I just finished listening to a BBC programme about something called Toxic Masculinity. Sounds pretty nasty. I'm a guy. So, whatever I do must because of that be masculine behaviour. I don't need told what is and is not masculine. But what struck me from the programme was how what was regarded as toxic if a man says it has been for decades acceptable if a woman said it about guys. Toxic Feminism has been with us for years. In fact for decades the BBC has given a platform to some very unpleasant utterings - as long as it comes from someone without a penis. I still think the BBC would not broadcast a programme that banned all female contributors and yet one that bans men is acceptable. Let's end the double standards. And stop offering platforms for toxic sexism from anyone.

With the World Cup approaching I have little doubt that folk who know little about football will start chuntering about The Beautiful Game. These people, often North Americans, know little about football. It is game but it is seldom beautiful. In fact, I'm not sure it is ever beautiful. I think part of the problem is that most North Americans have never played it. That puzzles me to extent because it's been played in Canada for years. Edmonton Scottish FC once fielded actual Scots and some of them were pretty good players. I know one old Scottish guy who would have had the chance to turn professional if he hadn't emigrated to Canada. Now the World Cup will soon be being played in Canada, the USA and Mexico. But that's more about trying to create a lucrative professional sports income stream than any actual love or understanding of football on the part of the promoters. One look at how visiting fans are going to be ripped off tells you more than you want to know. In the USA the price of a bus ticket to get to the game has been jacked for $3 to something like $100. And it turns out that daytime temperatures at some of grounds are expected to be dangerously high for both players and fans. It's all about the money stupid. Especially if you’re stupid enough to think it's The Beautiful Game.

I've been disappointed by the high number of America. "academics" teaching at Scottish universities these days - if radio interviews are anything to go by. My reading has led me to form a very low opinion of US faculty members. I resent the time I've wasted finishing the drivel most of them produce. I have a theory as to why they are so piss-poor. It goes back to the Vietnam War and the fact that draft dodgers like Donald Trump could avoid service by enrolling in higher education. The demand for college and university places from spoiled rich brats meant the teaching faculties were expanded too rapidly. Folks who couldn't teach a toddler to tie a shoe lace ended up being taken on. The consequences are still with us - if you're taught by an idiot......... And as those students become professors themselves in succeeding generations the damage was perpetuated. The other sad part of this influx of Yanks is that it also suggests that like US higher education in the mid-60s through to the early 70s the Scottish system has been expanded too rapidly. No surprise these days when kids need a university degree in catering get a job laying tables in a greasy spoon cafe.

When I was a Boy Reporter, editorial and advertising were kept very strictly segregated. Things have obviously changed. Now on commercial radio I can hear a programme host interviewing some local news maker and then seconds later the same woman is extolling the services of some plumber. Can I really take anything she says seriously when she is so obviously prepared to act like a shill*? What is the price of allowing a doubt to be cast over a person's credibility and integrity? I don't think a plumber could pay me enough. In fact, no-one could pay me enough. *Shill: Accomplice of a hawker who acts an enthusiastic customer to entice others.

I'm fairly sure the author Charles Dickens was sceptical when it came to organised charities. He thought the first call on money donated was for the charity's supposed expenses. And I'm fairly sure too that a reasonably recent survey of major charities showed only about 10% of the money they collected actually went to helping people. The rest went on wages for themselves and administrative costs. It would not surprise me. Certainly, watching the charities in my area I have come to the conclusion that the welfare of those in need of help comes way second to the welfare of those employed by the charity. For instance, I don't think administrative talent is hereditary, so mother-daughter management teams causes my eyebrow to raise. Now I'm sure there are some genuine charities out there who really do want to help and don't use other people's misfortunes to line their own pockets. So, how about this - to be a registered charity an organisation must pay no more than minimum wage to any of its employees. That should weed out a lot of the profiteers. As one man who genuinely wanted to help once said There's A Lot Of Money In Poverty.