Hang on what, Sky are moving into smart doorbells? I thought they did TV, broadband and phones, so why move into front door snoopery? It's not a gizmo you'd think they'd ever sell, it feels a bit off from their central proposition. I feel uncomfortable about smart doorbells anyway, forever scanning the street and watching things, specifically watching people, like some kind of vast privatised intrusion of privacy. I get that doorbell cameras are really useful in certain situations like if a delivery arrives and you're not in, then you can tell the driver to hide it behind a fence rather than leaving it on the doorstep. Or if it's Hallowe'en and you want to see if it's your pizza being delivered or some oiks who'll desecrate your property if you don't offer them Haribo. Apparently this one "comes with a chime so you'll always hear the door go", yeah just like every other doorbell for the last 100 years. Also a camera's probably better than one of those peepholes people have drilled in their doors because those have very limited vision, but at least they're free after you've installed them whereas this demands a monthly subscription. I see Sky are charging £15 for this up front but then it's £5 a month or they'll brick it so that's £60 a year, also it's a minimum 24 month contract so you are in fact agreeing to a £120 charge, or £135 including the camera. That's only £45 less than a TV licence and at least with a TV licence you get huge amount of programming content from all around the world whereas this camera will only ever show you exactly the same bit of street, occasionally with some people in who aren't even very good actors.
Personally I don't see the need for a smart doorbell, can't you just open your door and see who it is? Admittedly it might be someone you wish you hadn't opened the door to like a Jehovah's Witness or that nosey neighbour who's always poking his nose round, but "just opening the door" is a lot easier than getting your phone out to see who it is, also by the time you've checked they might have walked away. Admittedly I don't need a smart doorbell because I live in a flat, indeed it's literally not an option, I have to make do with a temperamental entryphone with no chance to actually see anybody, also most times when it buzzes it's not for me it's someone trying to gain entry to the building to meet someone else. Also I don't like the idea that everywhere is being filmed these days, you can't walk down your high street without some electronic system knowing where you are, and yes they tell us nobody's collecting everything in some Big Brother database but who's to say a future government won't routinely collect all this civilian surveillance "to keep us all safe". Sure it's potentially invaluable if someone gets robbed outside your front door or if a meteorite flares across the sky in that precise direction, but most of the time it's recording pointless nothingness or keeping track of everyday innocents. Dystopian fiction says this never ends well, and sure a burglar might walk away if they thought they were being filmed by a smart doorbell but I'm uncomfortable gifting this level of national oversight to a corporate entity like Sky under the pretence of convenience and security.
Sheesh really, Bud 0.0% is the official beer of the World Cup 2026? What is the point of a football tournament beer containing no alcohol, where is the joy in that? Also have you ever tasted Bud, it's like watered down gnat's piss, so I imagine the alcohol-free version is even worse. I'm not averse to an overly artificial lager, I do drink Beck's out of choice, but even I draw the line at Bud somehow being a decent beer. I'll only order it if I'm in a bar and there's absolutely no other bottled option, and even then only under duress because people are expecting me to be drinking something to keep up with them. I've even ordered Bud in the USA and it tasted dire there too, I'm not just whinging about a substandard European variant. The very idea of anyone choosing to order the low alcohol version is abhorrent, it has all of the sour aftertaste and not even a proper kick underneath, so if you're driving why not buy something that's intended to be naturally hop-less instead. I also hate the fact that 0.0% beers cost the same as their alcohol-packed namesakes, and yes I understand a lot of them have to be made the same way and then have the alcohol removed, so if anything they cost more to make, but it's shocking to be charged well over a fiver for a liquid that basically has nothing in it. Being the World Cup I guess a lot more Bud will actually be consumed in cans at home rather than in pubs, but again why fork out for a 0.0% version that'll bring you no joy whatsoever and still taste like Gianni Infantino pissed into a vat before being diluted down by greedy exploitative homeopaths.
Obviously Bud are only promoting their 0.0% beer because TfL have rules about alcohol in adverts, otherwise they'd be pushing the 4.5% version that alters your mood as well as filling your bladder. Nobody's paying FIFA millions merely to promote the weakest of their beers, but on the tube they have no choice. The very concept of World Cup sponsors is laughable anyway, obviously they aren't really the best brands just those willing to stump up the most money. Other companies willing to schmooze the football dollar include Frito-Lay (official snack food partner), McDonald’s (official quick-service restaurant sponsor) and Mengniu Dairy (official dairy sponsor) so not even healthy sport-friendly options, also Unilever (official personal care sponsor) like Lynx Africa is somehow better at cancelling out soccer musk than any comparable chemical spray. I note that Budweiser have been the Official Beer Sponsor of the FIFA World Cup™ for 40 years so they do have genuine skin in the game, alternatively I could query how many pence out of every bottle of Bud goes on crass marketing strategies like 'Let it Pour', an exhortation to "amplify the call to come together and experience the intensity that defines the tournament". It is astonishing the amount of effort that goes into making one beverage seem more culturally relevant than another in the hope that consumers will purchase more of it to absorb the sporting vibes while watching the team they love drink none of it because it has zero relevance to playing football.
"Effortless living at the city's new pulse"? Oh get over yourself Elephant Quarter, what meaningless drivel is this? Effortless living is not a thing, not even if you rent a space in the most concierged of towers. As for being the city's new pulse what does that even mean, other than perhaps a misguided opinion that a de-gyratoried road junction in SE1 is somehow the heart of London's cultural life and not just a choked-up hi-density people farm at the arse end of the Bakerloo line. What they're really pushing here is an accommodation model so heavily reliant on added extras like gymnasiums, residents lounges and co-working spaces that tenants end up paying for services that look great in the brochure but which percentagewise they'll barely use. I look with horror at the monthly rental being demanded even for a studio flat, a minimum of £2450 per month for a teensy living space, a two-hob kitchen and a shower room, plus a bedroom you couldn't swing a cat in nor would you be allowed to. It's particularly grim given the site was formerly the socially-inclusive Heygate Estate, a neo-brutalist haven admittedly with a reputation for crime and dilapidation but the replacement is all beige surfaces, poor doors and posh gits sipping Nespressos, and damn the resident population who could no more afford an apartment in Elephant Quarter than imagine Daddy paying the rent for them.
I also despair for the future of the English language as we descend further and further into marketingspeak. A whole new industry appears to have opened up requiring the ability to write fatuous guff because it sells a project and not because it fundamentally means anything. You see it at most new housing developments, a snappy buzzphrase melding generic phrases to try to make a neighbourhood sound better than the place nextdoor. Apparently Lampton TW3 is "a place where you can balance wellbeing and opportunity" - like hell it is. Apparently Bromley-by-Bow E3 is "more than just a neighbourhood" - oh get over yourselves. Apparently Dagenham RM9 is "a green oasis with everything you need" - it's a bleak outpost on a former car plant. Apparently Stonebridge Park HA0 is "a welcoming neighbourhood shaped by thoughtful placemaking where what began as a vision has evolved into a dynamic mixed-use community where people truly enjoy living, connecting and thriving" - maybe put down the thesaurus and get a real job! There are graduates out there who hoped for a fulfilling career but instead ended up concocting word salad for corporate paymasters with undersized apartments to flog, churning out interchangeable platitudes that could apply equally to anywhere and ultimately mean nothing. 'A destination where energy meets creativity' my arse, Elephant Quarter's just one more housing policy screw-up and if you copywrite this bolx I hope it pays well enough to afford a skyhutch of your own.
