83 articles Articles posted in Opinion

Michael Le Vell – Mud Sticks

Michael Le Vell court case

If you’ve been following this case in the news, you’ll know that Michael Le Vell, the actor who plays Kevin Webster in Coronation Street, was accused of sexually abusing a six year old girl. The girl, who is now 17 and hasn’t been named to protect her identity, says that he systematically abused her over a number of years and although the Crown Prosecution Service originally dropped the case through lack of evidence, Mr. Le Vell was charged with 19 offenses following a review of the evidence in early 2013.

Yesterday, I was driving home from picking up lunch for Husband and I, listening to Radio 2 when the news broke that Mr. Le Vell had been found innocent. As I walked into the house, I said to Husband “Have you heard? That nonce from Coronation Street has been found innocent”.

And therein lies my point. Despite the fact that a jury of his peers had found Michael Le Vell completely innocent, in my head, I’d still branded him a child molester.

When it comes to offenses of a sexual nature, especially when they involve a minor, as soon as someone is implicated it becomes very hard to forget the accusations, even when someone is found guilty. I have no idea why the young lady involved would lie about such a thing, but it happens a lot.

I’m by NO means a fan of Neil and Christine Hamilton, but what is it you remember about those two? Is it Mr. Hamilton’s political career, or their desperate attempts to shake their image off on a number of reality TV shows? Or is it the fact that they were both accused of rape by a young woman in 2001? As it happens, that woman served a prison sentence for perverting the course of justice with her entirely false accusations, but does anyone know about that? I doubt many do.

When people make false claims, it allows them to wield a certain amount of power over others, and what’s perhaps even more damaging, is that it adds to our culture of victim blame. What happens to the next person, a genuine victim, who isn’t believed because of too many people crying wolf and leaving the general public jaded?

And the fact that there is no anonymity in place for people who’ve been accused is another huge problem. Had Michale Le Vell been allowed a closed trial, he wouldn’t have been dragged through the media and his very downtrodden image wouldn’t be synonymous with a slew of headlines proclaiming him to be something he’s now been proved not to be, without reasonable doubt.

Michael Le Vell has been proven innocent by a jury, and the way that our criminal justice system works means that we must believe that. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that, but I suspect he’s going to find it very difficult to shake the branding that has been placed on him. There will always be doubt, people scrutinizing him, strangers pulling their kids away from him with an almost imperceptible tug at the sleeve.

So, despite the fact that Mr. Le Vell is very much innocent, to many people he will always be considered guilty.

Mud sticks.

Ranty Friday – Selfish Parents

smoking childIt’s Friday, which means Mummy Barrow is telling us all to get Ranty again, which is quite appropriate as I’ve had this post brewing for a few days, but didn’t know where to start.

The other day, I was in our local shop, buying some ham. I got to the counter and there was a man in front of me buying cigarettes; he bought quite a few boxes at once and as the lady at the till rang it up, I blanched at the cost of smoking. I smoked way back in my late teens and early twenties, but gave up before I fell pregnant with Sausage, and the price of tobacco products has gone up a lot since then.

When I got to the front of the queue, I struck up a conversation with the cashier and casually mentioned that I didn’t know how anyone could even afford to smoke in this day and age. The cashier was young, probably early to mid twenties and mentioned that she was also a smoker.

Let me just say here, I have no issue with people who smoke; it’s a personal choice and as long as it’s not hurting anyone else, I don’t care what they do. I know they say “an ex-smoker is the worst” but I’m not judging the actual act of smoking.

The cashier went on to tell me that she lived in one of the flats (there are two high-rises near the shops) and that her and her partner both smoked with the kids in the house.

(blood pressure starting to rise…)

She then said “We smoke on the balcony these days because my youngest has got asthma. We used to smoke indoors but in the nicer weather it’s easier to go outside”.

(blood pressure steadily on the up…)

The final thing, which completely floored me was “I really should try and give up. My partner and I spend at least £70 a week on fags and my kids have to go without somethings, but it’s just so hard. I go without dinner some nights, just so I can have fags”.

(head explodes, rage spewing everywhere)

Where do I even start?

If she wants to go without dinner so that she can continue to smoke, that’s her right and privilege as a human being with free will, but freely and in an almost blasé fashion, admitting that her kids go without because she wants to continue smoking just blows my mind. How can you put your own horrible habit above and beyond the needs of your children? I just cannot get my head around that. Looking at your kids and saying “You know what? I’m more important” is the ULTIMATE selfishness and makes me feel like these people don’t even deserve to be blessed with kids.

How can people behave in this manner? I simply do not get it. I feel so sorry for the kids being raised in these conditions, without a parent who’d put them first.

I’m not doing a Jamie Oliver here and condemning those in a lower wage bracket because of how they choose to apportion their income…if she wants to spend her money on cigarettes, it’s her money to spend, but surely in any family be they rich or poor, the needs of the kids should come before anything else?

Husband and I would go without anything if it meant that Sausage was provided for in the best way possible and I was under the (apparently deluded) impression that this was an attitude which would be shared by 99% of other parents.

Am I alone in thinking that this is terrible behaviour?

Click on the duck to see why Mummy Barrow is ranting about selfish plane passengers and all of the other blogs who’ve linked up this week.

MummyBarrow

Why Are Electronic Devices for Kids Still Frowned Upon?

Child playing on an iPadI was at the hospital yesterday, waiting for an appointment and whilst in the busy waiting room, I overheard a conversation. There were several mums with their kids and one child was happily playing on an iPad whilst his mum waited for her appointment, whilst another boy of about 8 was looking on with interest. At this point, I got called into a sub-waiting area, but about five minutes later the mum and child without the iPad got called through to where I was sitting (bear with me, this is going somewhere…)

As they walked through, the boy was asking his Mum if he could play on her phone, seeing as he didn’t have an iPad to play with, and she turned to him and said “Don’t be ridiculous, stop asking for my phone, YOU don’t need to stare at an electronic device to keep you entertained, I raised you better than that!”.

I was quite shocked by her reaction (shocked enough to put the phone that I’d been contentedly engrossed in, whiling away the wait with a few games of ‘Where’s my Water’), but her words really got me thinking; is a child’s need for entertainment really about their upbringing? And why are electronic devices frowned upon?

I’m well aware that there’s an obesity epidemic in children that people claim to have been directly related to time spent playing computer games, but with children able to play outside less and less, is it really that much of a surprise that they look for entertainment elsewhere? And surely it’s not about the devices themselves, but the parental moderation involved?

Sausage owns a Nexus 7, a Chromebook, a Nintendo DS and Wii, an Xbox, an iPod Touch…but despite that, she doesn’t spend all of her time glued to a device because we simply wouldn’t allow it. I can’t stand the implication that once we give our kids consoles or gadgets, we relinquish all control over how they spend their time, or their wellbeing. Nor can I abide the assumption from a small amount of parents who feel like giving kids something with a screen is a substitute for parenting.

The other thing that bothered me about what the mum said was that if you need entertainment during down-time, you must’ve been raised badly. Surely the need for entertainment is a trait that’s shared by all humans? Of course, the type of entertainment varies from person to person…I love to read and blog, others watch TV, others play an instrument, others play games. There’s no right way to be entertained, but surely training a child to sit quietly with their hands in their laps instead of stimulating their brain in some way is limiting them? There’s a lot to be said for quiet contemplation, but I can’t get my head around the thought that a bored kid is a bad kid. It just doesn’t compute.

The real irony of the situation is that after that comment, the mum in question checked her phone no less than a dozen times in the period that we were sitting in that area, completely negating her own argument. Obviously, her comments got my back up on a personal level, seeing as I was sitting there on my phone at the exact moment she said it, but the urge to ask her if she’d also been raised badly after the 10th time of staring at her screen did get rather overwhelming!

The flipside of this is that, in my humble opinion, limiting a child’s access to computing is setting them back, in this day and age. We live in a world where computers are everything, and kids who aren’t highly computer literate are simply going to fall behind. Given that we now teach elementary coding in Primary Schools, we should be giving our kids more screen time in the hope that computer literacy is second nature, not something that’s like pulling teeth, which is how it seems to be for older generations for whom computers simply didn’t exist when they were young enough to soak things up like a sponge.

Aside from all of that, gaming needn’t be mindless – there are myriad apps and games out there which encourage literacy, numeracy, fine motor skills, languages and so much more. We’re happy for these things to be taught in schools, so surely we should embrace anything that broadens our children’s minds?

What do you think? Do your kids have electronic devices? Do you think that a child’s need for entertainment means that they haven’t been raised correctly? Leave me a comment below.

Should Ian Brady Be Allowed to Die?

This week, we’ve been hearing on the news about Ian Brady and how he’s appealing to be allowed to return to a mainstream prison, so that he’s no longer force-fed by tube and can resume his hunger strike. For those of you who don’t know (and I’d be surprised if there were many) Ian Brady, along with his then-partner Myra Hindley, committed a series of kidnap-murders during a two and a half year period in the late 1960′s. The killings, known as the Moors murders, due to the locations of the graves that two of the victims were found in, were five children, aged between 10 and 17, 4 of whom were sexually assaulted.

Brady has been described as a sadist and a sexual psychopath and, even during recent times, has shown little or no remorse for what he’s done, refusing to reveal the location of his fourth victim, Keith Bennett. He’s described his actions as an ‘existential experience’ and has mocked the criminal justice system by claiming that he’s used ‘method acting’ to maintain an insanity plea.

In 1999, he went on hunger strike, deciding that he no longer wants to be alive and claims it’s his right to be allowed to die. He’s quoted as saying “Myra gets the potentially fatal brain condition, whilst I have to fight simply to die. I have had enough. I want nothing, my objective is to die and release myself from this once and for all. So you see my death strike is rational and pragmatic. I’m only sorry I didn’t do it decades ago, and I’m eager to leave this cesspit in a coffin.“

So, readers, do you believe he should be allowed to die?

I wrote recently about the Woolwich murders and about how I’d seen and heard many people saying that the two attackers should face the death penalty for what they did. Yet, here’s Ian Brady asking for death and we’re force feeding him to keep him alive. How does that sit with you?

On principal, I don’t agree with the death penalty. I understand the arguments for it; the reduction of costs, the removal of risk of recidivism, the message to other criminals. However, we don’t have the death penalty, so this in itself is a different issue.

I, personally, think Ian Brady should be made to live out every miserable second of the rest of his life, even if it means force feeding him. My reasons are these:

1. Brady’s victims weren’t allowed to choose the terms of their own deaths. Their young lives were callously taken and their families left to endure the agony.

2. When Brady committed those crimes and was convicted, his liberty was taken away, therefore he’s not at liberty to make the decision to end his life when a judge has ruled that he be punished.

3. Allowing a violent criminal to decide when to end his life, when we ban legitimate euthanasia for people who’ve suffered long and painful illnesses would make an absolute mockery of everyone who’s suffered on their deathbed, unable to consciously decide when enough is enough.

(If you want to read about people who should have been given the right to die, read up on Terri Schiavofollow, or read about Robert Latimerfollow, a man imprisoned for euthanising his severely disabled daughter)

Given the fact that Brady has been witnessed eating soup and toast while on his supposed hunger strike, all of this strikes me as his last desperate attempt to whip up a media-circus around himself, giving him the attention that he thinks he deserves. The man is the embodiment of pure evil and shouldn’t be allowed a release from suffering, given that it’s not even a fraction of the suffering he’s inflicted on others. He should be left in a room with no means of entertainment or means to kill himself, made to live in purgatory for the rest of his days.

The picture below is a portrait of each of his five victims. These are the names and faces that we should be remembering. Not those of their killers.

 Capture1

 John Kilbride – Lesley Ann Downey – Keith Bennett – Pauline Reade – Edward Evans

The Death Penalty – What’s Your View?

Capital punishment was abolished in the United Kingdom in part because of the case of Timothy Evans, an innocent man who was hanged in 1950.

There’s been a lot of talk about the death penalty floating about in the last few months, due to some horrible world events being beamed at us through the news. The Boston Bombers, the Woolwich murderers, the start of the April Jones murder trial. I’ve seen a lot of slogans and pictures on Facebook that suggest that the perpetrators of these heinous crimes should be put to death (which is a moot point in all but the case of the Boston Bombers, because although Massachusetts isn’t a death penalty state, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is being charged for Federal crimes which carry the death penalty regardless of where they are committed) but I wonder if the people calling for death and baying for more blood have really thought it through?

Firstly, could you say without a shadow of a doubt, that you could be the person to administer the lethal injection, flip the switch on an electric chair or gas chamber? Sure, you don’t have to, you aren’t the executioner, but surely if you call for death you should have the courage of your convictions? Could you look a human being in the eye with 100% certainty of their guilt and send them to their grave? I’m not sure I could.

Secondly, I struggle massively with the thought of how flawed our legal system can be. I have huge respect for police officers who enforce our laws and criminal lawyers who do their best to secure convictions, but there have been cases of innocent men and women being incarcerated. Imagine if we’d excuted Barry George, the man wrongly convicted of killing Jill Dando, who spent SEVEN years in prison before evidence proved him innocent? And what about Timothy Evans, a man whose wrongful hanging was the very reason that Capital Punishment was abolished in the UK?

Another thing that bothers me is this; I firmly believe that execution is still based on religious doctrine, the concept that a person will meet their judgement in the afterlife and spend eternity burning in hell. This is simply not an idea I subscribe to, so from my point of view, killing a criminal is releasing them from life and therefore the consequences of their actions.

I’m not saying that the system of incarceration is perfect; it puts a huge strain on governments, the rate of recidivism is ridiculously high with most crimes and, if the media is anything to go by, prison is less of a punishment these days with gyms, libraries and access to video games. But I’m not sure that I agree with the death penalty either.

From a very personal place, a real hot button for me is the issue of paedophilia. I recall a few years ago watching a Louis Theroux documentary based in a maximum security prison in the USA which contained some of the most dangerous sex offenders in the country and they were running a programme of rehabilitation which claimed to be able to ‘cure’ people of paedophilia and used voluntary castration as a means of removing urges. I firmly, strongly, wholly believe that there is NOTHING that can be done to cure a paedophile, so if these people are to remain a persistent danger to children, what’s the point of allowing them to remain on the planet? But, again, could you be the one to flick the switch?

I’d be curious to hear your opinions on this; it’s one of those subjects that I go back and forth on and never seem to come to any sort of conclusion about and I don’t know if I ever will, but I’d love to know where you stand on the issue.

Lest We Forget

As with most people, I have a love/hate relationship with Facebook. I love how it can spark and nurture debate and communication, I love how it can bring people together and I love how easy it is to find a friend when you need it most, long nights with colicky babies or times when you just need to click the ‘like’ button to know you aren’t the only one and someone out there does relate.

I don’t know if it’s just indicative of the way the world is at the moment, or maybe it’s just because of who I choose to follow, but my timeline has become a lot more politcised of late. I see a lot of meme-style photos and captions which make a point in a funny way and I share a lot of them too as I think other people will appreciate them. The cost in doing this is that everyone has the right to share and not everyone shares my politics, so there’s an element of tolerance all-round (unless you just hide people…).

In the last week, since the death of Margaret Thatcher, Facebook has been awash with hyperbole and opinion from all sides of the debate, but I’ve noticed a growing number of people using the “You weren’t even alive” argument with regards to other people’s opinion on her. I know I’m probably going to upset people I know by saying this, but I’m aghast at this attitude.

At the risk of going all Godwin’s Law on your asses, you have an opinion on Hitler, right? Were you born after 30th April 1945? I know using Hitler as an example is real ‘lowest common denominator’ stuff, but he’s as good an historical figure as any to use to make a point.

I thought that the point of teaching history was to observe and learn from the past? Do we now just teach things to kids and expect them to have no opinion on them? Fine, the people in your timeline weren’t standing on the picket lines with the miners, they weren’t the first in the dole queue and they may not have punched a copper in the poll tax riots, but if the passing of the most divisive British political figure is what it takes to make people give a shit, shouldn’t this be commended?

As a person in their late twenties, I like to think that I’m not SO far off the planet in terms of ‘the kids of today’, and I can say that I genuinely worry about the disenfranchised generations that are bringing up the ranks behind me. The majority of them may never vote because they feel that NO political party understands them or has their interests at heart. What these young people need is something to make them realise that a change needs to be made. They need to be able to look at our history and feel passionate about something and while it may seem like bandwagon-jumping to people in their 40’s and 50’s, these are important times and things could be headed right back to where they were in the 80’s, unless we do something about it.

The phrase ‘Lest We Forget’ comes from the poem ‘Recessional’ by Rudyard Kipling and is generally used in reference to the soliders who were lost during the First World War, urging younger generations to remember the sacrifice made by these brave men and women, but it is something that should be applied here too. The sentiment is the same; learn from the mistakes of others and be grateful for sacrifices made on your behalf.

So, just for the record, I was born in 1984. I wasn’t politically conscious when Thatcher was in power but I sure as hell have an opinion on it, and of that you should be glad.

How Poor SEO Approaches Can Damage a Brand and the Implication if That “Brand” is a Leading Cancer Charity

I don’t want this blog to turn into a long list of posts where I moan about SEOs, but I had an approach yesterday that had me bashing my head against a wall.

It started well –

“Hope you’re well. I just wanted to get in touch to ask about your policy on guest posting on Mum’s the Word. I’m working with Cancer Research UK, to build awareness of the breast cancer help and resources offered on their site. We’re doing this chiefly by putting together some informative articles on related topics and working with bloggers like yourself to publish them on selected sites around the web, and I was wondering if you’d be open to running such a post?”

Then took a rapid turn for the worse –

“I do appreciate that it’s a difficult topic, and that it’s not the sort of subject matter that you’ve typically covered on Mum’s the Word, but it’d be great to work with you on this if you would be willing to consider publishing the piece.”

See, if this SEO guy had done even a modicum of research then he’d have realised that this is EXACTLY the sort of post I publish on my blog, in fact I already have several on this very topic.

If he’d used the tiniest amount of initiative or imagination, he might’ve typed the word ‘cancer’ into the very simple and prominently placed search bar at the side of the page and come up with no less than a dozen posts around the subject.

If he’d thought to engage his, no doubt, elite search skills he’d have realised that in 2011, my Stepmum lost her battle with cancer and I spent a long time trying to get my head around it, trying to work out how to process it, how to guide my infant daughter through it all and how to get our lives back on track afterwards. He’d have seen that I now run Race for Life every year in Lorraine’s memory and that I do as much for Cancer Research as I can.

This isn’t the first time I’ve dealt with poor marketing from this particular charity and I can’t help but wonder who makes the decisions regarding their marketing budget, given that they’re using aggressive telephone sales people and insensitive SEOs.

The sad part is, (as my friend Ruth mentioned after I shared with some blogger friends how sad I was about all of this) if they were to be a bit more sensible and use what would probably equate to a minute portion  of their marketing budget to employ bloggers to help them with their blogger outreach programme I’m 100% certain that they’d be a lot more successful and would circumvent the very real risk of alienating a lot of people.

As I pointed out in my reply to this person, just off of the top of my head I know one blogger who’s child is battling leukemia, one who’s Mum has beaten breast cancer and several others who lost friends or family to this horrible disease and I hope to goodness he hasn’t used the same approach with them that he did with me.

Over to you, Cancer Research

(I’m including follow links to the Cancer Research page in this post. Despite me criticising their approach, I think they’re a great charity and support them wholeheartedly)

Jake and the Neverland Doormats

As is the case with a lot of four-year-olds, Sausage is a big fan of Jake and the Neverland Pirates. It’s a pretty good show and there’s always a moral lesson in each episode, cleverly disguised as something that Jake and his swashbuckling buddies must do to help them earn ‘gold doubloons’ for their treasure chest.

I rarely have an issue with the shows that Sausage chooses to watch on TV and I’ve blogged before about how kids shows, these days anyway, are educational and fun. But today, I was listening to Jake while ironing my work clothes and something about it bothered me. Captain Hook was throwing some shit-fit about the fact that he had no treasure for Pirate Show and Tell and Mr. Smee asked Jake and his mates if they’d hide some treasure so that Captain Hook could think he’d found it all by himself and be happy again.

So far, so schmaltzy.

But my problem is this; Captain Hook treats Jake like shit in every. single. episode. Just off the top of my head, I can recall him stealing the Neverland Pirate’s football, tricking them out of Bucky, their ship, stealing Izzy’s puzzle box, also stealing her hula hoop and kidnapping Cubby’s goldfish. I get that there’s a strong theme of ‘taking the moral high ground’ in the show, but surely it all goes a bit too far? Why should Captain Hook get away with behaving this way and still deserve help? I’m afraid this level of tolerance is a step too far for me.

Kindness is a hugely important lesson to teach children and I’m proud to say that Sausage is the kindest person I know, but at the same time, I’d never expect her to be kind if it was consistently being thrown back in her face. Are Disney trying to teach kindness, or simply make doormats of our children?

What do you think? Have you seen the show and thought the same or do you think kindness is something that should be unconditional and I’m a hard-hearted cow?!

How Useful Are You in a Zombie Apocalypse?

The concept of a zombie apocalypse is something that Husband and I have discussed at length. Yes, we’re nerds, wanna fight about it?! We’ve toyed with the idea of putting a ‘Go Bag’ together, a kit full of supplies that you can grab and go should news of a Shaun of the Dead style outbreak be announced, and we’ve also talked about where we’d bugger off to as well.

I think Husband’s current go-to plan is to jump in the car and make for Cumbria or somewhere similar, find an old, empty cottage on a hill where you can see anyone coming for miles around and hole up until the Army find us. My plan was rather more elaborate, hinging on the fact that we live near the coast, and involving stealing a boat and making for the Hebrides, somewhere with minimal people and no attachment to the mainland, minimising the risk of the outbreak spreading.

The thing is, all of this is well and good, but HOW would we deal with things like food and water? If we went via boat, we’d need to either take a water supply with us or use a desalination filter, which is just not going to happen as we don’t have the knowledge to make one, nor the resources to keep it running. And food…if you manage to find areas of the country which have wildlife that’s viable as food, could YOU kill something to feed your family? It’s all well and good being glib and saying “Yeah, course!”, but really, really think about it; could you look an animal in the eye and know you’re going to end it’s life? And even if you find something to kill and work up the guts to do it, how will you do it? Presumably, you won’t have a gun – could you fashion a bow or a spear and throw it well enough to hit a target?

Obviously we’re a way down the line here, there’s probably enough tinned food already in this country to feed to lot of us until they find a cure for zombie-ism, but are YOU going to share with everyone else? Once the infrastructure of the country has disappeared, we’ll all end up feral again and being territorial about dwellings and resources is going to happen very quickly.

Then, what happens if you get ill? Sure, it’s possible to cultivate your own penicillin but do you know anyone with the knowledge to do that?

All of this just skims the surface of the challenges you’d face without an ordered society surrounding you. Nowhere to buy food, energy sources running out, people out for themselves. It’s a scary prospect, even without the thought of the Undead wandering around, and I do wonder if we’d cope at all. When man was primitive, we knew how to hunt, build or find shelter, survive. Now, we’re so mollycoddled, so used to buying things from a supermarket that we’d all just perish. It’s like humankind has become TOO evolved to survive!

So, how would you cope? Where would you go and what skills do you have that would help you to beat the brain eating bastards? I’d love to know. Maybe I’ve hit on a sound business idea here: Apocalypse Survival School!

NaBloPoMo November 2012

Feldspathoid Silicate Minerals are a Girl’s Best Friend…

A few months ago, someone on Facebook mentioned that they were looking at the Tiffany’s website and being the curious gal that I am, I sauntered over to have a nose.

After picking my jaw back up when I saw some of the prices (I know, naive of me, but I’m a simple gal with simple tastes), I noticed this:

This is the Elsa Peretti® Cabochon ring which retails for £1025. Let’s not be silly, I don’t have a spare grand to spend on the ring, but to be honest it’s not really the ring that’s the appeal, it’s the stone. It’s called Lapis Lazuli and there’s something about the deep blue that really spoke to me. Then I did some reading up on it and found this on Wikipedia:

Lapis lazuli was being mined in the Badakhshan province of Afghanistan as early as the 3rd millennium BC,[2] and there are sources that are found as far east as in the region around Lake Baikal in Siberia. Trade in the stone is ancient enough for lapis jewelry to have been found at Predynastic Egyptian and ancient Sumerian sites, and as lapis beads at neolithic burials in Mehrgarh, the Caucasus, and even as far from Afghanistan asMauritania.

I don’t know why, but this made me want it even more, something about the age of it and the earthiness. I know we’re all supposed to go mad for diamonds, pearls and all the other shiny, sparkly gems but I’d take Lapis Lazuli over them any day of the week. I’m SO not a diamonds girl. I know they’re like, well valuable and stuff, but I just don’t see the appeal. Even it I was a trilliontiaire, I wouldn’t be dripping with diamonds and jewels. It’s almost like this stone has character…oh, I don’t know, I just know that it’s spoken to me and now I must have it!

There’s some great examples of jewellery made using Lapis Lazuli on Etsy, and I think this ring is my absolute fave:

Click the photo to link to the sellers page

I love the fact that it’s not quite perfectly round and at just over 80 quid, it’s a little bit more in my price range! Also, I have enormous man-hands, so I have to wear large rings, dainty ones just look daft on me!

So, is it just me who’s not all about the diamonds? I can’t be the only woman challenging the stereotype of anyone with a vagina swooning at the sight of strong covalent bonding between carbon atoms, surely?!

NaBloPoMo November 2012