Those who are regular readers of this blog will know that I'm quite keen on photography. Whether I have any actual talent or not remains to be seen, but nevertheless, I enjoy myself.

But I've always thought what lets me down is my total incompetence when it comes to Photoshop. While I like my photos to be mostly naturalistic, and not distort them beyond recognition, I've always wished I had more than my very, very rudimentary knowledge when it comes to tarting them up a bit.

One effect I think can work really well sometimes is when, in a black and white picture, some part of it is picked out in colour. But before yesterday I had no idea how to do it. Thanks to Col (of Col's Blog fame), and a quick tutorial in Photoshop for Dummies, I have now fully got the hang of this little trick. Woohoo!

Or maybe not .... seeing as I have now become utterly addicted to trawling through pictures I've taken and subjecting them to the Photoshop treatment.

Behold:






If you're interested in the rest, they're over here .

I spent last weekend on a pint-sized break to Bath (I can recommend a FABULOUS hotel, if any of you are planning a trip there), and it was a glorious combination of some of my favourite things - sunshine, good food, relaxation, obsessive photography, lovely scenery, and my young gentleman friend. Who, if you care to check out the weekend's photos in their entirety here , you will notice, spent most of his time doing strange things to fibreglass models of pigs.

In the meantime, here's a wee selection:

Really, I should know better. Yet, I insist on doing this to myself. Occasionally, just to really blow my mind with a bit of jingoistic stupidity, I peruse the website of a certain national newspaper. Specifically, as it’s a topic that interests me, I read stories relating to organ donation, and the proposed switch to an ‘opt out’ system, as opposed to the current ‘opt in’ (in which an individual's consent to donate their organs is presumed, unless they opt out of being a donor).

Despite individual feelings about organ donation (and more on those later), the simple fact is that the system is not working. Supply cannot meet demand, and each year, half of the people on the list for an organ transplant die because their time ran out before they could be saved. On the one hand, the one glimmer of good news is that the shortage of organs is partly due to improvement in road safety, meaning fewer people are dying in road accidents (the most suitable organ donors are people who have died in this way, or have suffered a brain haemorrhage, or similar). But it’s all the more galling when you consider that people in this country, by a whopping majority, are in favour of donating their organs after death.

So, personally, I believe the opt-out system is a good idea. A common whinge from the kind of people I’ll introduce you to later is that organs will be ‘robbed’ from those who have not given their consent, because, for some reason or another, they ‘never got around’ to opting out. Never got around to it? Huh. If I felt that strongly, I’d have made damn sure I opted out the second I was able to.

But back to the articles. Terrible, scaremongering, irresponsible journalism aside (one particular article I read even made mention of Burke and Hare, for Christ’s sake), the true nuggets of hysterical Middle England gold lie in the comments left on the stories by the reading public. Comments which range from the misinformed, to the petulant, to the just plain mind-bogglingly stupid. And try as I might to post my own comments, explaining the flaws in their arguments, and pointing out the actual medical facts, the newspaper, for whatever reason, chooses not to allow a single one of my comments to appear on the website.

So, since I cannot communicate with these people through the newspaper’s website, and since I cannot logistically track them all down and slap them repeatedly until death occurs, I shall merely address their concerns here.

From an article discussing the ‘opt out’ system:

I wouldn't offer my organs for transplant because I wouldn't trust an NHS doctor to properly determine a state of death. I will gladly sign up to the opt out register, especially as it would be contrary to Gordon Brown's wishes. Whichever way Gordon Brown is heading with his ideas, I want to be heading in the opposite direction. Gerald, Southampton

Not that I’ve ever set foot inside a medical school, but I would imagine that a pretty basic area of training is the ability to distinguish a living patient from a dead one. A number of tests must be exhaustively carried out to determine brain death. And as for doing whatever is contrary to Gordon Brown’s wishes, splendid idea, Gerald(!) That’ll really hurt him! Well, him and the people who are on dialysis, or can’t see, or breathe, or are facing imminent heart failure ....

That is what communist countries do make your decisions for you - you don't have any rights. Anne, Calgary, Canada

Anne, love, do me a favour. Go and live in China. Or Darfur. Or Zimbabwe. Then bleat about your precious human rights.

This appalling government have stolen everything from pensions to dignity, education, health care, social respect, the rights of the individual, smoking, etc, surely the only thing left for them to seal is us ! Brian D Dunn, Amersham

You mention health care, Brian. Surely implementing a system where fewer critically ill people die would be a generally positive step for health care? Just a thought....

I am not having my organs ripped out to keep some kebab-hoovering fat pig alive who spent the past ten years getting drunk and fighting in the streets. If you have taken care of your health, you should be given pain medication and left to die. Sorry. Bob Macdonald, London

Yes, some people may require transplants due to not taking adequate care of their health.. But ...‘kebab-hoovering fat pig who has spent the past ten years getting drunk and fighting in the streets’? Hear that, babies born with holes in their hearts? Kidney patients? Cystic fibrosis sufferers? Blind people? If you’d only put down the kebab, you’d have a long and happy life in front of you! It’ll certainly be an interesting day in the Macdonald household if Bob’s ever told he desperately needs a transplant. But the good news for the person behind him on the transplant list is that the organ’s yours! - Bob’s quite happy just to lie down and take his pain medication. Right, Bob?

I don't believe doctors would continue to work on a person near death if it was previously known they were a consenting doner. Maria, Harlow

You idiot, Maria. You total and utter moron. Doctors looking after a patient have to make every possible effort to save that patient's life. Their duty is to the patient and his/her wellbeing. They don’t even know if a patient has signed up to be a donor, while they are caring for them. If, despite their efforts, the patient dies, only then can organ donation be considered and a completely different team of doctors would be called in. Oh – and it’s ‘donor’.

I have carried an organ donor card for many years, but if this government forces us to go down the 'opt out' path I shall send it back. I will NOT be dictated to in this manner ! A. Howlett, Manchester

By carrying a card, you have indicated your admirable wish to help people after your death. Whatever you may feel about this proposal, how is NOT helping people the better course of action?

Instead of organs being used for genuine purposes I can visualise warehouses of organs like a car spare parts factory. And would the organs just be used to save lives or will this lead to some Frankenstein industry that one-day comes to light. Eddie John, Blackburn

Eddie, stop reading sci-fi novels and get out of the house. If you’d bothered to do any research whatsoever, you would know that organs have to be transplanted within hours of the donor’s death, or they are no longer viable for transplant. What earthly use would a bloody warehouse of the things be?

The only people I would donate my organs to is anyone in my family or my husband's side if I were a match. I would never be a donor without consent. Now Brown thinks he's got the right to dictate what we do with our own bodies. Wait for the sob stories to be put in the media about people waiting for transplants. Colleen, Brightlingsea

Yes, Colleen, damn those impudent sick people for encroaching on your cosy little life with their tales of woe. Haven’t you suffered enough, living under a Labour government? But hear that, people? At least she’s willing to donate organs – to her family. Presumably anyone who is not related to Colleen, but is potentially just as ill, and just as deserving, can go take a running jump. I look forward to the day she actually bothers to do her research and discovers that you may not dictate who receives your organs.

Whereas previously, I would have been happy for my relatives to decide, at the time, now, I will make sure I carry a 'NO' card. Brown's stolen enough, he's not having anymore! Kim, Hampshire

I know there was a similar comment above, but this attitude, which is tragically widespread, makes me want to cry. Whatever your feelings about the opt out system, ripping up your donor card, or opting out purely to spite Gordon Brown does NOT hurt the government. It hurts DESPERATELY ILL PEOPLE, who you can potentially save. If you don’t want to be a donor, then fair enough – that is your choice and you have the absolute right to assert your final stance on the issue. But please, please, don’t condemn people to death because you don’t agree with the Prime Minister’s politics.

And even if you have a card on you to opt out, all of your best bits can be whipped out during your post mortem, how would anybody know ? Martin, Peterborough, Cambs

Transplanting DEAD organs, from a DEAD patient, Martin? REALLY?

I read that if the organs are left until you are clinically dead then they are of no use. . The information that blood pressure rises and doctors give anaesthetic before removal worries me to the point that I am now terrified that people are being killed to provide organs . Ag, Cheltenham Glos

Now, I’m not going to be nasty here, because I understand that some people are genuinely worried about this. The facts are these: If a person has died, and their heart has stopped beating naturally (i.e. they are not on a life support machine), then the organs are of no use. However, if a person is brain stem dead, and on a life support machine, then blood is being pumped artificially around the body, keeping the organs ‘viable’ for transplant. The person is still dead, and cannot be saved, but the organs themselves could still be transplanted, because of the artificial blood flow keeping them in an appropriate condition. Removing the organs will not kill the patient, and the patient will not be ‘let go’ to harvest the organs. The patient, despite whatever efforts have been made to save them, is dead.
As for the anaesthetic administered to the dead patient, to control blood pressure – this is true. The brain stem is supposed to control blood pressure in a living person, but in a brain stem dead patient, it clearly can no longer do this.

Let's be clear about one thing - organs are not removed from dead bodies, they are removed from live ones. A dead organ is no use to anyone. What about people who are long term comatose? Can we take a kidney from them? It wouldn't kill them, and they don't really need it. Sarah N., London

It amazes and depresses me in equal measure that people who apparently feel so strongly about this issue will just take what they read in this national newspaper as gospel, and not bother to find out the facts for themselves. Organs are removed from DEAD patients, Sarah. They may be on a machine to keep the heart beating, but their brain stem has died. Expired. Ceased to be. It is an ex-brain stem. If you unplugged the machine, the patient would not spring back into life and exclaim “And to think those nefarious doctors almost pinched my organs!”.
Also, Sarah, ‘long-term comatose’ people may have been in a coma for a long time for a good reason – there is brain activity, i.e. they are alive. A dead person has no brain activity, and honestly, doctors have better things to do than keep a clinically dead person hooked up to a life support machine for donkey’s years, and call it a ‘coma’.


At the end of the day, a person’s stance on organ donation is exactly that – theirs. I understand that, but it makes me want to bang my head against the wall when I read comments like these from people who are getting so righteous and hysterical about an issue they clearly don’t fully understand. If there was better education on the issue, I feel sure that so many people would no longer believe that doctors will just finish you off to get hold of your organs, or disregard your choice to opt out.

I personally believe there’s no more altruistic act than choosing to help other after your death, and if the organ donation system was changed to opt-out, it wouldn’t change my feelings. You either want to help people, or you don’t. Which is why I get so angry about the sheer number of people seemingly planning to opt out just to spite Gordon Brown. If somebody I loved was on the waiting list for an organ, or I needed one myself, I would be terrified to my very soul that, for want of information and education on the issue, people are quite prepared to let their organs rot in the ground, purely to score perceived points against the government.

PS: For the record, after my death, doctors may have whatever they want of mine. Heart, lungs, liver, corneas, hands, legs, facial skin, ears – the lot. Should make my funeral an interesting affair, if I opt for an open coffin...

Or so I presume. Because, unless he’s recently taken to causing significant pain to the woman he has sequestered in his bedroom, he must be doing something to make her moan and scream as loud as she has been pretty much constantly for the last month or so.

Our respective bedrooms, at the back of the house, share a wall, and the usual mating hours seem to be around the time I want to go to sleep, which I suppose is something of an improvement on their previous liking for getting nasty at 5 o’clock in the bastard morning. But who cares what the time is – I don’t want to hear it! For one thing, the woman has the most annoying sex moan ever. She sounds like a seal pup barking.

At first, Craig and I found it quite funny – even going so far as to give them a sarcastic round of applause, in the hopes they’d get the hint that we could hear them. Which now seems to have spectacularly backfired on us, as they’ve redoubled their efforts, and we’re now being rewarded with louder performances, and they’re even doing matinees now. And when I say ‘louder’, I mean Craig could hear them while he was pushing the hoover around my room. That kind of louder.

So, what to do? Singing loudly enough for them to hear me hasn’t worked. Banging repeatedly on the wall with one of my clunkiest shoes hasn’t worked (and left scuff marks on my walls which I then had to sheepishly scrub off). Hell, even screaming “SHUT UP!” at the top of my lungs hasn’t worked. So, my options, as I see it, are threefold:

a) Put on my slinky satin nightie, light the candles, invite Craig round, and give them a taste of their own medicine (although this really makes me no better than them, and I would be disturbing my downstairs neighbour, who is very sweet, and doesn’t deserve that – plus, I doubt my flatmate wants to hear it)
b) Put an appropriately polite but seething note through the door
c) Position my stereo speakers flush against the wall, and repeatedly play the most annoying song I own at full volume. I’m thinking MMMBop by Hanson, or Saturday Night by Whigfield. And yes, I do own both of those.

But if you have any suggestions of your own, I’d love to hear them. Especially if they involve kitchen knives and sensitive parts of the human anatomy.

I’m at work. I’m sleepy. I went to see Dirty Dancing on stage last night, and I think the resulting oestrogen surge has depleted what little energy I have anyway. Plus, I got six hours sleep, then got up and went to the gym this morning. I’m very sleepy, and very, very bored.

Me: “Amy (my immediate boss). I’m tired and unproductive. Can I go home?”

Amy: “Well, if that were a qualification, I’d have gone home about two hours ago...”
Sarah (our freelancer): “But Jennie, you’re the one who can drink 88 pints and come in the next morning, looking fresh as a daisy. So I think you’ve built a rod for your own back there.”

Well, that’s just .... unfair. Clearly I cannot drink 88 pints in one night, and if I did, I certainly wouldn’t look as fresh as a daisy. I’d look like the contents of a body bag. I swear, you go out and drink *** shots of gin (cumulatively – it was a lot of gin and tonics), and come into work the next day not half-dead – although, unsurprisingly, I think I may have still been drunk) – and you never live it down!

And the reason the amount of shots looks like *** is in case my mother reads this, and decides to stage an intervention.

Anyway...

Amy: “Ye-es – you and your alcoholic tendencies...”

Me: <whine!> “I didn’t even drink anything last night, and you’re all laying into me!”

Amy: “You went and saw Dirty Dancing SOBER?”

Me: “Ye-es .... It was at 7:30!”

Amy: “Oh. I was drunk when I saw it.”

See what I’m surrounded by?! I don’t think I can quite claim the crown for the biggest lush in the department just yet!

And I bet Amy saw a matinee as well...

I've been meaning to go to the Isabella Plantation in Richmond Park for two years. And while I know it sounds like an act of supreme laziness on my part, I'd heard that May/June was the best time to go, as all the flowers would be out, and it would be at its resplendent best. But the last couple of Mays and Junes just passed me by, and I never got around to going. But this past weekend, I did, and it was definitely worth the wait.



You can see the rest of the photos in all their pinkly, purply glory over here .