Obligatory end of year roundup post

I wasn’t gonna do it. Because I had a sneaking suspicion that it might be a) a bit tedious for me and b) a bit tedious for you.

But then I got sent a Pink Tape “annual report” from Jetpack, the bods what do my webstats.

It’s gratifying to know that the most traffic I have got on the Pink Tape is when someone else writes a guest post (thank you Alison Burt) or when I’ve said something to upset them over at F4J. And that old chestnut “What’s the difference between a barrister and a solicitor?” just won’t lie down and die.

Those of you who have nothing better to do than to harangue / flirt / correct / bamboozle or amuse with your rude / witty / incoherent / amazingly articulate comments may see your avatar in lights in the commenters hall of fame in said annual report. Unfortunately I appear have stolen the top slot on that because I am burdened with the politeness gene that makes me compulsively respond to all comments / have a pathological need to have the last word, depending on your perspective.

Happily, I can now answer the regular question of how often I blog – according to the stats I’ve produced 130 posts this year, which I reckon equates to about one every 3 days. Henceforth I shall now confidently respond with “2 or 3 a week”, rather than a prolonged “Errrrr…. it depends”.

I remain undecided as to whether in 2013 I should ban all guest blog posts to preserve my ego, or just give Matt O’Connor a regular slot, to improve my stats.

I’ll have a little New Year’s Eve tipple and get back to you on my 2013 strategy…

Share this blogpost

4 thoughts on “Obligatory end of year roundup post

  1. My legal question for the New Year:- At what point is a gay marriage (of either sex) legally consummated??

    • As I understand the proposals, a same sex marriage will not require consummation, nor will it be voidable for non-consummation. This is the same as for civil partnerships.

  2. Northern Lights

    Neither will the fact of adultery apply for divorce because, like consummation, it is defined at law as a specifically heterosexual act.
    High time the dust was brushed off those definitions, methinks. Does anyone these days really view marital sex as “a lawful indulgence of the passions to prevent licentiousness”

  3. I can’t help thinking of the story – probably a myth but let’s not allow the facts to spoil the fun – that female homosexual conduct was never made criminal because nobody wanted to explain to Queen Victoria what they did!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>