as a potential candidate for the presidency, and I thought it would be interesting to see if he eventually went for it. He did. Just at the time that Hillary Clinton went for it too. The truth is that I don't follow American politics closely enough to have analysed their different approaches, views, values and opinions. I did notice though that Clinton's campaign was accompanied by not just sexist comments but blatant misogyny. Something that she has had to endure since being First Lady, (a ghastly title that irritates the hell out of me) but that doesn't make it any better. And I'm sorry that she didn't get the nomination. I'm equally sorry to see that she is still attracting vitriol because she has been offered a decent position in Obama's government. When do men ever have to suffer endless criticism about their hair, their make-up, their clothes, the way they talk and laugh? Oh, silly me, they are not decorative objects are they? They are intelligent thinking beings. They don't have to make sure they are coming across as a loving parent, endlessly espousing family values, and looking pretty, instead of concentrating on affairs of national and international importance. And what about Michelle Obama? Another intelligent woman who has already had to start toning down her ironic sense of humour and concentrate more on family stuff, and all the 'softer' issues that befit a woman. I can't read anything about the inauguration without reading about what she wore. Who the hell cares? Well, America, I hope you get a female president soon. And preferably a democrat. I'm sorry you didn't give yourselves the opportunity to vote for one this time round. Maybe democrats just aren't as open-minded as they like to think. In spite of nominating an Afro-American - that sends a message of 'Look how progressive we are, there is no discrimination in America.' Because of course, discrimination is always about race, or maybe disability - but never men v women. It may yet be the republicans who nominate a woman for president. Just like the UK, where the Conservatives were the first to elect a woman leader who carried on to become the first British woman prime minister. Maybe too many Americans have the same view as my sexist father had many years ago. "Better to have a bad male prime minister than a good woman prime minister." Funny how he grudgingly ended up admiring Margaret Thatcher and considered her to be one of the best prime ministers in the UK in his lifetime. Hey America! Maybe you should give women a chance. They may surprise you. They may have brains, intelligence, diplomacy, and gosh - they may be able to leave alone their lipstick for at least five minutes and concentrate on Significant Issues. Oh, and another thing. Just had a looky at your cabinet Obama. It doesn't look too representative of women. Are you aware of how many of your population are women? You aren't reflecting it. Arse. Elitist arse, in fact. Shame you didn't follow the example of Zapatero in Spain. Who insisted on half his cabinet being women when he was first elected. What are you doing Obama? Five out of fifteen? Just keep reinforcing the patriarchy sweetheart. You're doing well.

Take it or leave it

One of the best parts of my MBA was a module called Creative Management. There was a nice introspective self-indulgent section that looked at your personal style, your management style, your role within teams, and where you fit in the Kirton Adaptor Innovator Theory (which I highly recommend). But one of the simplest things that has always stayed with me was a section on problem solving. I would listen to the cassette (this was some years ago) in the car, with the soothing voice telling me there were four ways to deal with a situation: Accept the situation Change the situation Change yourself Leave the situation I thought this was a neat way to look at lots of situations - not just work. In essence though, choices invariably boiled down to the first one and the last one. Take it or leave it really. One of my former internet friends used to say if he left a forum he would just go without any fanfare. We laughed at the number of people we saw who gave a valedictory speech, citing their grievances - never to come back - yet who returned a couple of weeks later. I've left a fair few forums - or rather, I've stopped reading/commenting when there is no longer any added value from visiting them. I've always found it - relatively - easy to leave a situation. And for me, it's really been my only choice. I'm not very good at accepting something I'm not happy with. To be able to change a situation, we need to be in a position of some power and influence, which in a lot of cases simply doesn't apply. And as for changing ourselves? Not easy. Last year however, as part of the admin team on an internet site, some of us actually did try and change the way it was working. Or rather, it didn't seem to be following the aims and principles that had been set out initially. For our pains we were all sacked by the site owner. Today I wrote a carefully worded letter of resignation to another internet site where I am part of the team. I've enjoyed my time on the site, there's been no grief, and I've always been thanked for my time and my effort. But when you don't agree with the way things are going - whether at work, in your personal life, or on the internet - it's time to get out. I guess I've always been lucky enough to have the option of walking. Either literally or virtually. And maybe I've been determined to leave. Time to move on. I like to think there's no going back.

Online gaming - and those all-American values

Well, I knew stuff all about gaming companies as I'm not the world's biggest gambler.

My experience of gambling/gaming has been:

1. Paying £1 a week into a lottery syndicate at work - it was more of an insurance policy than anything else - I would have hated to have missed out on the win, and see my colleagues resign and leave me glued to my desk for ever and a day....
2. Playing poker or gin/seven card rummy or dominoes with Partner for money - we sit down with a bag of silver threepences, share them out, and when we have finished playing, they all go back in the bag.
3. I did play dominoes for a wager a few years ago. Me, Partner and his at-the-time arsey Spanish mate. We agreed the loser would buy the next round. I won. He (ie ASP) bought the drinks. Ha!

Anyway onto some comments about gaming after I wrote last month about a favourable court decision for Gibraltar regarding autonomous tax laws.

This was basically where Gibraltar and the UK successfully fought an EU decision saying that Gib could not set its own tax regime, and would have significantly affected investment in Gibraltar had the decision been upheld. We enjoyed an extra bank holiday on Monday to celebrate this.

So, I decided to look up some stuff about gaming. Let's start with PartyGaming. According to Wiki, it is best known for its online poker room - PartyPoker.com. And prior to the passage of anti-online gambling legislation by the US Congress, PartyGaming was the world's biggest online poker brand.

Ooops - almost forgot to add, it is headquartered in Gibraltar. Founded in 1997, PartyGaming went public on the London Stock Exchange in 2005. In that year it made it into the FTSE 100 and profits before tax were $325 million. A success story. Nice. The fly in the ointment?

On September 29, 2006, the US Congress passed the Safe Port Act. Passed incidentally, at midnight, the day Congress adjourned for the 2006 elections. What, might anyone with half a brain ask, has online gambling got to do with anti-terrorist legislation? Well according to Wiki - there is no relationship. "Unrelated anti-gambling language" was added to the act, and it is called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

After that, PartyGaming (and others) then suspended offering real-money games to US players. Free games and non-US players were not affected. PartyGaming's publicly traded stock dropped almost 60% in 24 hours. The company was moved from the FTSE 100 to the FTSE 250 Index. Back to the Safe Port Act. What does the US web site say about it? "To improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes."

Really? That is just so relevant to online gambling. Full text of the gambling amendment here. And here is some more insight into this bizarre legislation. Apparently I can't reproduce from that site so I can't quote the par that says the Safe Port Act is an absurdity that attempted to placate the religious right element of the Republican Party....etc etc. It's short though and worth a read to get a bit more insight into this odd situation..

Basically the act is not an online gambling ban. But it does ban the transfer of funds by US banks, credit card companies and payment processors between gamblers and online operators. (With, for some reason, the exception of fantasy sports, online lotteries, and horse racing).

This story of gaming + poker + Gib + America is not complete without mentioning Anurag Dikshit, an Indian-born billionaire who lives in Gibraltar. Mr Dikshit was one of the founding members of PartyGaming, with Ruth Parasol, although he stepped down from the board in 2006.

Before Christmas 2008, he pleaded guilty in a US court to offering illegal gambling services in the United States and agreed to pay $300 million (£192 million) under the terms of his plea bargain. He is due to be sentenced in two years time, December 2010. Source TimesOnline. And from the same source: "Online gambling firms have run into trouble in the US after America made it illegal to gamble on the internet.

In 2006, Washington passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and since then the DoJ under the Bush Administration has taken a hard line with foreign gambling firms. Washington has been accused of caving in to pressure from Las Vegas and of trying to protect America’s substantial horse racing betting businesses." Now why did I think there might be a little tiny bit of self-interest in this legislation? It seems I am not the only one.

So is this act about family values and helping gambling addicts? Haha. Is it fuck. It is about money, American money, and anyone who thinks otherwise probably believed in WMD too. The classic quote to sum it all up comes from Senator Robert Goodlatte, a long-term proponent for banning - foreign - internet gambling. "Virtual betting parlors have attempted to avoid the application of the United States law by locating themselves offshore and out of jurisdictional reach. "These offshore, fly-by-night Internet gambling operators are unlicensed, untaxed, un-regulatable and are sucking billions of dollars out of the United States." That says it all doesn't it? If it ain't taxed, licensed and regulated by the good old US of A, it's illegal. Such arrogance.

But - the ones based in Gibraltar may be offshore - but they are neither unlicensed, untaxed, and un-regulatable. From the Gibraltar government website: Internet Gaming REMOTE GAMBLING FROM GIBRALTAR All gaming operations in Gibraltar require licensing under the Gambling Act 2005. The Licensing Authority will only consider licensing blue chip companies with a proven track record in gaming, licensed in a reputable jurisdiction, of good financial standing and with a realistic business plan. Licences are generally difficult to obtain. As at 1st September 2008 there were twenty licensed operators... But offshore companies may well be - or rather have been - sucking billions of dollars out of the US.

And do I care? No. And clearly neither did US online gamblers. Ah America. The land of the free. Probition. Protectionism. Advocate of entrepreneurial success, the free market economy, and globalisation until it comes down to other countries sucking up your bucks. Still, no doubt when you have raked in the dollars by prosecuting the likes of Mr Dikshit and others, I am sure you will be putting the money into your sparkling health service to help gambling addicts and their families.

Because rather than messing around prosecuting offshore companies that are running legal, regulated, and taxable businesses, I suggest you look to your health service. The stories I have read on the internet about American health care are beyond belief. In fact, they would drive one to gamble just to fund the insurance premiums. And if anyone is naive enough to believe that Barack Obama will reverse the legislation, you are making the wrong bet. What government ever reverses legislation when it has been of financial benefit to the country? To end - here is a link to a great YouTube vid looking at online gambling, morals, and .... money.

Sources - among others - Times Online, Washington Post, Gibraltar Government, various gaming sites, various right-wing family values hypocritical American sites. See, I don't have to be neutral on my blog, but at least I do read the stuff I disagree with before I say what hypocritical garbage it is.

What I like...

...or maybe don't like - about men - is their complete lack of sensitivity and total inability to get the plot. I think that is sufficient. If this means nothing to you, then quite possibly, you are a man.

Once.......

......I had a good internet friend. We 'met' a couple of years ago, and exchanged the odd pm, email, had a few laughs and invariably fell out. But last Christmas/New Year (2007) we were on relatively sociable terms, and exchanged polite and friendly seasonal greetings. For one reason and another, a few months later, we started emailing each other more regularly. He was funny, with a sharp sense of humour, and he made me laugh. He was thoughtful, and honest. Over the weeks, we grew to trust each other, or at least, I trusted him. He was there for me when I wanted to moan, or confide in someone. He had a sensible pragmatic answer if I was fed up. We played internet scrabble, we competed at Sploofus, and we linked on Facebook. But if I was to look for someone who was the total opposite of me, I would never have been as successful in finding someone as this chance internet encounter. Our lives are - and have been - very different. And so are our views, opinions and values. Maybe that was our downfall. We fell out about Sploofus, we fell out over scrabulous, and I've lost count of the number of times he removed me as a friend from Facebook. Plus blocking me so it looked like he no longer existed on there. Sounds childish. It was, but maybe arguing over the silly stuff was instead of arguing over the important differences. I don't know. I'm surprised we stuck it out so long. He was incredibly patient with my temperamental tantrums, and so easy-going. But I didn't like being told 'You're too focused on the whole thing' about some of my views. Perhaps I felt judged, and criticised. Perhaps there wasn't really any common ground at all. Maybe a few laughs wasn't enough. I didn't mind the fact that I wrote more than him (I write lots anyway), but eventually I got sick of him not answering my questions. Or not telling me anything about himself. It began to feel too one-sided. Maybe the downturn started a couple of months ago. I realised I no longer wanted to share anything with him. I could no longer write what I thought to him. My fingers froze over the keyboard and I started erasing countless draft emails. I still don't know what had changed it for me. Was it when he refused to play internet scrab with me any more? Haha! Or just an accumulation of disgreements? We stuck it out for another couple of months, although we hardly wrote much in retrospect. So a new year, and and a new start. I'll miss him. I doubt he'll miss me. He'll shrug his shoulders in a macho sort of way and clear off shooting or geocaching or something. Friends huh??

On friends......

I read this post on Flowerpot's blog. It's friends who are there. When you've been holding it all together and the smallest thing – like stubbing your toe – can release an outpouring of frustration, guilt, loneliness or fear. Or all of those. It's then that I value my friends most. To be able to pick up the phone and say, in wobbly voice, “can I come round?” or “how about meeting for a drink? In five minutes?” And hearing that soothing voice the other end of the phone saying, “Yes of course, I'll be there in five minutes.” And oh, the relief of letting it all spill out. Tears of joy or worry; actually voicing those fears that kept you awake all night and now, when exposed to the open air and a kindly friend, suddenly lose their terror. You find you can accept them; laugh over them perhaps. And you part, later, awash with tea or wine and the best feeling of all. That warm, glowing feeling (no, not the one after sex!) but a quieter, more solid sensation that has its feet on the ground. It is steadying and precious and available to us all to be shared. Years ago,when I moved to Falmouth and bemoaned leaving all my friends behind, my dear friend Av said, “When you share a problem with someone, that's when they become a friend.” It hadn't occurred to me until she said it, and of course how right she is. So in honour of all our friends, and to those especially in need, please pass this post on. Wow. Because I can't think of anyone who I would choose to share any of my problems with. I really don't want to bore them to bits when they probably have their own very different problems and issues to deal with. And that applies to my friends going back years, and my more recent internet friends. So my take on friends is very different. But someone really made my day today. An internet friend who once told me that she didn't distinguish between friends she had met and friends on the internet - to her, we are all her friends. So I duly went to the post office to collect the Christmas present she had sent. It was exactly what I wanted. Something I had mentioned a couple of months ago, and then, it never came up again. What a sweetheart. When there is disappointment and disillusionment in life, to receive such a thoughtful gift - from someone I haven't met - was so lovely. Thanks.

A vegetarian meal

It was the firm's Christmas meal today, and ever-mindful of Partner being vegetarian, the director organising it had requested a vegetarian meal for him.

He'd had breakfast at the appointed venue recently and said it was pretty good, so he had high hopes.

First course was minestrone, and when he asked, he was told it was made with vegetarian stock. So far so good.

The main course, was potatoes (mashed), potatoes (sauteed), and a potato (jacket), carrots and peas. Er, that's it.

Partner likes potatoes but even he was slightly overfaced. It is surely not beyond the creativity of someone working in a kitchen to come up with something a little more inventive than three different types of potatoes and two veg.

For example:
*buy a pot of hummus and serve with salad, raw veg, and pitta bread or even toast
*get a couple of veg samosas from one of the Indian takeaways and add those
*or felafels from a Moroccan shop
*or even a veggie burger from the supermarket
*or stick a few veg on skewers and make veg kebabs
*or as a last resort, that old staple from about 20 years ago or more - an omelette - in the days when the only thing people could think to cook for vegetarians was an omelette.

There must be many more easy examples of cheap fast vegetarian food but these were just the first few off the top of my head. Thanks to the firm for trying, they ordered in plenty of time, so it shouldn't have been that difficult.

But dear me. Why are we still being treated like such second-class citizens?