From 18 Doughty Street
"David Cameron is playing an intelligent game
Peter Watson argues that far from selling the Conservative Party down the river, David Cameron is actually playing an intelligent game of politics.
Much has been made in the weeks and months since David Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party of the lack of policy he has been putting forward. It has been argued time and time again by commentators on both sides of the political fence that David Cameron is leading a party without conviction, a party devoid of philosophy.
One question that has not been asked however is what advantage Cameron gains by not detailing policy. The answer is that he gains a great deal.
Firstly Cameron is able to increase the Party’s market share by re-branding it, without having to change the substance of the product offered. Essentially he has put new packaging around the breakfast cereal that is conservative philosophy; a lighter shade of conservative blue, a new logo, cuddlier rhetoric, powerful photo ops in inner city areas etc. Cameron is quite simply getting people to fall in love with the packaging before they fall in love with the product. And it’s working.
Secondly Cameron would quite simply be wasting ammo if he were to produce policy at this point. Any policy put forward would be attacked by the Labour Party under the leadership of Tony Blair – but that is not the Labour Party Cameron will face at the next general election. If he were to release policy now Cameron would be letting somebody else (Blair) do Gordon Brown’s work for him.
Put another way Cameron is biding his time, waiting for Brown to take over and ensuring that when Brown does become PM the Conservatives will have plenty of ammo to fire at him while his premiership is still in its crawling stage. Blair is a lame duck and Cameron knows it.
Those who wish to judge Cameron would do well to wait until he faces his real opponent, Gordon Brown. Fortunately for them the wait is almost over."
And so a commentor confirmed...
"Well Said!
Agree totally with this. Cameron and crew have obviously taken the view that if they get too specific all that will happen is the usual reponse from NuLab - Tories are cutting this, don't care about the poor or pensioners, are only concerned for profits and eat babies too!
Whilst they can't openly say now they will cut taxes to create growth (see above) I am pretty sure this will be their strategy depending on where the starting point is when they come into power. So all the frustrated Heffers and Dalys should be a little more understanding of what Cameron is is doing.
By: Ted Foan - 09-05-07 22:43"
Saturday, 12 May 2007
What the Tories Really (still) Believe in
Disturbing Peace
Ex-boxer Chris Eubank was arrested for breach of the peace on Thursday as he tried to promote peace. Eubank was swept (do you see what I did there) into a police van but later released.
Also....
It was very peaceful at Michael Meacher's Labour leadership launch.
Saturday, 24 February 2007
UK Children Are Well Rounded
News came last week that children in Britain are well rounded. UK children were the big fat bottom of an international league table of child well-being produced by UNICEF. Our kids are fat, fourteen and fed up, it seems. And all weighed in with their proscriptions of how to drag them by the ear'ole further up the table of results for next time. Howard Jacobson as ever makes some pertinent observations on the subject...
"It confirms what we have all been saying for decades: that lax parenting doesn't work; that strict parenting doesn't work; that schools don't expect enough of our children; that schools expect too much of our children; that our society is too ambition-driven; that our children lack ambition; that our children are rampaging hoodlums; that our children live in trembling and fear; that a two-parent family is an outdated concept; that children from one-parent families are disadvantaged; that we live in an infantilised society; that our society finds no room for children; that the child comes into the world trailing clouds of glory; that a child is a fiend hid in a cloud."
This neat summation of What The Problem Is reminds me of a quote I once read but have never since been able to locate (and so I paraphrase it and probably I have the wrong profession as the object of the quote, though it suits well here)
"a politician's job is to think up problems for their solutions"
Read all about it....
More culture needed
More state needed
Less media-hype needed
David Cameron needed
More Tony Blair needed
We shouldn't really give a toss
Thursday, 22 February 2007
Big Tent Event
Laundry's New Anorak
...is this young man 's invention.
The Rotamate is a rotary washing airer complete with its own pac-a-mac to keep the rain off the washing.
Last night the young inventor, Roger Hind, won backing from investors in the BBC's Dragon's Den. It never rains but it pours!
Monday, 19 February 2007
The Verdict on The Verdict: Incontinent or Not Guilty
Some more good critiques of 'The Verdict' appeared in the weekend papers. Unfortunately not all of which are available online. Hermione Eyre in The Independent's Sunday supplement cunningly entitled her piece 'A crass examination in court'. She judged it to have been somewhere between 'the ornament to BBC2' and the 'meretricious muck' it has variously been critiqued as being. She found the celebrity nature of the jury distracting and unhelpful and declared that Channel 4's effort in the same fictional rape-trial format, 'Consent' which it screened last month, was 'far more concise, restrained and powerful' than BBC2's Verdict. She maintained that it attracted less attention because of the non-celebrity jury in Consent. However, had C4s show been as heavily trailed as BBC2s affair then maybe it would have. It achieved the same effect, namely, exposed the prejudices that juries bring to their deliberations on the guilt or innocence of the accused. We didn't really need the knowledge of the celebrity's history, as BBC2's programme-makers reasoned we did on its programme's behalf, to see the prejudices at work. What does it matter how or who brings those prejudices - celebrity or not, they are plain to see and we realise they don't really serve justice well.
As it turned out, and if you don't want to know the score look away now..., the 'right' verdict was arrived at but by the wrong process, so let's not get complacent - as Euan Ferguson in The Observer noted:
"The shouting, the interruption, the absence of any kind of continence of thought: it was a Friday pub discussion gone horribly wrong, where the truth can be shouted down by the loudest."
Indeed. And that loudest was one Stanley Victor Collymore, famed for kicking a ball on the pitch and punching a bitch off the pitch.
'The EVIDENCE, the EVIDENCE you have to go off the EVIDENCE....' he barracked and harangued not realising that the witness statements and demeanour are just as much evidence as DNA and pubic hairs. In the final analysis, the physical evidence proved as inconclusive as the personal testimonies.
And therein lies the rub. As various commenters over at the BBC Points of View Verdict messageboard have asked 'how exactly do you prove rape?' Any DNA evidence may only prove that sex took place not whether it was consensual or not. Many on the jury felt that something terrible had befallen the woman in question but that the evidence wasn't there to make them "sure", as the judge directed, on the various charges.
As for the celebrities: Michael Portillo brought a calming and procedural influence though seemed a tad weak in leadership at times, Jeffrey Archer was just cringeworthy , Stan Collymore was "a brute". The 'star' of the show was Dominic McVey, a young entrepreneur, who brought intelligence, respect and responsibilty at the tender age of 21.
The last word on the show went to Honor Blackman who ruefully ruminated into the camera at the end that maybe one had just let rapists walk free "But", she said "..that's the jury system."
Read all about it....
The Sunday Mirror on The Verdict - "startlingly tasteless"
How can juries understand rape unless the full horror is explained to them?
The prejudices that allow rapists to go free.
More links to reviews here and here
Sunday, 18 February 2007
Language Barrier Lands Hijacker in Hot Water
Respect to this guy!
I have been feeling quite smug lately at my ability to think up tabloidesque titles for posts. I mean to deploy them in an ironic kind of world-weary way, as tabloidisation isn't something I would aspire to though perhaps may be destined for.
And this story lends itself very well to the genre.
But what do I find, I am not even original or clever at being tabloid! I find that 'language barrier' has already been word-played, several times - examples are here and here. Others warm to the hot water theme. Is this a pun on aircraft? Two on a weaponry theme are quite creative. But credit mostly for thinking on the fly.
What fun the news is!
Wednesday, 14 February 2007
Still Weigh(t)ing The Evidence
As feared by some of the Newsnight Review panel, 'The Verdict' is rapidly in danger of becoming an exercise in 'judging the celebrity' rather than judging rape trials which is what the programme was supposed to be about.
Stan Collymore has posted a vigorous defence of his position on the show and rebutting some of the allegations about his fitness to serve on a jury, despite the punching Ulrika Jonsson incident. He posts a list of the very specific disqualifications for jury service none of which include his misdemeanours or punishments.
He claims he is unbiased and purely sticking with the evidence. But therein lies the bias. In the show he admonished one of the other jury members saying words to the effect that this wasn't CSI. But that's exactly what he seems to think it is. He has focused solely on the provision of incontrovertible physical, tangible evidence which can be scientifically tested and proven. If my memory serves me, it could have been directed at Jeffrey Archer who was disappointed that there hadn't been some twist of the evidence, some sudden killer evidence that would point with certainty to one conclusion or another.
Luckily, on the same messageboard as Mr Collymore has posted his defence, a very perceptive poster has pointed out:
"Any personal judgments aside, levelled at you regarding your previous violence/sexual history, my main complaint simply centres around your seemingly vehement assertion that there was no way that the footballers were guilty. It seems that the only person who was actually approaching the case in the correct way was Sarah Payne. There is no way that at that stage of the trial any of you should be so sure either way, having only been presented with less than half a case.
Your experience/knowledge of other similar trials which never even made it to court are totally irrelevant, the fact is that THIS case apparently had made it to court which suggests that the CPS thought that there was sufficient evidence. As a member of a jury you should be keeping an open mind to hear all evidence and not make a decision after one day. In any event, in cases like this, if there is a lack of physical evidence the only thing jurors may have to go on is individual testimony and to dismiss this out of hand as not being 'real evidence' shows a lack of understanding.
The fact is, regardless of how anyone on a real jury may act/think, you've willingly put yourself in the position to be criticised for your views and decisions so unfortunately you may just have to take it on the chin...
I'd be interested to hear your comments Stan."
The italics are my emphasis since that is the problem here. Is his narrow understanding of what evidence is coloured by his desperation to exonerate somebody he empathises with? He reckons not but he seems to have made his mind up early on in the proceedings.
Consider this:
A woman is raped. She tries to resist but fears that putting up too much of a struggle will escalate the sexual violence of the rape into physical violence as well. Since she has been and feels overpowered she may engage in a passive resistance to get the assault over with and escape. Perhaps she will say or scream "No!" or perhaps she opens her mouth but nothing will come out. Or she may simply freeze altogether. The rape over, she flees. She spends the next hours, days, weeks even, drifting through her normal life in a numb torpor of the mind unable to comprehend what has happened. She tries to carry on as normal. If she pretends everything is normal she can pretend nothing out of the ordinary has happened to her. However, she has to wash and scrub her body and the clothes she was wearing to try to just forget the whole thing. She can't. She may even destroy the clothes. Eventually when the reality hits either she decides or someone persuades her to go to the police by which time all physical evidence is lost. Nothing remains but the memory and her witness to it, her personal testimony. If we apply Stan's test of what evidence is then no-one can be convicted of this crime. That is why, as Johann Hari puts the statistics in context, "A British man has to rape over 50 women before it becomes statistically probable he will be sent to prison."
With little or no conclusive physical evidence the jury are left with the personal testimony of each of the parties in the case. This case is littered with probables, possibly maybes and could haves. They then have to fall back on the consistency of the stories of all parties and witnesses.
Judge Neil Denison who is hearing the case in the programme pinpointed the difficulty at the heart of every British rape trial. "Rape tends to take place in private, with no witnesses, so it is word against word," he said. "The credibility of the complainant and the defendant is vital."
However, Jeffrey Archer was wrong to be disappointed. The prosecution did make an extremely telling point when examining James Greer, one of the accused. She demonstrated, using his own account of the night in question that when he had left the hotel room, scene of the alleged crime, he had not said where he was going. Thus, said the barrister for the prosecution, when the alleged rape victim placed him in the hotel room later as part of the rape, if she had not been telling the truth she would not have known where he was when he left the room and that if he was elsewhere she ran the risk of him having a cast-iron alibi which would undermine her case. We shall see if anyone picks up on that.
I was willing to give the programme the benefit of the doubt. Patsy Palmer and Jennifer Ellison are a disgrace for treating the whole thing so lightly.
It does make one question trial by a jury of 'ordinary' people (there were some of the same issues around prejudices and 'rape myths' in 'Consent' on Channel 4 which did use a non-celebrity jury). Some commenters around the messageboards and forums have questioned whether this is a softening up for the introduction of television cameras into the courtroom. However, wasn't trial by jury under review some years ago and proposals to do away with it in certain cases?
I hope the BBC will redeem the flaws and make a better researched follow-up programme showing how the evidence should have been evaluated by the jurors and how justice should be done. This is in the interests of the victims of rapists who walk free to strike again and to those who may have been falsely accused. Otherwise nothing much will have been learned except that celebrities often don't deserve the pedestal they are put on nor a place on a programme dealing with such an important, serious and sensitive subject.
Read all about it....
How can juries understand rape unless the full horror is explained to them?
Listen to Radio 4 podcast on 'How should a rape trial be handled on TV?'
Happy VD
Send an E-card (or a you're 'destined to die alone in a room heavy with the tang of cat weE-card) today.
OR...
Happy 'More Conceptual Humanitarian Effort' Day (registration required).....but because I love you here's an extract....
Be my anti-Valentine: Rallying against Cupid's corruption
Rebecca Lazarenko
2/13/2007
"Customarily reserved for bitter singles and broken hearts, anti-Valentine's Day sentiments are slowly being echoed by everyone from the voluntarily unattached to the happily married.
Anti-Valentine's Day and the newly created Singles Awareness Day are following in the footsteps of anti-commercialism giants like Buy Nothing Day and D-I-Y Christmas. The out-of-nowhere attack of these un-holidays is hitting corporations where it hurts the most - espousing the existence of inherent narcissism in such red-letter days and attempting to reverse their ever-broadening commercial appeal.
The movement has divided itself into two consequential occasions: Singles Awareness Day and Anti-Valentines Day - both conveniently falling on Feb. 14.
"The exact founding of Singles Awareness Day is unknown," said Matt Brick, creator of singleawareness.com, a relatively new information portal.
"Our culture is definitely weighted towards couples, but in the [last] few decades the rise in divorce rates and other changes in society have fueled more single people than ever before."
Quite simply, Singles Awareness Day acknowledges an overriding pressure for companionship and acts as a cautionary tale to think of those who are truly alone. At once a celebration of independence and widening resource guide for the bored bachelors and bachelorettes, this movement also asserts the goal of a more conceptual humanitarian effort, suggesting a detachment from purely romantic love and the need to metaphorically embrace those excluded from mainstream holidays.
"One way to keep your sanity at Valentine's Day is to think of it as a day of love and not specifically couples," said Brick. "Concentrate on sharing your love with family members, friends or strangers because Valentine's Day should not be just about couples."
Brick also suggests volunteering your time - or at least a moment of your thoughts - to those who are actually alone, romantic affairs aside.
"Volunteer at a hospital or nursing home and visit someone who does not have any family," said Brick.
Brick's organization also addresses holiday suicide, suggesting that these specific occasions remind individuals that they have no one to share them with. In addition, Singles Awareness Day maintains an at once essential and lighthearted message of everyone's individual worth.
"Most importantly, don't forget that you are defined by who you are and not who you are dating - or not dating," said Brick.
Anti-Valentine's Day, on the other hand, was born from anti-capitalist efforts rather than humanitarian aid, though both offer a bigger picture hanging over the half-hearted guise of a tongue-in-cheek rebellion of love.
Anti-Valentine e-card creator and English photographer, Meg Pickard began her personal revolution with cheeky sayings such as, 'Bollocks to Valentine's Day' and 'At least my cat loves me'.
The original e-cards were created by Pickard and David Pannett when they were both, "single and grumpy while sharing a flat in London and working in new media".
"We created a bunch of cynical cards poking fun at the cutesy commercialism of the day, to send to our friends, with slogans like, 'Destined to die alone and unloved in a room heavy with the tang of cat wee' and 'Oh my god. Thirty and still single'," said Pickard. "The next year, we did it again, only this time we added an automatic send function - a free thing, supported by ads. Not great, but about the limits of our technical knowledge at the time. We were surprised how popular they were."
Half a decade later, Pickard has un-marketed herself into relative stardom - at least to those fighting against industrialism.
"When I created the first cards, I was single. Now, six years later, I'm happily married," said Pickard. "But my opinions about [Valentine's Day] remain the same."
"I'm still just as cynical about any holiday which involves people with a vested commercial interest telling others how and when to celebrate. I'm still amazed that people blindly accept copywriters' anonymous words and gift-manufacturers' assembly-line interpretations of love and are willing to pay and pass them on, as if they truly represent their own feelings."
Both movements try to inspire consumers not to fall back on pre-packaged sentiments and gifts, which in turn encourages people to be more creative and ultimately more compassionate.
"I think people still feel guilted by society's expectation and media hype into conforming and performing on one day in particular," said Pickard.
"That's unfortunate, but you have to be sanguine about these things: Ultimately, I'd rather people celebrated their relationship - or revells in singleness - all year round."
Both Pickard and Brock suggest these subcultural movements as platforms of awareness, rather than replacement fixtures for statutory celebrations.
"The important thing is not to let a day in mid February be the focus for all your romance," said Pickard. "That's kind of like having a bath once a year."
For more information and e-cards visit meish.org/vd....."
Read all about it....
More people than ever want to celebrate
Tuesday, 13 February 2007
Trial By Media
Telly news of the moment is that surrounding the BBC2 programme "The Verdict". Its a mongrel of a programme in that it mixed real people (if you can count various celebrities at various positions on the scale of the alphabetically-prefixed celebrity list system) with actors. It was hyped and trailed and indeed trialed (though that's not a real word) before Day One was finally aired on Sunday night. The Plot: Young lady is allegedly raped by famous footballer -all played by actors. Trial. Judge, barristers and jury of 12 celebs are played by themselves.
It was discussed on Friday night by thoughtful people on Newsnight Review. Johann Hari, The Independent journalist, thought it would force a debate in the same way as Celebrity Big Brother did for the issues of racism/bullying/class. Sarah Churchwell, author and academic, thought that it trivialised rape and found problematic the fact that the young lady in question is played by an actress as it reinforces the idea that women are 'acting' in rape trials. Indeed, as Michael Portillo noticed she gave a "convincing performance" -complete with real tears. She was also disturbed as were all on the panel by the 'bizarre ignorance' about rape some jury members brought to the trial. She felt that the jury's discussion so far only served to foster the "perpetuation of rape myths with no counter-voice", for example Stan Collymore's wondering why the girls went to a guy's room if not for sex (in the circumstances of the case she went with a friend).
David Aaronovitch called it "meretricious rubbish" and questioned "are we so thick" we need this kind of format with celebrities in to have a discussion about a serious issue like rape. A similar programme 'Consent' was broadcast on Channel 4 in January using ordinary people for the jury. What that also revealed was the prejudices people bring into the jury room although it did highlight issues around the nature and moment of 'consent'. In the same way so far The Verdict for me is raising issues about what is evidence. Stan Collymore, perhaps over-empathising with a footballer, seems desperate for the accused to be exonerated and keeps reminding everyone to just look at the evidence. But in such cases, as the judge points out, by their very nature the alleged crime takes place in private with no witnesses and as Dr Jean Barker the 'expert' witness in the trial has testified rape doesn't always result in any tangible injury. There may not be any hard, scientifically provable evidence in such a case. The only thing there may be is the personal testimony of the alleged victim, which Collymore is keen to dismiss.
Rosie Boycott disliked it too and said that the celebrities would distract from the main issue.
The award for most shocking celebrity jury member thus far has to go to Patsy Palmer who admitted to writing silly poems and falling asleep during the day's proceedings. And Jeffrey Archer seems to be viewing it as a test of his own cleverness in trying to discern the truth of it, which a commenter over at the Guardian accurately described as "creepy pseudo-intelligence".
It is indeed disturbing to see both in this programme and in Consent the prejudices, simplicities and lack of analysis brought to bear in the jury's considerations. Given the random nature of a jury it is hoped that for every ignoramus/misogynist/racist there will be the counter-balance of fair and thoughtful people too. Though surely this depends on the quality of the stock in society one has to draw on. I'm not holding my breath here, as Mr Aaronovitch said, having to have this presented in this particular way 'are we that thick?'
The brains behind the programme, Stephen Lambert, defends it here. As part of this defence he says it is to show how jurors bring their prejudices to the jury room and points out "There's a major issue about rape trials - why are there so few convictions?
Johann Hari thinks there are a range of measures which can be taken to ensure a more balanced approach to rape trials like calling in a trauma expert who can explain some of the apparently odd behaviour of rape victims -such as not going to the police immediately or perhaps not fighting back more.
The critics deliberations may result in a hung jury- "reality TV with a touch of class and should be very popular" or "guilty of turning rape into entertainment"
Julie Bindel at The Guardian passes judgement: "This rubbish will not educate anyone. It will instill fear into victims and potential victims, and reassure rapists and would-be sex attackers that they are Alright Jack. The media must now take the lead in informing the public about the realities of rape, rather than using it as entertainment. What is needed is a serious discussion, not a celebrity circus."
I'm not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this 'celebrity' format and this programme is such a good thing.
A thoughtful review...
Monday, 12 February 2007
Sunday, 11 February 2007
Pens-iveness
Pre-Amble: Yesterday (which was actually yesterday regardless of what blogger says on account of me having the time set to the wrong global time dimension), I saw fit to post pictures of my new pens and thought it relevant to mention that I had purchased them. The former was because they are indeed prettily decorated and the latter because it was relevant to the post for today, this, which I had in mind the day before yesterday when it was advertised that tomorrow, which was yesterday, there would be free gifts, apart from the blessing that good news commentary is, with yesterday's/tomorrow's papers.
The Point: 'Dumbing Down' is a much commented upon phenomenon, not least by me (apologies for self-referentiality) quoting Howard Jacobson on the 'Celebrity Big Brother Ignorant Racism Debacle 2007'.
As a keen but amateur (so ignore, unless otherwise substantiated by other credible sources) observer of cultural trends and frequent buyer of traditional, real, live, paper newspapers, I have noticed that there have been attempts by certain news-hawkers to improve our brains. It started at the beginning of the year, probably to coincide with the New Year's Resolution Period of Goodwill. The only example I have to hand, though I know there were other rival papers with freebies of a similar
improve-your-brain nature, is The Independent's 'Train Your Brain in Seven Days' free giveaway book (there was also a CD).
And now I look at it the back cover does indeed state "Upgrade your brain with The Independent. It may be the best new year's resolution you'll ever make."
This flurry of beseeching to improve one's mental faculties, as opposed to going on that diet or joining a gym, the intention to use which would last as long as it takes for the bank to send their first request for the first month's direct debit instalment (the road to good intentions is paved with hell!), reminded me that it was time to take up arms/pens again in the battle against idiocy.
I say "again" because I did something last year of which I am very proud and which I have let slip for which I feel regret, as I do at the fact there are three whichs in that sentence which can't be right. No matter.
I read a book called, simply and without obfuscation, "How to do The Times Crossword". Perhaps it was cheating, but really, having gone through the process of looking at such crosswords 'uneducated' and drawing a blank (or blanks) and then after having read the pointers provided by such a book and being able to (almost) complete them, I came to the conclusion that, without such guidance, the human brain, as currently exercised in this society, wouldn't automatically be equipped to come
up with such lateral answers as are required by such oblique questions.
Cheating exonerated, being able to sit in Sainsbury's/Costa/Starbucks cafe with a pencil and The Times and a latte and be able to 'get' just one or two of The Times Crossword clues/answers is a multi-layered achievement for me. Completing such a crossword is believed by some to be a yardstick of some kind. And, blow me!, is there not a memoir on the subject which I obviously just have to read.
My father had schizophrenia. I can spell that word fluently and without reference to dictionary or spell-checker. He was also quite clever. I don't want to lapse into the cliches of the insane sage but another friend of mine used to quip about needing a PhD to get into the 'mental' wing of the local hospital.
Anyhow, since my father was the brains of the family and I was showing some signs of intelligence, he used to be co-opted into helping me with my homework. Unfortunately, his interpersonal skills were somewhat impaired and his help always descended into chaos, shouting and tears.
In calmer more rational moments he did use to sit me on his knee and explain how he did his crosswords. It didn't make any sense to me but I was nonetheless enthralled and appreciated this limited opportunity to connect.
People who have schizophrenia are sentient beings like any other and should have all the rights and opportunities and dignity that life allows but the particular combination of My Father and schizophrenia meant that there came a time where it was no longer possible for us to live together as a family. That was 1979.
I bought 'How to do The Times Crossword' several years before I actually read it and it lay there, useless, gathering dust. I don't know what made me finally do it (it was 3 years after my estranged father died) but there was a sense of forbiddeness as I opened the pages. Perhaps I was afraid that what little respect I had for my father would be demystified.But not.
As I proudly get (some of) the answers it is as if I am engaging in a form of natural selection. All the negative things my father contributed to Me were set aside in this act of making good from bad.
I remember in a therapy session in later life (yeah, yeah, I have *Done Therapy* -not without good grounds, mind!) the psychotherapist suggested I 'write a letter' to my deceased father. I told her sceptically, and not being one for self-indulgent emotional excesses, that if I was to do such a ridiculous thing, and at that point I began copiously weeping as I am now, that I would apologise to him saying that although I had been absent and unable to cope with him in his later life when he was at his worst, I knew it wasn't his fault, he was ill. It wasn't his fault, he was ill. That realisation, never addressed and buried beneath many years of straightforward eschewing on my mother's say-so (she did what was best for us at the time), was the tear trigger and the root of the problem. I was accessing the guilt in my inner child, the role reversal thing whereby child has to emotionally-parent parent. I, small child had to understand him, parent, but couldn't on account of being a small child. Doing a cryptic crossword (what a metaphor!) reverses this and tries to make use of the moments where he tried to parent me -imparting the secret that some crosswords were cryptic.
And the flowery pens? Well as I mentioned, I have let slip the doing of the cryptic crosswords. The braining-up freebies prompted me to start again (I owe it the universe and to him to preserve the positive bits of him) but I found that non-practice does indeed make imperfect. So as an interim measure until I can get back into the swing of it, I have been doing the quick crosswords (I also do sudoku but definitely in pencil). I have been doing these in pen and in particular in gel pen. The quickness of the ink in a gel pen and the doing of answers in it is the mental equivalent of a brisk walk on a crisp but sunny winter morning/day. A sharp but refreshing breeze through the brain. The fact that it cannot be erased puts a confidence before the thought thus tricking the mind that one is about to be clever. It often works. Or there is great creativity in penning a wrong letter into a right one.
Dumbing Down's defenders will dismiss the valuing of intellectual capital as snobbish and elitist but I, yes, me, I say let's bring back 'self-improvement'. Self-improvement -which does have a long history within the working classes- is open-ended. You are neither dumb nor clever, cannot be separated into Jades and Helenas, there is no need for any conflict here, but start where you are at intellectually and go forward, learn something. One proviso to this is that 'emotional intelligence' must be built first or alongside. There is nothing worse than educating a narrow-spirited person. A lot of knowledge in a little person can be a dangerous thing.
This weekend's free offerings in the papers are a CD to teach yourself mandarin chinese conversation and in The Guardian there are instructions and fancy paper to fold 12 origami animals.
I will make something for my dad.
Alleged Snow
Further to my 'Nothing Happened' post of the other day, I have to report further developments.
Well, I was promised this (...but in Lancashire):
but what I got was this:
Various fence panels have been reduced to smithereens and I am worried about the actual structure of my home which is old and splitting apart, wall from wall.
It did sprinkle vehemently on Thursday for about 3 minutes 20 seconds but there was no thick blanket of crisp white snow with foxes gamboling in't and no robins perch'd on snow-topp'd logs.
The following snowless day, some of the men arrested in Birmingham last week for an alleged plot to "kidnap and kill a member of the British Armed Forces" were charged after all and police called for the press to ignore alleged Home Office briefings.
A worrying trend, however, is that it does seem that as long as one prefixes everything with 'alleged', one can comment on the wildest speculations as if they were fact.
It was heartening to see the audience on Question Time the other night being utterly fair on the question of whether Britain is 'a police state for Muslims' with everyone, black, white, brown, pink and yellow, agreeing that the police have a job to do but worrying about the effect on the larger Muslim population of the ideas and actions of an extreme few and the way this is 'hyped up' in the media. These sentiments were expressed by a mixed audience. A white lady (presumably, but not necessarily, non-muslim) who identified herself as a chair of governors at a mixed school in Birmingham stated that the non-muslim children were worried for and writing prayers for the muslim children who were anxious that their parents would be taken away in the night. Upsetting all round.
The accusation that Britain is a police state for Muslims has been widely condemned. The general feeling is that one would not be able to say that out loud on prime time BBC telly if 'twere. I saw David Cameron or someone on the news pointing out that there is due legal process in this country which Abu Bakr (the man who made the accusation) had not been denied demonstrated by the fact that he had been released without charge.
Arresting people, questioning them and subsequently releasing them is part of normal police procedure. Remember the Suffolk murders just before Christmas. A man was arrested and later released and there was also intense media comment during that investigation. It was reported last week in a tiny corner of The Independent that a man wrongly identified as a suspect for the murders was found dead in his home. "Gareth Roberts, 48, was pictured on the front page of the Daily Mail and named as Steve Wright, who was eventually charged with the murders." He had apparently been in a photograph 20 years earlier with the real suspect and the Mail had used the wrong part of the photo.
And me, law-abiding citizen No. 1, was once stopped as I walked through Preston town centre on my way home from work minding my own business. I was surrounded by several policemen and detained for about fifteen minutes there in the street in full view of everyone. They searched my bag (OMG! they saw my sanitary products) and my smelly sandwich box, in a plastic bag which also contained an umbrella, and explained that another policeman was on his way to 'identify me'. Ergh? A police car screeched to a halt and two more men jumped out all cop-styley which was appropriate as they were. One of them paced around me like a lion on the prowl and looked me up and down and round and round, muttering into his walkie-talkie and finally declared "No, its not her." They spoke some words to me which I think were an apology but I was too terrified to absorb. It was the day before my eighteenth birthday and I was envisioning having my party behind bars. Apparently, I had 'answered the description of' someone they were pursuing across Preston who had tried to defraud Morrisons supermarket out of a petty sum of money by means of a dubious cheque. It wasn't me, I was free to go. But I did feel my lunchbox had been invaded.
It could have been worse. I could've, had the circumstances of the crime been different, been shot for carrying offensive tupperware in a plastic bag.
Similarly, accidental shootings of innocent people during the business of law enforcement happen outside of the Muslim community. Remember the farcical-if- it-weren't-so-sad case of the man coming out of a pub carrying a wooden coffee table leg in a plastic bag who was shot dead by police-someone had called the police to report an Irishman with a gun wrapped in a bag. He was in fact Scottish. And there are other cases too. So away with the myth that this is especial treatment reserved for Muslims.
As for Muslims being 'persecuted' in some way this article identifies the essence of the problem for the police -"How do you separate the racial (sic) component from the criminal threat? The terrorists exist. They happen to be Muslim. They happen to use an extreme brand of Islamic thinking to justify their actions. The terrorists have hijacked and sullied the name of Islam for their purposes. Is it any wonder that the civil liberties of Muslims have been among the first casualties?"
Many people, including friends of mine of Irish descent, are drawing parallels with their experience during the IRA period.
On the 'police state' question the article answers "Has Britain become a police state for Muslims? No, nowhere near. Just ask anyone who has lived in a real police state. Ask any mother whose son was taken in the middle of the night and disappeared without a trace. Ask any political prisoner who has been interrogated and tortured just for questioning the status quo. Ask any ordinary citizen who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and found himself in jail for years on end without trial, without any recourse to justice. That is living in a police state, not what is happening to Muslims in Britain today."
And what did I do while all this seriousness was in actual fact happening and since the roads weren't covered in snow and it was in fact possible to make unnecessary journeys? Why, I went shopping for pretty pens of course....
Read all about it...
A very sober and measured article regarding the claim that Britain is a 'police state for Muslims'. Required reading for anyone about to contribute to the topic.
Friday, 9 February 2007
Just A Band
Last night while nipping down to a well known convenience shop for some bread and newspapers, I heard a tune on the radio which caused me to have an epiphanic "hey, I really like that!" moment. Unfortunately, as is often the way I didn't catch the title or the artist and had to rely on some rememberance of the lyrics and handy reference tool Google. Fortunately, the lyrics were quite distinctive...
"Thou shalt not take the name of Johnny Cash, Joe Strummer... in vain...Thou shalt not use poetry, art or music to get into a girl's pants...Thou shalt not watch Hollyoaks....Thou shalt not quote me happy..."
Without further ado, I am pleased to introduce to you, via Radio 1>Google>Myspace...
Dan le Sac vs Scroobius Pip
The track in question is called "Thou shalt always kill". Now I don't always get 'irony' but I don't think they are actually advocating always killing. That would be quite wrong and of course I would never condone it. Maybe just sometimes in an emergency. But the tune is very catchy and the lyrics funny and clever. It has so many popular cultural references in it that it cannot help but be destined for popularity. It requires you to get up and rock slightly. If you are bound to a chair you will experience involuntary movements of the upper body -nodding your head whilst making circles with alternate shoulders. Like putting a popular jellied, sugared, fruit flavoured sweet (which thou shalt not buy) in your mouth without chewing it, I defy you to listen to this and not move.
As well as working together they also have their separate material. It seems Scroobius is in charge of the lyrics and Dan provides the beats.
Check them out at their respective 'spaces.
Dan le Sac
Scroobius Pip
But remember now, they're just a band... (this will make more sense when you listen to the aforementioned killer track)
Thursday, 8 February 2007
The Snow is Here
The snow has started.
The flakes' light, silent, gentle, floatiness belie the violence of their descent. Flung from the sky, they swirl and scud down and across the air. Dancing around and crashing into each other like bubbles in sparkling spring water but going the other way. Each traces a random path from the thick white-grey sky downwards, only becoming apparent when they traverse the colours of the earth, yet a patterned veil of snow falls, now heavy, now light and quietly comes to rest there.
Weather Warning: Don't eat yellow snow.
Wednesday, 7 February 2007
News news
Holeyness in the news again
Some people love freedom sew much!
Like the socks, something else in tatters.
...and Forgiveness
Veronica Berlusconi demanding a public apology from flirtatious husband...
“I therefore ask my husband, and the public man he is, for a public apology since I have not received a private one, and I take this occasion even if, like the character of Catherine Dunne, I must consider myself to be ‘half of nothing’”
“ Now that my daughters have reached adulthood, the example of a woman who is able to protect her own dignity in relationships with men assumes even more importance”
“ I feel the defence of my dignity . . . may be of help to my son, so that he may never forget the fundamental value of respect towards women”
Testing the Weather
The nice warm glow of orange is usually a good thing in the wintertime. But not when its the snow that's orange!
The orange and yellow, rotten-smelling snow which fell in Russia last week is being tested for pollutants to determine the source. People have been warned not to use the snow for "for domestic and technical needs". 'Don't eat the yellow snow!' is good advice anywhere in the world.
More bad weather...
340,000 left homeless in Jakarta after torrential rain causes flooding.
19 people at least feared dead in Florida tornado
Saturday, 3 February 2007
We're all gonna fry!!!
Yesterday, the world's scientists spoke with one voice on Climate Change.
The world is heating up within a range of possible temperature rises. It will be hotter, wetter, windier -more tempestuous all round -as will the people.
It is here, it is happening and coming to a seaside near you soon. Meanwhile the displaced millions will have to find someplace else to live.
Some people just want to bury their heads in the sand -and thankfully for them there will be plenty more of that in certain parts of the world -in places that haven't been deluged with melted ice water. Some people just want to dig a bigger hole- preferably one with oil in it and use the proceeds to distort the science and the scientists.
Never before has cows' farting been less funny.
I shake my head sadly at the TV when reporters go out on those vox pops and ask people at petrol stations about it and they just shrug and say "What can one person do?"
Indeed.
Read all about it...
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
An Inconvenient Truth
Things one person can do
Energy Saving
I count
Friday, 2 February 2007
Don't adopt that, Tone!
Well, he didn't as it turns out. It was a close call though, apparently. If his authority wasn't waning would the revolting cabinet have had their way?
The whole row about same-sex couples adopting was just like old times!
As Boris Johnson said on This Week last night in his take on the week, "it isn't about er...er..babies or er...er..adoption, really"- its about the state arbitrating between two different groups.
Though myself firmly against organised religion having any special influence over the state -no more than anyone else, I did have a tiny, tiny sliver of sympathy with the 'conscience' argument but that sympathy is squandered on account of their conscience minding them to discriminate rather than being used in the service of liberation, emancipation and the humane treatment of people.
But since the morality of holy texts are so susceptible to contradictory interpretations we should leave god out of it. Religion had by turns been used to both justify and abolish slavery.
The back cover blurb on the book 'Godless Morality: keeping religion out of ethics' by Richard Holloway (he was amongst other things, Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church until 2000)reads:
"The use of God in any moral debate is so problematic as to be almost worthless. We can argue with one another as to whether this or that alleged claim genuinely emanated from God, but surely it is better to leave God out of the argument and find strong human reasons for supporting the systems we advocate."
Holloway rightly points out that we don't follow every injunction in the Bible. That would undoubtedly lead to a violent and bloody life. As he says "We judge scripture by our own best moral standards, not the other way round."
Paul Vallely, writing in the Independent some years ago, also said in the title of his article "When the scriptures are violent, it's time to argue with God."
This capacity to think for ourselves, to be moral on our own initiative, Harvard Professor Marc Hauser thinks is down to an innate "universal moral grammar."
How is it then that it can be thought moral to kill women for being teachers. As Nobel Prize Winner Steven Weinberg, a physicist observed "With or without it [Religion], you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion." There are however reformist movements within Islam too.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has come to a similar conclusion as Richard Holloway -"she slowly came to understand that a moral framework was possible without religion".
Perhaps there is hope that we aren't all going to go to hell in a handcart after all.
The Catholic Church have 21 months to prepare for the Sexual Orientation Regulations coming into force, when discrimination against gay people will be outlawed.
Read all about it....
Gay couple have child in Bible
Gay adoption row Q&A
For and Against: Angela Eagle MP vs Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Tuesday, 30 January 2007
Rocking and Bawling
This morning a sobbing, rocking (not in the musical sense) Jo O Meara gave an interview to GMTV on how Celebrity Big Brother has ruined her life.
I would like to feel sorry for her. I would like to see a gentler approach to pointing out the error of their ways to the three accused, Jo, Jade and Danielle.
However, I don't buy this 'taken out of context' malarkey, nor the 'I laughed 'cos I wuz nervous' line.
After the argument, as Danielle and Jo were laughing, Danielle 'nervously' said "That was f***in' fantastic..I loved it". Jo interjected "I've gotta say...its made my day". Danielle agreed, still laughing together, "That f***in' brightened my day up ...am tellin ya".
What is laughable is that both Danielle and Jo claimed not to like confrontation and that's why they were laughing from nervousness. The comments above belie any such thing.
OK, now let's add in some context to some of the allegedly racist comments.
Danielle: I think she [Shilpa] is a very beautiful woman. "I think she should f*** off home". I think she is a very elegant woman. "She can't even speak English properly, anyway".
Jo:"The thing that aggravates me with Shilpa is she fingers your food..." She's a beautiful, elegant woman "I don't like all that...that's why they're all thin because they are sick all the time..."
Sound any different now?
How Jo can worry about the hygiene implications of someone picking food off your plate to taste it while simultaneously and permanently sucking on cancer sticks is one completely bonkers piece of logic.
Furthermore, "...I don't like all that".
All what, dear?
Have these girls never shared a bag of chips, a packet of crisps or a bag of sweets?
Fish and chips -the quintessentially English finger food for sharing around!
Jo wasn't simply referring to a single incident regarding one person.
The reference to 'they' and 'all that' are the telling words here which show what it is she is really talking about.
Author, Hari Kunzru, speaking on Newsnight said that it wasn't racism on a grand scale but "petty ignorance and prejudice" -refusing to pronounce Shilpa's name properly, nasty little stuff around food and other culturally marked things are all things ethnic minorities have come across and are everywhere in society. They are on a sort of continuum which at its extreme end includes more overt racism.
I wasn't convinced by Jo's rocking; she seemed fairly lucid, if a bit tearful.
If Jade has checked into the Priory because of all the stress and Jo is a "broken woman" (Fiona Phillips, GMTV) what of that much touted 'duty of care' to housemates Endemol is fond of claiming they take seriously. The psychologists attached to the programme surely have some explaining to do too. Another casualty of the whole tragic farce may be Jo's agent who dropped dead on Sunday.
Perhaps Jade's checking into the Priory and Jo's mental breakdown are attempts to plead insanity and therefore not able to answer police questions. Meanwhile, Danielle is trying a bit of reverse psychology by getting the cops to see if she was been wronged by crafty ratings-driven editing.
There are some serious questions for programme-makers and audience alike, and for Davina, Dermot and Russell who have carved out careers hosting this stuff.
Read all about it...
The legal angle..
Thursday, 25 January 2007
Diverse Thoughts
Let me pull together two completely random (diverse?) news stories into one without actually connecting them in any way other than with an old quote and a rather witty post title.
The stories are Britishness and the Gay Couples Adoption Issue.
And the quote...
"My country is the world and my religion is to do good" -Tom Paine
Not very helpful, I know. 'Doing good' is wildly interpretative especially where religion is involved.
In the Bible, in the story of Martha and Mary Jesus tells Martha to leave the cooking and the washing up. Amen to that! But how come that Bible message hasn't survived?
Both are debates of many subtleties and unsubtle clashes of rights and identities.
Read all about it....
Articles of Faith
Gay couple have child in Bible
Oh Brother!
As Shilpa Shetty might say perhaps I shouldn’t dignify it with a comment. But something strange happened last week –something with consequences far outweighing its trivial origins -a bit like the ripples caused by the proverbial pebble in a pond or rather 3 Oxo cubes in the pasta. I speak, of course, of the Big news that is Celebrity Big Brother.
Some years ago I heard lots of shrieking and shouting coming from my teenage son's bedroom. It was something he was watching on the telly. From the intonation and vernacular nature of the language I could hear that it was real people, not acting. As I went about my business up and down the stairs putting away the laundry etc the shrieking and shouting kept pressing itself into my consciousness. WTF?? I thought to myself. I could hear him laughing. Part of me didn’t want to intrude. Give a teenager some cultural space ‘n’ all that.
The shrieking and the shouting and the cacophony got louder and more pressing.
"Its big brother, you should watch it, its well funny."
From the brief snatches I had heard and seen during my inquisitorial exchanges with teenage son on the matter of what on earth he was watching on the telly, I had decided I would rather not.
Being a fair-minded person though, I wondered whether in dismissing something that a different generation finds amusing and interesting I was being snobbish and perhaps frankly an old fart. I am a firm believer that one cannot condemn something
one knows nothing about simply on account of it being different to things one had been brought up with and in so dismissing the life and times of a different generation that this wasn’t necessarily good practice. If this were the case then slavery would never have been abolished and women would still not have the vote.
In a spirit of ‘educating’ myself I have over the years intermittently tuned in to BB and CBB just to see what is so compelling to sections of the telly-watching population. To understand, not to condemn.
I have also frequently tuned out again on account of it being totally crass TV. Why watch ordinary people (or celebrities) sitting around talking about themselves and their trivial interactions with each other. Of course the show producers try to spice things up somewhat in the mix of people they throw together and the conditions they impose on them such as rationed food and beds and space and tasks and garish decor and love-shacks all designed to meddle with the mind and rig group dynamics.
Whenever there is an inevitable reaction to this manipulation and controversy ensues the viewing figures go up and so send the signal that this is the kind of thing people want to watch on the telly. Yet, do we not all gog when we pass the scene of an accident on the road -what is the state of the wreckage, someone must surely have died? Perhaps aptly such reality TV shows have sometimes been referred to as 'car crash TV'
But should we indulge this impulse, put it on the telly and call it entertainment? While we think ‘we are all civilised now’ perhaps the trajectory from barbarism to civilisation isn’t a linear one. Maybe barbarism and civilisation can co-exist within us at one and the same time –either can be appealed to at any time.
When calculating viewing figures do we know whether the extra people watched in horror and disgust or whether they would like to be entertained on a regular basis in this way. Viewing figures are just viewing figures without context.
This time, however, the rise in viewing figures does have context –it is accompanied by a record number of complaints.
The fans and some commentators have been somewhat confused as to whether the behaviour of three white housemates towards one other 'person of colour' is racism, bullying or ignorance. It seems that many people don't understand the fullness of racism. Racism is ignorance. In its more overt and grisly forms it manifests itself as bullying and worse; in its more 'innocent' form it is expressed in ignorance, stupidity and insensitivity. More thoughtful commentators have analysed well what has been going on. The best discussion I have seen was on Newsnight. Hari Kunzru, a writer, observed that one of the purposes of Big Brother is to hold a mirror up to society albeit using a ‘sadistic format’, that this was not racism on a grand scale but the kind of petty ignorance and prejudice that is everywhere in society. He also thought that it was useful to have seen it unsanitised on TV and to witness the rather healthy bit of self-disgust we’re having at the behaviour of members of our society.
Part of the debate was about whether the racist elements of the behaviour and conversations of the housemates should have been shown or would showing it legitimate it in some people’s eyes as that kind of behaviour being acceptable.
But as Kunzru pointed out what matters now is the response we have to it.
That, thankfully, has been one of overwhelming revulsion, which has ultimately seen the expulsion in accordance with the shows format of one of the perpetrators.
It will be interesting to see what will happen to the other two collaborator housemates who were also equally culpable in creating an environment of petty racism in their little group discussions, at times openly expressed in their behaviour towards Shilpa. Indeed, Danielle Lloyd who has arguably been worse than Jade, having been challenged by BB about comments she had made and realising her part in it all was seen grovelling by Shilpa's bedside 'apologising' and like a rat on a sinking ship, blaming Jade for leading her astray. It will also be interesting to see if they play the clips of all those nasty little conversations to Shilpa when she emerges from the House, as part of her 'your time in the House' montage. She would likely retract her retraction that it wasn’t racism.
Some commentators on the broadcasting phenomenon that is the Big Brother franchise described it as a kind of 'social experiment'.
Jeremy Paxman, in his introductory to the brief but intelligent discussion on Newsnight asked, with the following emphasis ‘has it staged or exposed something?’ He did though with the next sentence answer his own question as he explained what had been happening: ‘participants not chosen for their sophistication exactly, acted unsophisticatedly.’
The reaction to what has been both staged and exposed last week and the resulting serious debate it has provoked is I think accidental rather than the programme-makers deliberately seeking to render a socially responsible service to society. Indeed, chief exec of Channel 4, Andy Duncan, who offered a mealy-mouthed statement on the matter, ‘wasn’t sure’ if it was racism or not.
Think back to a previous series of ordinary Big Brother, Series 5 – 2004, openly advertised as 'Big Brother Gets Evil' where two housemates were evicted but were placed in a 'bedsit' where they could see and hear everything the other housemates were saying about them and then later having seen all that were re-introduced to the house. Predictably, violence ensued and the police were called. That stunt wasn’t experimental -the programme-makers knew and were apparently warned what would happen. I fail to see what gain in human understanding was achieved by engineering a fight. That, perhaps, should have been the end of the programme.
Some ironies emerging from this week’s spectacle, if so subtle a thing as irony can be attributed to BB is that in its chasing of ratings and profit it is behaving like a celebrity itself –when certain celebrities begin to bore their audience and the media and have to resort to more extreme lengths to get noticed again –like Britney & co going out (and being pap snapped) wearing no knickers. But mostly it is that the show that gave Jade her celebrity and that celebrated the particular aspect of her called ignorance has been, deliberately so, her downfall. As famous publicist Max Clifford said that she was more exploited than exploiter.
Paul Morley, very intelligent cultural commentator, though a big fan of Big Brother hopes that this moment is a turning point in the culture of celebrity and that somehow in future we cease to celebrate people merely for their appearance and that more thoughtful and intelligent people are lauded as celebrities.
It has, however incidentally, also been a moment to collectively ‘out’ racism and vulgarity in our midst. Everyone who has ever experienced such ignorance knows how hard it is to get them to recognise it in themselves – “I’m not a racist but ….” While individually confronting a racist or a bully might be dangerous, this presented an opportunity to safely confront racism and bad behaviour.
Howard Jacobson in The Independent, has an interesting dissection of the bedfellows ignorance and racism contained within the events of the last week. He rates the ‘stupidity’ and the celebration of it that is dumbing down at the root of the behaviour displayed as the larger crime. “There is a vindictiveness to dumbing down. It aims to dethrone not only intelligence but the means by which we rate one thing above another. Dumbing down is an assault upon the very concept of value” and “Racism” he explains “is slumberingly integral to all ignorance” (‘though not all racists are stupid –all ignorants are at some level racist’). The revulsion at what happened I think went way beyond whether it was racism or 'classism' –there was widespread horror about the badness of the behaviour in general, that it had not only been allowed to happen but engineered to happen, that these people are a product of our society and that watching such dysfunction is claimed as entertainment. It was repellant in the round and all were implicated and culpable –programme-makers/Channel bosses first and in joint second place, participants and audience.
If any good is to come out of this week’s display of shabbiness (and I reiterate my belief that this will be an incidental rather than an intentional good on the part of those responsible for the programme) Jade & co will team up with Shilpa and undertake some genuine cultural learning –both race and class. Jade, when confronted with her own behaviour on the screen was mortified and disgusted. “I’m the kind of person that I don’t like myself, anyway”. Some self-awareness is a good start. I think she will see the need for change. Learning some dignity and respect, learning, using and understanding new, even long words does not mean pretending to be something you’re not. Indeed, Learning in general –that would be something to celebrate.
In another Newsnight discussion (Newsnight Review) a guest likened Big Brother eviction nights with the baying crowds as something of a sporting event. Another chipped in “gladiatorial”. Indeed, the show does have that Roman arena element to it where the slaves are thrown to fight it out to the death for the entertainment of the audience.
Eviction, however, isn’t quite so barbaric. Its only a fight to the death of someone else’s popularity/personality –but it did leave its scars on Jade “I don’t want to go through all that crap again” she sobbed in the diary room as she realised what was likely to befall her. But let her not be the fall girl. The wider media and politicians too bear responsibility for the national environment where people like Jade & co are created. Tabloid headlines about foreigners and immigrants and politicians' long history of fear-mongering set the national tone.
Re-invention need not be inauthentic, it can be done in a spirit of ‘lifelong learning’. Jade’s embryonic self-awareness shows what a waste of human potential resides in some people. Jo O’ Meara, co-conspirator with Jade & Danielle, sulked in a moment of accidental profundity “This is a horrible game”. Gladiatorial even. Are the rest of us willing to make those changes too.
(Aside: There is no excuse for the celebrities who host the satellite BB shows- Dermot, Davina and Russell, who’s mainstay careers have revolved around the BB product and who have continued to be involved with the programme despite the contrived conflict & violence. Though Russell Brand is very, very funny (if a little OTT at times))
Read all about it...
The real villains..
Saturday, 13 January 2007
Mervyn King Raises Interest Rate
Analysts reacted with shock yesterday as the interest rate was raised. The rise was not expected until next month at least. However, the rise was necessary to curb inflation.
Mervyn King said "I nearly packed my darts away and went home today. You nearly didn't have a quarter per cent rise. It was that close."
Read all about it...
On packing his darts away...
"It was that close..."
Thursday, 11 January 2007
Michelin Man
Now I'm not one for quoting the Daily Telegraph but couldn't resist a wee joke. The Spy asks:
"Is Gordon Ramsay having trouble doing up that top button after the indulgences of Christmas? My Spandex-clad spies tell me that the Michelin-starred chef has embarked on a gruelling fitness regime that is causing envy at his Soho gym...."
Michelin Man?
Wednesday, 10 January 2007
Ruth Kelly's Decision : Cutting to the Heart of the Issue
Quite deservedly the decision of cabinet minister Ruth Kelly with regard to the education of her child with special educational needs has been the subject of much comment.
Some comment has been in respect of whether 'we' should indeed be commenting on it at all and the rest has been in respect of the decision itself. Much of that has been about the fact that the school is 'private' rather than state sector and what a betrayal of 'Labour' values that is. Looking at much of that commentary, it is nice to see that class consciousness (some terms in posts and commentary have included 'posh kids', 'great unwashed', 'plebs', 'middle classes') is still alive if not quite kicking (with Dr Martens on).
As Ruth Kelly used to be cabinet minister for education, making decisions on education for the rest of society, then of course where she sends her own child is in the public interest. Having direct experience of the service you preside over is a good guide in decision-making about that service. And she does. By all accounts her other three children do attend state schools. So her commitment to state education is at least on that score not in question. Indeed, it is possible for ordinary folk to have their disabled/SEN children sent to schools in the 'independent' sector if it can be proven (professional reports and the like) that their extra educational needs arising out of their disability/learning difficulty/complex needs cannot be met in any other way. However, only the most determined, articulate and knowledgeable of the 'system' and the law are likely to get such provision.
Keener minds have noticed that the real issue in this is that of special vs mainstream. The government has promoted a policy of inclusion in the mainstream education system for disabled children and those with special educational needs. And so right has this policy been judged to be that many special schools have been closed down, often against the wishes of those who use and benefit from them. Inclusion is great where it is appropriate. But it is often found more appropriate than is actually the case because of the perceived savings in cost of not having to provide 'special' services in addition to mainstream or universal ones. This is as true in education as in social care.
What has been exposed here is the continued necessity of specialist help in a special school. So stop closing them all down!
My favourite most incisive account of the situation, although admittedly its focus seems to touch on the private parts of the decision, is over at NHS Blog Doctor - the sentiment and language is spot on.
Read all about it....
Ruth Kelly should resign
David Aaronovitch sticks up for Ruth
Thanks, Ruth Kelly
why?....
This charming vision of inclusion isn't working
Every Disabled Child Matters
