FIXATION ON TEETH WITH A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE BARD

First, before Shakespeare, I must dampen your enthusiasm for real teeth, a most dangerous practice, to have a fixation with teeth, especially your own, to fix on others YOUR obsession, (by fixation I mean to stare) is even worse. The excitement could lead to overeating, or, even worse, a permanent fixation on teeth.
And further, it could turn into an passion, then where would you be? Tramping around all day long looking at people’s teeth. A sure way to get a black eye.
My teeth over the years have been drilled, plugged, screwed, polished and poked. Indeed, one of my wisdom teeth is missing, yanked out, a pusy postulated abscess underneath, not a pretty sight, and lost to me forever. And I have a hole there to prove it.
Ah! But I have a surprise! I have one gold tooth. Those of you that feel prone to fixation, or think I am bragging about my wealth, don’t, please don’t go into fixation, or be jealous of the gold tooth. It was done before Gordon Brown sold off the country’s gold reserves, when the price was very low, and of course, I can never sell it, not when I’m alive anyway. That reminds me, I need to make a will and mention that.
It is real gold, mind you, not some gauze and plug, a real gold cap. And it shines; it could blind you if you look at it the wrong way, but alas, I still have my teeth, and they are well brushed, except where that darn wisdom molar used to reside. A big hole inhabits the spot now, it’s good for putting your tongue into though, my tongue not yours silly!
I think you are excited enough now so…And now to Shakespeare:Before you get too excited.I still have a passion for life despite the loss of the tooth. So there! Lump it with sugar on: it's definitely Shakespeare now, so let’s get serious.
The following passage is from, “AS YOU LIKE IT” sounds quite rude doesn’t it? If it does, get your mind back into the right gear and stop thinking of all those positions.What is to follow is quite a serious bit of writing by the bard.
By the way, its called the SEVEN AGES OF MAN. And I reside between the 4th and 5th stages of life.What is that you say? Nothing ! Carry on reading.
Here goes: Jaques is in The Forest of Arden Act II Scene VII, in As You Like it.
I have numbered the seven ages, jokes aside, please, read it a few times. I think this passage is quite profound, and somewhere along it, you will find yourself. And it’s quite funny, even if it is, as I just said, somewhat profound.

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.
At first the (1) infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
(2) And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel,
And shining morning face, creeping like snail,
Unwillingly to school.
(3) And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad,
Made to his mistress' eyebrow.
(4) Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth.
(5) And then the justice,

In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part.
(6) The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound.
(7)Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

I will be doing a blog on Michael Jackson Next, so keep looking at my blog site

Roy Tomkinson

Author
-- THE TOUR --

--Anger Child--

--Of Boys, Men and Mountains--
Read my novels and email me about what you think, I answer every one, get around 40 a day, going up, but within 3 days,I reply to everyone.

HAVE A GOOD DAY, AND IF YOU CAN'T STAY AWAY FROM A BAD ONE

ART COMES FROM INSIDE THE MIND

What constitutes art? Porridge to one is poison for the other. A picture – sculpture - photo – building - living trees: Anything, everything, and nothing, a black hole can be looked upon as art.
Art is subjective, and of value purely in according to the taste of the individual, and of course, where that person is as he travels along his individual journey through life. We are a part, a very small part, in the art of nature and often we just walk past without stopping to look and listen.
For me, I like walking, especially in a natural forest where I feel close to nature, that is the best kind of art, nature’s dynamic art, moving, changing, creating a myriad of shapes in numerous colours: twisted branches, rough, smooth, round: square shaped stones poking out of the ground.
The sound of the wind as it rushes though the trees: animal sounds. The sun as it hits the trees and dances with the leaves to create beams of light filled with minute airborne particles, most of which are seeds, alive, looking for that special bit of earth into which to land and find life.
Water, the sound of a river as it flows towards the sea, the bubbling, babbling, burping, gibbering sounds: every molecule alive and bursting with energy. Sometimes, there is silence where the waters runs deep, and yet, there is still sound, the sound of no sound, a rustle of leaves, a fish jumps – splash - a ring moves towards the shore and it is gone as if by magic back from whence it came.
All these things I see as art, a living vibrant art ever changing, never still, showing us the colour of its emotions in many differing forms every minute of every day as it dances to it own orchestrated sounds and colours. Growing more pronounced as the seasons change, but ever there is change, nothing staying the same. The now second is not the same as the second preceding, or the one which follows.

There is a difference and we should stop, take stock, see, smell, feel nature's message, because it speaks to us every second of every day, and if you listen, I mean really listen, your life will be enriched and your mind will be at peace. That is where the real beauty of art lies, so take your porridge, enjoy, but leave the poison behind, and remember the poem Desiderata.

Please, I would like to hear what art is to you - let me know!

Last night I heard Michael Jackson had died of a heart attack, and I will be shortly writing a blog: a reflection on his sad life.

Take the wooden block out of your eyes before you criticise the splinter in someone else's eyes

Let me say first off: My views are well known, and I feel no sympathy, respect or empathy towards Extreme Muslims, or any religion or organisation, especially where violence, intimidation, and manipulation are concerned when they use their religion as a weapon against Western Values, but that equally means the other extreme is also unacceptable, and I feel the same contempt for the BNP.

But recently there has been a lot of criticism of Mohammad and his alleged paedophile tendencies when referring to Aisha, one of his many wives with whom it's alleged (in the Koran) he consummated his marriage to her when she was aged only nine years old. But to call the Muslim Prophet a paedophile, with the image it conjures, is vindictive and inflammatory, and I feel this type of attitude will get Western Europeans nowhere, and should not be condoned in the slightest - in fact, it needs to be roundly condemned.

I know the argument, Ah! but it happened, see the Koran, there is little doubt about it, and I'm not disputing that, or the despicable way in which some Muslims still today treat their women. And yes, if it happened today, it would be paedophilia, and I would be the first to shout about it. But you must look at the actions in the context of the ago, and not from our perspective by transposing today’s values on yesterday’s actions.

Consummating a marriage with a nine year old girl is wrong when looked at from where we are today, abhorrent even, but it was not wrong then, and to get heated about something that may, or may not have happened centuries ago beggars belief. Does it matter one way or the other?
I think not, the average life expectancy at that time, when Mohammad lived, was around 40 years of age. Whether he consummated the marriage with his nine-year-old bride is an irrelevance, he was married to her: it was the law, and the West shouldn't judge. Mary Boleyn was not that much older when her father gave her encouragingly to Henry the VIII as one of his many mistresses.
It was a part of life then, and accepted as natural and normal: a girl was mature enough to engage in sexual intercourse immediately she reached puberty. So to judge and place our current day moralistic values towards a culture, which existed many hundreds of years ago, and to take a judgemental stance, is not just wrong, but cogently preposterous.
He, Mohammad, was doing what everyone else was doing at that time. To suggest, or to use that as an example to suggest Mohammad was a flawed individual is the wrong premise by which to denigrate the Muslim religion. Remember, they were an enlightened culture in art, medicine, architecture, mathematics, far in advance of the rest of the world and still, a lot of their ideas we use and benefit from to this present day.

But to suggest that Mohammad hated and had no respect for women is to falsify the truth. Indeed, I go even further, and take an opposite stance, it shows that Mohammad had respect for women, and was far more enlightened towards them than the culture he was a part of, and which he helped to shape for future generations.
I quote from an article from Creeping Sharia:
“While it is widely accepted that the girl’s father first offered her for betrothal to Muhammad when she was just six, many argue that Muhammad married Aisha when she was nine and the union was not consummated until she reached puberty, years later.” Which I'm inclined to accept, but even if that were not the situation, it still shows him up in a good light.
As (I know he’s a bit of a loud mouth, but what he said has relevance) Anjem Choudary says in the article. “At nine she reached her menses and in those days a girl was considered to be mature when that happened. No one will swallow talk about child brides. It would lead to a huge backlash.”
So let us not criticize or take a highbrow tone today, it has no relevance, something that happened long ago and we should move forward. But I will add a cautionary note. There are still some within the Muslim faith who see no wrong with a man having sex with a girl of nine or ten providing she has had her first period, with agreement from the girl's father, and she is married to the person concerned, arguing that it is acceptable because if it was good enough for Mohammad, it should be good enough for other Muslims, even today. That is a puerile argument, and anyone who holds those tendencies today, Muslim or otherwise, should get short shift, and be shown up for what they are: Woman - Girl - Child - abusers, and nothing to do with religion.

So instead of division, let us heal the rift whether we are Christian, Muslim, Atheist - we are all one family, the family of humankind, read a comment made to my last blog by an anonymous contributor. It made me think, division is divisive, and it is time to heal and stand together. But where there is no justice, or where it is misplaced, we need to speak out, or otherwise the strong and aggressive in wickedness will prevail over the good and the weak, and I make no appologies for that remark.

SEE MY OTHER ARTICLES:

Would you employ a Muslim? I think, perhaps not?

ROY TOMKINSON - DUBAI: THE HYPOCRITICAL ARAB STATE

Roy Tomkinson: Has Egypt gone Mad?

Would you employ a Muslim? I think, perhaps not?

Why do - SOME - Muslims think they are different from us?
Better even, and take us for suckers!
They use our laws but have no respect for our culture
Why?

They are the same as us, no better - no worse - and we should not give in to their silly nonsense, especially when it comes to dress code. This country is taking political correctness to an absurd length in trying to appease different cultural differences in our population.
Is it any wonder when people from Ireland get angry with the number of Polish who come into the country and still wish to retain their own culture, instead of integrating into our way of life? Unemployment is high and rising, curbs need to the introduced and rigorously enforced; the authorities need to show that they are doing something positive for our people and not appeasing other sub cultures, which lack British values.
Violence is not the way forward, it never is, but the politicians and judges must start to take notice, serious notice, of the anger that is building in this country against an erosion of our values and culture; seeming to appease other minority groups above what we value and consider British, should never be the case.
Two members of the BNP have been voted into the European Parliament using that very argument, standing for British values, and won, over the heads the mainstream parties. It's no good, as the main parties seem to have done, to brush it off as being little more that a protest vote against the MP’s expenses debacle and the state of the economy.
It is a warning: if we carry on down this road, more people will become disillusioned with the system that seems to favours foreign, often alien values, above our own. Why should we cater for other languages! Other countries don’t, yet, it’s as if we try to be everything to everybody, except for our own people, their values are often shoved under the table it pursuit of political correctness.
Take the case of a foreign waitress, a Muslim, who was awarded nearly £3,000 in damages for sexual harassment after being made to wear a revealing red dress for work.
Fata Lemes, 33, quit her job after claiming that the low-cut dress was “disgusting” and made her look like a “prostitute.” Miss Lemes, a Bosnian Muslim, had told an employment tribunal that she “might as well have been naked” in the dress.
“I was brought up a Muslim and am not used to wearing sexually attractive clothes,” she said, tut, tut, tut, the little... I won't say, it but the little girl who cried fire, comes to mind.
The London based Employment Tribunal awarded Miss Lemes damages after pointing out that only women - and not male staff - were required to wear the summer uniform at the bar in Mayfair, London. What do they expect, men to wear dresses. Absolute nonsense!
The outfit, described as “brightly coloured, and figure hugging, exactly the type of dress you would expect to see worn in a bar.”
This Bosnian woman was trying to claim a total of £20,000 compensation, including £17,500 for her hurt feelings (poor thing!). Thank goodness the Tribunal thought otherwise, called her claim “manifestly absurd.” But still she was awarded £2,919.95 for hurt feelings and loss of earnings, which I think is absolutely disgraceful, political correctness gone bad, by do good idiots.
The Tribunal said that while Miss Lemes held “views about modesty and decency which some might think unusual in Britain in the 21st century,” her employer should have taken her feelings into account when asking her to wear the dress.
The ruling stated: “Her perception was that wearing the dress would make her feel as if she was on show, as if she was being presented as one of the attractions which the Rocket Bar was offering its customers.
And the Bar maintained, and rightly in my view that: “In our view that perception was legitimate and not unreasonable. It [the dress] is clearly a garment for a girl or young woman. It is intended to, and does, show the curves of the body.” She works in a Bar, she is supposed to look smart and smile at the customers all the time, that is her job.
Miss Lemes began working at the bar in May last year. A week later she was asked to change into the red dress instead of the loose fitting black linen shirt. Not the sort of image you would associate with a trendy Bar.
She maintains: “It was indecent. If you put this dress on you might as well be naked,” she told the tribunal.
She states: “Everything finishes in the middle at the chest. It is open at the front and the back. I did not want men looking at my body.”
Miss Lemes earned £5.52 an hour plus a share of the tips but quit after informing the bar’s manager she could not wear the dress.
At the Tribunal, the restaurant group submitted photos of another waitress, Amanda Bjursten, wearing the dress in the bar. Ms Bjursten, who appeared at the Tribunal modelling the outfit, stated that she was “completely comfortable” wearing the red dress.
Luca Scanu, the bar manager, denied the dress was intended to increase sales and tips from male customers by being “sexually inviting.” But even if it was somewhat revealing, she was working in a bar and needed to look the part.
What does this silly money grabbing girl expect? To dress as a nun! If that is the case, she should take orders, and become ordained, but somehow I think not, she enjoys the good life far too much for that.

The RED DRESS WHICH THE BAR ASKED MADAM LEMES TO WEAR

Looks alright to me, quite smart, nothing indecent or over revealing there. But what do I know, I'm only a bog standard British non Muslim Citizen. Being a good Muslim, she thought is made her look naked, poor hard done by little thing. Showing all that bare flesh, I bet she couldn't sleep at night.
BUT

This is Madam Lemus on holiday, picture taken from her Face Book Page by Tim Stuart. Spending no doubt her ill begotten gain. She must have left her Muslim values at home when this picture was taken. She is showing more bare flesh than ever the red dress reveals - funny that, don't you think!

This behaviour does no good, when silly Tribunals award payment to people like that, and causes anger and disgust among the indiginent British population. These are some of the comments on the web from The Opinionator.

"Fata, you are a sickening piece of shit. Just absolutely disgusting. I would rather kiss a piece of dog shit than to kiss a horrible piece of crap like you. I hope some day you are wrongfully sued for all you have in your pathetic life."
Posted by: Mark June 15, 2009 at 10:05 PM
"All the "rights" tribunals including the employment ones along with most civic employees have no common sense.Which is why certain people get away with this kind of thing. their culture tells them that this is a wonderful thing to do and the politically correct dhimmies go along with it ,increasing the chances that it will happen again."
Posted by: Jay June 15, 2009 at 11:55 PM
"Incidents like this just make it easier for an employer not to hire a moslem in the first place. She is proving that moslem employees are more trouble than they are worth.
It's a shame that it's come to this, but can anyone deny it?"
"This only makes it more difficult for the "good moslems" (I keep on hearing they're out there...) to gain employment."
Posted by: Devlin June 16, 2009 at 02:40 PM
"This is disgraceful, no wonder racial tension is on the increase in this county and the BNP are gaining a foothold. This is political madness gone over the edge. In muslim countries you try anything out of what they consider correct and you end up in prison. A few week in prison this woman should have, and perhaps then she may learn her lesson, but somehow I doubt it."

THE OPINIONATOR WEBPAGE:

http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/06/hiring-muslim-female-and-male-for-that-matter-should-come-with-a-giant-warning-sign-to-all-potential-employers-in-fact---i.html
CREEPING SHARIA WEBPAGE:

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

MY ARTICLES

ROY TOMKINSON - DUBAI: THE HYPOCRITICAL ARAB STATE
http://roytomkinson.blogspot.com/2009/06/roy-tomkinson-dubai-hypocritical-arab.html
Roy Tomkinson: Has Egypt gone Mad?
http://roytomkinson.blogspot.com/2009/05/roy-tomkinson-has-egypt-gone-mad.html

Roy Tomkinson: A GOOD DAY TO YOU, A VERY GOOD DAY TO YOU: THANK YOU FOR VISITING MY BLOGSITE - ENJOY.

Roy Tomkinson

Author
-- THE TOUR --

--Anger Child--

--Of Boys, Men and Mountains--
Read my novels and email me about what you think, I answer every one, get around 40 a day, going up, but within 3 days,I reply to everyone.

HAVE A GOOD DAY, AND IF YOU CAN'T STAY AWAY FROM A BAD ONE

Puff Puff, The Smoker Blows

CIGARETTES! SMOKE! DISGUST!
Why should we pay for them!

If you are a smoker, do you feel marginalized? Good, and so you should, there is a good reason why you should feel that way. Smokers cost the rest of us a small fortune. The National Health Service spends 5% of its annual budget on treating and caring for people who smoke.
Recent research conducted by Oxford University calculated that the direct cost is estimated around £5.2 billion for 2005/2006. Today that figure would be even higher. Indeed, they go even further and state that the annual cost is still likely to be an underestimate.

The calculation does not take into account the cost of indirect care, or the costs of treating directly related diseases caused by passive smoking; numerous illnesses are aggravated by smoking, but cannot be directly linked, but are still a cost.
Dr Steven Allender, of the British Heart Foundation Promotion Research Group, concluded that: "Smoking is still a considerable public burden in the UK. Accurately establishing the burden terms of death, disability and financial costs is important for informing national public health policy."
The report, recently published by the Tobacco Control Group, calculated that around 110,00 people died in 2005, directly from smoking, which accounts for 19% of all male deaths, and around 10% of all female deaths.
The defense the smoker comes up with is almost always the same. “We pay tax on our cigarettes, far more than the Health Service spends on us.” Let’s look at the tax revenue figures for 2005/2006, and see if this is in fact the situation.
Excise Duty amounts to £8 billion with VAT another £1.9 billion a total of £9.8 billion.
So yes, on the surface, the argument is a sound one. The contribution to the Exchequer is almost double. There, a smoker would say, we are vindicated. If it wasn’t for us smokers, the argument runs, the government would have to find other ways of raising taxation. So leave us alone, we harm no one only ourselves, it’s a free country, so it’s up to us if we wish to smoke.
The argument, thought compelling, is flawed and puerile. There are other costs associated with smoking, which far outstrip the related illnesses identifiable with the National Health Service.
There is an indirect cost which is incalculable, but nevertheless, the cost is still real. By the smoker suffering an illness through smoking, which results in being unable to work. So instead of making a net contribution towards the economy, paying taxes and National Insurance, the smoker becomes a direct burden on the taxpayer. In other words, goes from a positive to a negative contributor, and becomes a part of the great herd of people who claim sickness benefit as a direct result of smoking. So the taxation argument will not hold water.
I think within two decades smoking will become illegal, and I hope I live to see it. No one needs to smoke, it is the most foulest of habits, and I can’t see for the life of me why people do it, intelligent people at that. And what is more, they feel it is their right to smoke (that I can accept, we live in a free country) but to throw away the cigarette stump onto the floor, and then to stamp on it and to leave it lying there for someone else to clean up is unforgivingly arrogant. You can always tell the outide area where the smokers are, just look to the floor and see the mess, but even without the mess, the area reeks of smoke, which gets ingrained into the walls and floor.

MY FIRST PUBLISHED NOVEL

COVER FROM THE NOVEL: "OF BOYS, MEN, AND MOUNTAINS" GOOD HARD TIMES

HAVE A GOOD DAY, AND IF YOU CAN'T STAY AWAY FROM A BAD ONE

Puff, Puff, The Smoker Blows!

iCIGARETTES! SMOKE! DISGUST!
Why should we pay for them!

If you are a smoker, do you feel marginalized? Good, and so you should, there is a good reason why you should feel that way. Smokers cost the rest of us a small fortune. The National Health Service spends 5% of its annual budget on treating and caring for people who smoke.
Recent research conducted by Oxford University calculated that the direct cost is estimated around £5.2 billion for 2005/2006. Today that figure would be even higher. Indeed, they go even further and state that the annual cost is still likely to be an underestimate.

The calculation does not take into account the cost of indirect care, or the costs of treating directly related diseases caused by passive smoking; numerous illnesses are aggravated by smoking, but cannot be directly linked, but are still a cost.
Dr Steven Allender, of the British Heart Foundation Promotion Research Group, concluded that: "Smoking is still a considerable public burden in the UK. Accurately establishing the burden terms of death, disability and financial costs is important for informing national public health policy."
The report, recently published by the Tobacco Control Group, calculated that around 110,000 people died in 2005, directly from smoking, which accounts for 19% of all male deaths, and around 10% of all female deaths.
The defense the smoker comes up with is almost always the same. “We pay tax on our cigarettes, far more than the Health Service spends on us.” Let’s look at the tax revenue figures for 2005/2006, and see if this is in fact the situation.
Excise Duty amounts to £8 billion with VAT another £1.9 billion a total of £9.8 billion.
So yes, on the surface, the argument is a sound one. The contribution to the Exchequer is almost double. There, a smoker would say, we are vindicated. If it wasn’t for us smokers, the argument runs, the government would have to find other ways of raising taxation. So leave us alone, we harm no one only ourselves, it’s a free country, so it’s up to us if we wish to smoke.
The argument, thought compelling, is flawed and puerile. There are other costs associated with smoking, which far outstrip the related illnesses identifiable with the National Health Service.
There is an indirect cost which is incalculable, but nevertheless, the cost is still real. By the smoker suffering an illness through smoking, which results in being unable to work. So instead of making a net contribution towards the economy, paying taxes and National Insurance, the smoker becomes a direct burden on the taxpayer. In other words, goes from a positive to a negative contributor, and becomes a part of the great herd of people who claim sickness benefit as a direct result of smoking. So the taxation argument will not hold water.
I think within two decades smoking will become illegal, and I hope I live to see it. No one needs to smoke, it is the most foulest of habits, and I can’t see for the life of me why people do it, intelligent people at that. And what is more, they feel it is their right to smoke (that I can accept, we live in a free country) but to throw away the cigarette stump onto the floor, and then to stamp on it and to leave it lying there for someone else to clean up is unforgivingly arrogant. You can always tell the outide area where the smokers are, just look to the floor and see the mess, but even without the mess, the area reeks of smoke, which gets ingrained into the walls and floor.

MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GOES ROUND - OR DOES IT?

Money! Credit Money!

Do you control money, or does it control you?

The economy, despite the few green shoots, which are starting to show in the housing market, is still very much on its knees. Unemployment is close to 2.5 million people. House repossessions are at an all time high. Beneath that statistic, millions more are just barely managing to keep afloat.
Worry over finances has become a national British pastime.
Let me give you another statistic; most of what we worry about never happens - FACT. Worry is the fear of what might happen, and even if it does happen, a few months later and after the dust has settled, it’s almost forgotten, and doesn’t seem that importance when looked at from a distance in any event.
I’m not belittling worry, there’s a lot of it about at this time and it’s real. The greatest fear for most people is lack of money by which to live their lives, losing one’s job, over spending on credit cards, mortgage payments falling behind. You worry over the cost of insurance, tax, and credit payments, so you are able to keep the car on the road.
I'm not saying not to worry about these things, if you’re unable to pay your way, you will worry. That is only natural, but often the problem lies within you, and only you. In the majority of cases, the problem is not a lack of money, but how you handle the money you actually receive, no matter how large or small the sum.
What is your actual spending pattern?
That should be your starting point, to free yourself from worry. Do you plan what you spend? I mean by planning your finances: do you set yourself a budget and stick with it? No matter what obstacles are thrown your way! And you spend only within your means.
Let’s look at what Mr Micawber from David Copperfield by Charles Dickens had to say.
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
Very droll and obvious; everyone knows that statement by Mr, Micawber, but nevertheless, the words are still a magnificent truism. Worry, illness, high blood pressure, bad temper, and all the other negative adjectives you could use against temper, are real to us, and we need to control and take responsibility for our own actions. I have heard people say.

“I don’t worry about money, it’s not important to me.”

That may or may not be the case, but what they are actually saying is: I don’t worry about it until in knocks me in the face, and my past spending habits have placed me up against a brick wall.”
Our politicians behave in the same way; little wonder large tracts of the population follow. The world has changed greatly since Mr. Micawber’s time. If he were around today, he'd be astonished at the size of the government’s trade deficit, and with the way people live their lives, which is well beyond their financial means. In Europe and in America, until now, they have prospered. Credit has become the new God, the elixir of life, but the road is now at an end. So where do we go from here?
For starters, we are at last back to reality, and many are now forced to spend only within their budget. For others, it is already too late, bankruptcies are up several fold, and for them, the only way out is insolvency, but, and here is where the light shines. They have an opportunity to start again, and hopefully, not to make the same mistakes.
They are now forced by circumstance to live within their means; credit is barred to them. Indeed, in today’s difficult market, credit is barred to most people, so having no credit line could well be a positive attribute for many people.
That leads me nicely on to the type of person you are when it comes to handling your finances. There are five categories in all: the evader, ambler, hoarder, splurger, and validator.

Which one are you?
Do you, when a bank statement lands through your letterbox, eagerly open it, add up the charges and interest payment? Or do you look at it with apprehension, pick up the letter unopened, as if it's toxic, and place in to one side for a few days until you feel in a better mood to confront.
Whether you delight or dread such moments says a lot about your personality when it comes to handing money. And for most people, the news is not that great.
Nearly 60% of us are Amblers. The type who drift through life not worrying about our bank balance, spend impulsively, and worry about the paying later, and only confront when bankruptcy looms, and when change is forced upon us. Not good for our well being, or our peace of mind, but still, we carry on, often until it’s too late.
Next, coming in at 24% are the Evaders. They avoid opening their bank statements, bin them, pretend they don’t exist, and live permanently in denial about the size of their debt, and you got it, they just carry on spending until forced to stop.
Next, at 13.80%, the Hoarders, who stash cash but live in fear of things going wrong. This often leads to continued anxiety, they always go for, “safe investments” which brings them little by way of return, and constantly they worry over money.
Penultimate, at 2% are the Validators, these people splash out to impress others or, to show off, to make them feel better.
Finally, at a measly, 0.2% the Splergers, who can’t help impulse buying on credit until they face financial ruin, and even then, it doesn’t always stop them, they are compulsive spenders, similar to a compulsive gambler or alcoholic.
The result of the survey concluded that as a nation we have little to no control over our finances. Money awareness in the population needs to sharpen tenfold; once you have worked out your finances, and the type of person you are, the starting line is then in front of you.
Now, take that first step to improve. Financial sanity, which largely means financial happiness, is to prepare a monthly budget, write it down, every detail of what you spend, even down to a newspaper, and compare it against your budget. If there is a variance, stop spending, no matter how much you think you may need something. Just don’t spend, go without. Money is important, and you should look upon it as such if you wish to lead a stress free life. Planning is everything when it comes to handling and managing your finances.
Summation
The survey sample was 1417 and researched by the Reader’s Digest.
The Ambler: A person who doesn’t worry in the least about the state of his finances until it comes and smacks him in the face, and is then forced to act.
The Evader: Constantly in denial about his level of debt, and will avoid opening mail until forced to confront, and even then still remain in denial of the true situation.
The Hoarder: Constantly worries over money, fears losing it, and is motivated to save and not spend.
The Splurger: Impulsive, often to destruction, will spend on a whim and worry about it later.
The Validator: Spends to show off and to improve his low self-esteem, sometimes even invests to demonstrate that he has money, purely for show.

Personal:

Where would I come into the list? Well, I do worry about the state of my finances, so Amber is out. Evader, I have little in the way of debt, none in fact, always pay off my credit cards every month, so that is out. I do not over spend, most definitely not, and I am more motivated towards saving than spending, and I always open my statements immediately check and file them if correct.
Again, I defiantly not a Splurger. I never buy on a whim, I sleep on every decision first, and even then, I take another night's sleep before I make a decision whether or not to buy. When I do decide, I scour the shops and Internet as to the best value, and purchase only that item. I rarely leave a tip when in a restaurant unless I get exceptional service, except sometimes when I'm forced to by my partner. (Sic!)
Validator, I never spend to show off, the exact opposite in fact, rather not spend at all if it can be avoided, and I never invest or spend to impress.
So I suppose, that makes me something of a Hoarder, the nearest to it in any event, but I do possess entrepreneurial tendencies as well, so the fit is far from perfect, but, as they say, the nearest fit will have to do. That’s life.
Where you are on the scale?
Now come on, be honest!
It’s your turn, go through the five categories. A tip: don’t just light on one and say, that’s where I am. Work by eliminating what you are not until you are left with just one category. Irrespective, if it’s not totally you, go for best fit out of the five.
Another quote from Dicken’s Mr. Micawber:
“Welcome poverty! Welcome misery, welcome houselessness, welcome hunger, rags, tempest, and beggary! Mutual confidence will sustain us to the end!”
Best if you don’t go there in the first place, so plan, and watch how you spend or that is where you could end up.
Don’t be too down hearted if you fail to live within your means, as Oscar Wilde (1854 – 1900) says. “Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination.” But you will go bankrupt, if you follow Wilde, your choice!