Modern Life Is Rubbish

Katie Piper: The Strength to Change Attitudes to Difference

2011-03-30T13:04:00.000+01:00

Most of the time the mainstream British television channels are dominated by bland, uninspiring fair, less than worthy of thought or emotion. Katie Piper: My Beautiful Friends, on Channel 4, is completely different.

In 2008 Katie Piper was attacked when Sulphuric Acid was thrown into her face. Since then she has had numerous operations and treatments, and which are still ongoing, in order to recover from the attack. The programme follows her as she continues her recovery, meets other people coping with scarring or disfigurement and launches her charity, The Katie Piper Foundation.

If the programme provokes any kind of emotion or thoughts, it is to put our everyday problems into perspective, as our pity transfers from ourselves to those less fortunate than us. But, then again, I’m not sure Katie would like our pity, that in itself being a negative when she is so positive. Not that Katie was always that confident after the attack, having talked of never leaving the house in the year after as she struggled to come to terms with what had been done to her.

Now I know that Katie would not want pity but help and support, financial or otherwise, to assist others going through what she went through (and is still going through); she would want it so that they can better cope with their disfigurement and scarring, and that anything that can be done is done, whether surgically, therapeutically or cosmetically, to make their lives even that little bit more bearable.

Perhaps it is too much to ask, and maybe it is right to concentrate on the here and now, to help individuals to deal with what life has dealt them, such as to pay for treatments that can make their lives better, but perhaps Katie should be more ambitious; for those people with disfigurement or scarring suffer not just from those, but the way people view them as a result of that.

Disfigurement and scarring is a problem for society, not just those suffering from it.

One of the aims of The Katie Piper Foundation is to work to normalise disfigurement in society. But, perhaps, it should go further than that, aiming to teach society that difference is nothing but that and does not mean worse, or strange, or scary.

Although her television programme may go some way to promoting its aim, perhaps Katie should be campaigning for every school to be teaching and embracing difference. Every child should be made to look in a mirror and recognise that they have never seen a person who looks exactly like themselves, let alone met anyone who is identical to them, just to prove that we are all different, be it physically, mentally, or emotionally. As always, education is the answer and, if society is educated to understand difference, it will grow to accept it, in whatever forms, whether disfigurement, scarring, or simply anything different.

Perhaps, in time, Katie will take on this mantle. No, I have no doubt that in time she will; she has bravery and courage and a fighting spirit that most of us can only hope we would ever be able to muster; and strength.

Whenever times get tough in life, that old saying ‘what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger’ comes into my head. Although it isn’t possible to know Katie’s strength before she was brutally attacked, no doubt nothing before that requiring the strength she needed after, it is certainly the case with her now. And right now I cannot see anyone in the world who is stronger than her and that she will achieve anything she sets her mind on achieving, perhaps including changing attitudes to difference.

If you wish to find out more about Katie’s story see:

Beautiful: A Beautiful Girl, an Evil Man, One Inspiring True Story of Courage. Katie Piper

If you wish to find out more about Katie's charity see:

http://www.katiepiperfoundation.org.uk/

Midsomer Murders: Boring not Racist

2011-03-15T16:08:00.000Z

It seems that the more mature, understanding and liberal we get as a society the more sensitive to the point of oversensitivity we, or at least elements of the naturally liberal media, have become; and, as such, the more conservative we have become in our views, or at least those views we are meant to hold.

The producer of Midsomer Murders, Brian True-May, has been suspended for defending its all-white cast by saying it is the ‘last bastion of Englishness’.

Immediately, elements of the media have been calling for his head, using their own freedom of speech, artistic integrity and prejudices to explain as such, apparently oblivious to the irony of using those tools to disparage those of another.

Nor apparently unaware of the irony that liberalism would seem to be neither absolute nor unforgiving, as it portrays those traits in its views of those people who appear to hold views opposite to their own.

Or that freedom of speech, and of thought, means so long as you are thinking and speaking the right things as, if not, you will face criticism from on high, that liberal elite that controls so many media agendas.

Or unaware of the contradiction between liberal ideas, such as that on gender, race and sexuality, and that on the liberalism of speech so that any word out of place, whether right or wrong, but wrong in their eyes, can be so definitively cursed so that a person’s job, and therefore livelihood, and possibly their career is at risk.

If we are not already at that stage, soon every word of every person in the public domain must now be strictly controlled in case they are subject to such scrutiny that even the merest hint of any kind of word against the liberal norm leads to outrage beyond sensibility, where outright acts of immorality are nothing if compared to that of using incorrect words, or having incorrect thoughts.

And then we wonder why almost every word we hear is mundane and adjectively boring. And why most televisions programmes, including, ironically, Midsomer Murders itself, are boring too, bound by the need to be so righteous.

It is therefore even more ironic that Midsomer Murders is now being analysed and degraded for its apparent racist undertones, failing to ensure a politically correct sprinkling of ethnic minority characters, though the basis for this oddity may well derive from artistic expression and correction.

Midsomer Murders is set in a typically English village, of a kind that we have all passed through from time to time, a place where many of its residents have lived for generations and, therefore, are inherently white; inevitably, to be true to that basis, the cast of Midsomer Murders has to be so one-raced. Or at least it should be, lest it be odd to the world in which we live and, therefore, that in which the series is set.

Everyday writers, producers and directors have to make judgement calls on the setting, basis and casting of their dramas, comedies, plays and books in order to establish the credibility of their story and, therefore, their work. It is required in order to find a truism on which to base a story and establish artistic credence. Sometimes that may include an all white cast, sometimes an all black one, sometimes an all Asian one, sometimes all male or all female, with nothing to suggest that it is anything but for artistic reasons; and to compromise that, on the grounds of political correctness only, would be to compromise that artistic credibility and therefore a whole production or even perhaps a whole career.

To question anyone is only right in a modern society but to denigrate a person and their work for holding ideas, making judgements on the basis that their views are different cannot be, no different to unjust societies of times past. So to do so leads to results opposite to that intended: a lesser society.

And it does nothing for racial integration or a cohesive society; in fact, it does the opposite, giving rise to claims of political correctness gone mad, when political correctness should be considered a good thing, allowing for all to live in society irrespective of anything that may be deemed a prejudice.

So, to all those who are offended by it, I say boycott Midsomer Murders (though I would guess that those who watch it could not care less for the fuss surrounding its producer, some of whom may well be of that generation who experienced the war that allowed for freedom of speech, and those that would be offended would probably not watch the programme in any case): it is simply boring, and what is worse than that?

International Women’s Day: Eroding the Empowerment of Women

2011-03-08T15:11:00.000Z

So, it is International Women’s Day, whatever that means or stands for. What does any day of anything actually stand for? Do people just dream them up for no reason other than to publicise themselves and their issues? And why is it always something no one gives a toss about? Like National Remember a Dead Pet Day (you know, somewhere, there is one, I write with a sigh), World Hug a Stranger Get a Punch Day, or International Day of Arming Tyrants (or is that everyday for this government? ‘Just give us some money, any money, please, we don’t care, we really don’t, honest’).

Anyway, as I wrote, it is International Women’s Day (‘IWD’) and the readers of The Metro, London’s free newspaper (given that it is free, is their input ever going to be good?) have voted Leona Lewis as the most important London woman of the last 100 years. And I am not joking. I wish I was, seriously, I wish I was.

It is like voting for Katie Price as the Nobel Prize for Literature (though as she says ‘she is an author, you know’; so no ghost writer, then Katie?), Colonel Gaddafi as the Nobel Prize Political Culture, Diplomacy and Coherent Speech and Thought and an old Etonian, Oxbridge graduate, career politician except for a mediocre role with dubious results at a crappy media firm as Prime Minister (oh, wait, no, I haven’t have I? Doesn’t that describe David Cameron…?)

For a vote for Leona Lewis just shows the power of men, she being merely a puppet of Simon Cowell (you can decide to what degree, whether his hands have ever got near her arse…). But, of course, his decision to promote her career has nothing to do with her outstanding looks, of course not. It was her talents, her skills, her character and brain. So, that’s a giant leap forward for women then?

Or perhaps it is not. But then, is International Women’s Day really a giant leap forward for women, or even one of regression rather than progression?

Promoters and defenders of IWD (for some reason it reminds me of WMD and I am fighting the urge to make a joke about women’s assets being used as Intentional Weapons of Distraction as I fear it may, just may, ok, it would work against my argument against it) say that the day celebrates the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future.

But, to have a day just for women erodes their empowerment as a being, forcing them into the arena of marginalisation, seeking to define women as an almost endangered species in need of special protection; notwithstanding that it does nothing to promote equality, in fact doing the opposite, with cries of where is Men’s International Day?

True equality is when something becomes a non-issue and in the modern world the economic, political and social achievements of women are not an issue. So to make it so, just entrenches positions to that end. Like the female former government minister who, when interviewing for a senior civil service post, expressed aghast that the shortlist was comprised of male candidates (though no female candidates had applied for the position), marginalised her male subordinates.

For positive discrimination is discrimination nonetheless, hence the use of the word in the description, and any type of discrimination must be held to be wrong.

And is it right to tar all womankind with the same brush? If you think it is, look at it another way. If some women were doing bad things, would you want all womankind to be tarred as bad? No, of course, not; for to do that would be prejudicial and that is simply wrong. For every Emily Pankhurst, who probably should have topped the Metro’s poll, there is a Katie Price, who definitely should not have.

So, as IWD continues, women, ask yourselves, do you want to be part of something tarring women as an afflicted minority worthy of specialist status and positive discrimination or do you want to be who you most probably are: a strong, confident woman, making your way in a world that is tough for everyone, not just women.

How To Make Banks And Bankers Listen?

2011-02-11T11:32:00.000Z

If there is anything about the whole bank profits, bankers' bonuses and public sector cuts issue that really annoys people, it is the hopeless inevitability of it all, that things are just the way they are and there is nothing we can do about it:

Yes, recklessness caused the banking crisis, which caused the recession, which caused the government, and therefore us the taxpayer, to bail them out; yes, the whole banking system, and therefore every bank was seemingly saved by the bailout; yes, as a result we have an unimaginably sized deficit in the public finances; yes, we are all suffering the cuts to the public sector; but the banks are seemingly back to normal, with giant profits and astounding bonuses.

The government clearly believes banks making huge profits and bankers given large bonuses are a good thing, irrespective of whether or not they are lining the coffers of the Conservative Party; and whether or not there is a moral obligation on banks and bankers to pay for the mess they started, not the most vulnerable in society, who it is said are going to feel the brunt of the public sector cuts.

And so, the fate of the banks and bankers, and ours, is just accepted; that it is just the way of the world, that they have their place and we have ours and there is nothing we can do about it or any of the associated issues.

Or, is there really nothing we can do? Maybe, just maybe, all it will take is one penny.

For many years I had an HSBC bank account by default, it being the remains of a childhood savings account that I had neither the will nor inclination to change. As such, it was almost inevitable that I would remain with the bank forever, not being bothered with the simple fuss involved of moving banks. Until, one day, I asked them to arrange a standing order for a particular day; that day came and went without the payment being made and, as a result, I incurred a fee of £30 and interest of 1p.

After much argument with the customer service representative, I was credited with the £30 but not the 1p. So HSBC made 1p by making a mistake, not much I know, but a principle nonetheless. Soon after I switched banks, which for the record was surprisingly easy, and I have been very happy with my new bank since (which has never made any mistakes let alone charge me for them, and has a UK call centre that puts me through to my local branch in London rather than, somehow, Glasgow).

I know you’re wondering ‘how does this relate to bank profits and bankers bonuses?’

Well, imagine if everyone who was unhappy with their bank for the profits that they are making, or the bonuses that they are paying to their staff, removed their money from their account, or simply moved their bank account to a bank that wasn’t making extortionate sums and didn’t pay such ridiculous bonuses.

Or, in what would perhaps be more effective, what if a movement was formed in which people signed up to guarantee that, if nothing is done to curb the banks or their bonuses, on a particular day they will either withdraw all their money from particular banks or transfer their money to a bank that does not ct in such a manner.

Some might say that it would be reckless to consider such an option, that it could lead to the kind of run on banks seen during Northern Rock’s problems. But, is that any more reckless than gambling billions of pounds that economic circumstance will not change? And some might say that it would be blackmail. But, everyone is entitled to have the money in a bank of their choice. And is it blackmail anymore than banks and bankers telling the media and government that if they tax them too much they and the banks will leave the country? In any case, if HSBC had let me look after that penny, maybe their pounds would look after themselves…

The Coalition Government Plan Return of Slavery?

2011-02-10T13:08:00.000Z

As the economy stalls and the cuts begin to bite, the coalition government’s plans seem to go from bad to worse: the sale of the Forestry Commission; NHS reforms rushed through; university, and in particular an Oxbridge education, made so expensive it is inevitably more elitist (if that is possible); banks and bankers’ bonuses hardly touched by the government’s policies; the Big Society seeming to stand for the Being Ignorant in Government Society. All of this led me to wonder: how far could the coalition government go with their agenda?

Cue blurry screen and music like that from Tales of the Unexpected…

Coalition Government sources have today disclosed that the government is actively considering: abolishing state schooling, the NHS and the police; reintroducing slavery to the UK, more than two hundreds after it was outlawed; introducing euthanasia (and not just for those who are terminally ill).

According to the sources, later on this year the government is planning on introducing a law through parliament in which state schooling will be abolished. The thinking behind the move is that state schooling does not provide ‘value for money’, that ‘as state school pupils do not go on to achieve anything of note in their lives, what is the point of educating them? Better they contribute to the real economy and provide their labour to those who need the labour and do contribute: the rich.

The government believes that the money saved from the abolition of state schooling will be used to improve the facilities, and therefore the education, of public schools and the Oxbridge universities, as our source commented:

‘People pay a lot of money to go to these educational establishments and it is important that they receive value for money. What kind of country do we live in where a child is only provided with stabling space for one pony?’

According to papers seen by us, as soon as children are able to walk they will be put to work, the government believing that even the smallest of children can make a substantial impact in the workplace, as our source again commented:

‘Little fingers are perfect for cleaning the smallest of places, such as chimney sweeping. I have seven chimneys in my house and I’ll tell you they are a devil for a grown man to clean. A toddler would fit perfectly.’

The thinking behind the return of slavery is similar to that on the abolition of state schooling: that as people from the lower classes contribute less to the economy better that they contribute to the riches of a master; and a master would greatly improve their prospects, as it is not as if they make anything of themselves anyway. The government also believes that ‘the lower and lower middle classes are unable to make decisions for themselves as if they were they wouldn’t be in that position’.

The government also considers that slavery will see the return of ‘much needed family values’: they envisage whole families enslaved and the repeal of laws not only outlawing slavery but also those providing that a master cannot be found guilty of assaulting a slave. Our source again commented on the matter, stating that it is ’imperative for the scheme to work that a master has control and is able exert a moral code and, in any case, a good beating never hurt any man’.

As a result of the change to the law, it is also anticipated that only masters will have the vote, that ‘with the dominance of the public school and Oxbridge educated in politics and media, there is little choice anyway for the masses, and the result is kind of decided by the elite anyway, so we might as well choose between ourselves.’

It is also anticipated that the Police will effectively be abolished too, or at the least privatised, with masters taking control of individual forces.

The government’s plans for the return of slavery are to be supplemented by euthanasia: that the sick, infirm or elderly will be given the option to either find a way to be able to work, and make their employment pay for their master, or face death, being immediately entered onto a euthanasia waiting list called the Automatic Register for Savings and Efficiencies (‘ARSE’).

Following concerns expressed by Conservative backbenchers, that the plans may prove too costly for the government and, more importantly masters, the proposals have been watered down: if people choose their own method of death, charges will apply; the state will confiscate all assets and pay all costs and taxes involved before distributing the money to the deceased’s master.

It is also understood that under the plans the NHS will be abolished, on the basis that those worthy of medical attention can afford it, with our source commenting that the money saved will help to reduce the ‘grossly unfair’ tax regime in which those who done the most with their lives, and earn the most, are forced to pay higher taxes.

Following enquiry by us, a source close to the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:

‘We inherited a deficit from Labour and hard decisions need to be made. People need to realise bankers contribute to the economy. The sick, the unemployed, pensioners and the poor, or even the middle class, do not. But, I must stress, we are all in this together. People need to realise we are all suffering. Look at bankers bonuses; they are at the same level as last year. I have only been able to claim for one of my three houses and my trust funds have only made modest gains this year’.

A source close to Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, said:

‘Of course we don’t agree with the changes, and don’t believe in them. But, as part of a coalition, and if we are to retain any power, ever, we must go along with them’.

The source at first refused to comment when asked ‘What was the point in having power if you are doing things against your beliefs?’ before stating:

‘Well, we enjoy it, you know, looking, feeling important, and having a chauffeur, a nice office, and a grace and favour place for weekends. It’s not all about the country’.

Cue blurry screen and exit music, as if to a film.

It couldn’t happen, could it?

Christina Aguilera: America Take Pride, Don't Criticise

2011-02-07T12:20:00.001Z

When Christine Aguilera messed up the lyrics of America’s National Anthem, ‘The Star Spangled Banner’, at the Super Bowl the world seemed to go crazy, with a whole number of media outlets airing and publishing comments by Americans critical of the singer; and laughter from the UK at how sensitive Americans are about the issue.

But, the question is, how would such a situation pan out in the UK? For example, how would Cheryl Cole have dealt with the issue?

Firstly, it wouldn’t have happened. Our equivalent of the Super Bowl, the FA Cup Final, would never involve such razzmatazz, the Football Association preferring a sober opera singer to a mere pop artist and, in any case, they would no doubt not pay enough for Ms Cole to perform (and what if Ashley was playing in the match?).

If Ms Cole did decide to turn up, she would probably state that she would only perform her anthem, ‘Fight For This Love’, probably questioning why she had to sing a song that she had never heard: ‘God Save The Queen’ (‘is that, like, by Queen Latifah, like?’ she would be heard to say).

If Cheryl did decide to sing, she did she wouldn’t perform live, performing the anthem ‘live’ before anyone turned up and then miming to that when her big moment arrives, putting everyone off the scent with some crazy dance routines. Then, halfway through, Will.i.am (or What.the.f***?), wearing glasses shaped like Buckingham Palace (why does no one, ever, tell him he looks like a dick?) and Cher Lloyd would come on stage and perform a rap, including lyrics like ‘Singing for the Queenie, wearing a bikini’ (you know it…).

So, what would happen if Cheryl messed up the lyrics to our National Anthem?

I am not sure she would say, as Christina has done, that the occasion just got to her and that no one can doubt her love for her country; for if she did, Cheryl would be crucified. Yes, some newspapers (yes, you Daily Mail and Daily Express), would criticise her and question the state of the nation as a result, but on the whole she would most likely be criticised by the liberal media for expressing love for her country; for that is not encouraged, no way.

We do not take pride in our nation; at least we do not anymore. Wearing the flag is partial, almost considered as racist and, perhaps worst of all, ‘chavy’. And yet we look to other nationalities within our nation and we accept and almost encourage them to have their own culture. And we enjoy it too.

Yet, when we look across to America and see their culture, we are encouraged to criticise, and be uncomfortable with behaviour like their hand on heart, tear-welling belting out of the National Anthem (even singing the wrong lyrics).

But it is their culture, so why criticise them? It is a double standard and does nothing towards tolerance; in fact, it is the exact opposite.

It is the same kind of ill-conceived and/or ill thought through left-wing ideology that pushes through an anti-sexist agenda whilst at the same time accepting Islamic views towards women. Tolerance cannot be picked and mixed, but nether can it be absolute, for it is a good thing but not if it leads to a wrong prevailing. And what is wrong about American nationalism? It provides greater national purpose than we have with our multi-culturalism; Americans have a greater national purpose and identity than us now, ours having been eroded, almost merely historical and dominated by multi-culturalism. Ask yourself, how many radical Muslims have been born and bred in America compared to the

? Which country is right, which country is wrong?

So, Americans, take pride and don’t criticise Christina; yes, she messed up some lyrics but, at least, on the whole, she knows her national anthem, loves her country and is able to say it. As for us, don’t criticise America; just think, how tolerant are we if we cannot say we love our country?

Andy Gray and Richard Keys: The Core of a Rotten Culture.

2011-01-27T14:19:00.000Z

Upon hearing some of the opinions expressed by some media commentators you would think that Andy Gray and Richard Keys had done more than make remarks that in reality cause no harm to anyone but themselves. For an overreaction there has been, bringing a situation where great importance is made of the opinions of two people who are mere football pundits, two of many nowadays, paid to comment no more eruditely than on explaining what is happening in a simple game of a ball and eleven against eleven. And even football fans had learnt to ignore much of the drivel they meted out in the name of entertainment, and the hyperbole now surrounding the game, which Sky heavily encouraged and the average football fan had come to tolerate rather than enjoy or encourage.

It is with some irony that the hyperbole encouraged by Sky and News International, in the form of Sky News, Sky Sports News, The Sun and the News of the World, has led to the kind of headlines that has resulted in the sacking of Gray and the resignation of Keys. In such a world of twenty-four hour media, perspective can soon be lost and it takes courage and loyalty to remain loyal to a strategy, or people, when the media world is calling for about turns or heads to roll.

Richard Keys’ ‘defence’ on Talksport radio beggared belief, being part apology, part confession, part justification it would have been better had he said, which in part he did, that he was commenting ironically only, a mere jest or ‘banter’ that had got out of hand and was never meant for broadcast. But perhaps that is the point: whether ‘banter’ or serious, the views were aired in a workplace and times have moved on from when such views could be aired there and accepted or, at the least, tolerated. Gone are the days when such comments can be made, thus allowing women to work in an atmosphere that is acceptable to them and break down any barriers that may have existed.

(See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/video/2011 )

Given evidence provided by some of the female employees of Sky Sports News, it is apparent that such an outdated, sexist culture still remained (although, would their views carry more wait if the reasons for their appointment were not questionable: when was the last time you saw a less than pretty female SSN anchor?)

(See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jan/26/andy-gray-richard-keys )

Some media commentators have suggested that Gray and Keys’ comments about Sian Massey were worse than Gray’s comment and action to Charlotte Jackson, one questioning professional competence behind her back and showing prejudice towards a whole sex (though if Richard Keys is to be believed it was in jest), the other a lewd act to her face and which she chose to clearly ignore.

(See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV0oWNVG7Mw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuPMFvuYcvk )

However, what comment or action had more weight of causing embarrassment or discomfort? A comment behind the back, never meant to be aired, an almost private conversation, or a near direct act of sexual harassment, and in the workplace too? Is there anything worse than problems and, in particular, discrimination in the workplace, where, often, people have no option but to suffer in silence or face the consequences on their career if they make an issue of it?

Perhaps that is the most damning evidence against Gray: Charlotte Jackson and Richard Keys’ lack of reaction to his comments; no surprise, no dismissal, no word requiring apology or redress, just acceptance. Further, the additional footage of Andy Gray and Andy Burton discussing Sian Massey as a sex object highlighted the culture around their workplace, one where it was apparently acceptable to view women within their workplace, football, as sex objects, and refer to them as such.

(See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8279944/Andy-Gray-under-increasing-pressure-after-release-of-further-footage-of-him-criticising-Sian-Massey.html )

The behaviour shows it to be the norm, and, therefore, the culture; and that is why it was unacceptable; and it appears that Gray and Keys had become so sure of their place in the corporation that they considered themselves above the law, beyond redress, and so that culture continued; at least until someone in that workplace found the opportunity to expose their offensive comments for being just that.

The fact that tapes of the pair’s original offending comments were aired and publicised, and other examples quickly found and aired, shows the apparent contempt in which the two were held by their former colleagues. If they had not behaved as such there may have been loyalty, an acceptance that the original comments were a one-off, with lessons learnt and never to be repeated. But loyalty has to be earned, and they clearly had not earned that, there being a rotten culture with them at its core. And so, when the media world called for their heads to roll, no loyalty was to be found.

In his comments on Talksport, Richard Keys commented on dark forces being at work and that he had been told not to publicise his apology to Sian Massey.

Maybe it is possible that with a new managing director Sky Sports, Barney Francis, Sky wanted a new, younger, possibly cheaper direction for their football coverage, which would have been hard to do when Gray and Keys had become, for better or worse, synonymous with their coverage. But, if they hadn’t have made those comments, or acted as they did, or taken part in an outdated culture, the opportunity to replace them would not have presented itself. And what better way to change a culture than to curtail the careers of the biggest beasts in that workplace: can you estimate how many sexist jokes have been made by Sky employees this week? Think of a number and times it by nought and that will be the answer. And I bet it was a better place to work for all of its employees.

The Andy Coulson Affair and News International: A Nuclear Power

2011-01-24T14:41:00.000Z

It was the ultimate irony of ironies: Andy Coulson apparently quit as David Cameron’s Director of Communications because he had become the story and he, the former editor of the News of the World, had become concerned of the pressure on his family caused by the media spotlight.

And it would seem that with the resignation the pressure is now off the government, and in particular David Cameron, over Mr Coulson’s position as his Director of Communications when it appeared that he still had questions to answer concerning his role in the News of the World phone tapping affair.

In an interview following the resignation, David Cameron said that Mr Coulson shouldn’t be punished twice for his role in the scandal (of which he denies any knowledge or wrongdoing, stating that he was unaware of what was going on) and that he had already resigned as editor of the News of the World over the issue.

It is difficult to believe the naivety of Mr Cameron’s statement: that if Mr Coulson really was guilty of any wrongdoing, even implicitly or incompetently, is it right that he be paid by the taxpayer to an estimated £140,000 per year?

News International are trying to take the moral high ground on the issue, suspending a senior executive over the issue and making allegations that they were not the only newspaper undertaking such activities. Further, many journalists have criticised Mr Coulson for his apparent double standard, rather than standing up for journalists and stating that, at times and in pursuit of articles that are definitively in the public interest, they may act in a way that blurs the boundaries of what is legal, he has denied all knowledge of such activities and, therefore, implicitly criticised them. Perhaps the reason for this position is the manner in which the phone tapping was undertaken at the News of the World.

A brief scan of the list of the those suspected as having their phones tapped hardly reveals names great and good, being dominated by those famed for a level of mild infamy rather than for their grandeur: Sienna Miller, Gordon Taylor, John Prescott, David Davies and Brian Paddick to name a few.

And reading those various names, it can only be concluded that the tapping was apparently used as a mere fishing expedition, phones tapped as a matter of course in an attempt to gather any information that may be newsworthy, of interest to the public rather than in the public interest, a different thing entirely, with no level set of what should be the public interest; why else would they have been subject to such tapping?

Perhaps it is too much to ask of newspaper editors, at least those of the tabloids, whether a matter is of sufficient public interest to warrant such a blurring of the lines between legality and illegality. Perhaps it is too much to expect them to think about more than selling papers. Perhaps I am naïve to think other than that the bottom line counts everywhere nowadays, so why not in the newspaper industry too?

At the News of the World it appears as if phone tapping was going on as a matter of course, routine, policy almost, which leads to questions of those at the top of the tree; if they did not know about it, why not?

Kelvin McKenzie, former editor of The Sun, has stated that editors do not routinely ask their journalists for sources. Perhaps the key word there is ‘routinely’ and, therefore, perhaps that is the key issue too: if Mr Coulson was not asking any of his journalists for their sources, surely that raises questions as to his own competency; and, if so, should he have been placed into a position of being paid for by the taxpayer (which in turn raises questions as to David Cameron’s decision making, for putting him into that position…)?

Perhaps the arguments over the details of the phone tapping just muddy the waters of the greater issue: the power wielded by Rupert Murdoch/News International.

For analysis of the whole scandal raises questions as to that end: note Gordon Brown’s call to Andy Coulson following his resignation from the News of the World; note David Cameron’s appointment of him as his Director of Communications; note Vince Cable’s swift removal from being the decision-maker of whether News International can take over Sky. Gordon Brown and David Cameron, like any political leader in this country, know that they must pander to Murdoch/News International or face the consequences, negative publicity throughout his publications. Was there any other reason for the actions above, other than an attempt to tame the nuclear power that is Murdoch/News International?

For a nuclear power is what it is, as last year’s manhunt for Raoul Moat so clearly demonstrated the powerful almost gleeful synergy with which it operates: twenty-four coverage on Sky News and online; in-depth coverage in The Times; titillating headlines and exclusive interviews in The Sun and the News of the World.

And so we are stuck in the ultimate political Catch 22: politicians need the power and the backing of the media to win elections, including those of News International, with its uniquely dominant position in the media; it would take a government to change the rules as to the ownership of newspapers and television stations to tame Rupert Murdoch/News International; the government knows that any suggestion of such a policy would lead to the whole Nuclear International, sorry News International (Freudian slip, honest…) machine being launched in its direction (note its reaction to Vince Cable’s comments that he was aiming for them…); and, whilst such a decision is not taken, power is out of the hands of the politicians and the electorate and in the hands of Rupert Murdoch/News International…

Perhaps only cross-party policy-making can tame Murdoch/News International but whether any MP’s have the guts to do so, in the face of its nuclear threat, is another matter entirely. And if you never hear from me again, you know what has happened…

Warsi: The Blinkered Baroness

2011-01-20T13:53:00.000Z

Perhaps it is with some irony that Baroness Warsi, co-chariman of the Conservative Party, accuses everyone in Britain of inherent Islamaphobia; for to make such a claim is surely the kind of bigotry that she is seeking to highlight, address and tackle.

For one moment, consider the comment from the reverse angle, if I said every Muslim is anti-British. Simply, that claim is ludicrous, a wanton comment tarring a whole religious creed with the same brush; and there is no basis, balance or evidence for such a comment; and that is the problem with Baroness Warsi’s comments.

Some people in Britain are, no doubt, racist. Some people in Britain are prejudiced too, but the key word in those statements is some, and they cannot be used to taint all British people as such. To do that is to do no better than any racist, or indeed anybody who makes the distinction that as suicide bombers are Muslim all Muslims are bad.

Baroness Warsi clarifies her comments by saying that prejudice against Muslims has passed the dinner table test, that it is now seen as a normal, acceptable form of hatred.

I do not know what dinner parties Baroness Warsi goes to (maybe ones dominated by bigoted Tories, so maybe her comments are fair), but I have never been to a dinner party where the guests discuss the acceptable hatred of Islam, or express views as such. Simply, I cannot accept that most people in Britain hold those views.

Perhaps Baroness Warsi believes that those who attend dinner parties hold views that look down upon Muslims and that those views are bigoted and racist, referring to those people who comment on seeing a Muslim woman wearing a Burka. However, to hold such views and comment as such is not the same as being bigoted or racist, but perfectly natural. In a day and age of equality, many people find it difficult to accept, even amoral, that a woman has to cover up her own skin because of some outdated ideology, like something from Victorian Britain. But, and this is crucial, that is not to say that we do not accept any woman’s right to wear such dress, if they choose to do so of their own free will. For there is a great deal of difference between opinion and bigotry, and with its rich history of freedom of speech and tolerance, Britain and its people have on the whole trod that fine line with distinction. And that is the point: the British has for a long time now accepted the way the world is, the way this country is; Britain is tolerant, with a natural view of ‘each to their own’. Look back to WWII, British people, ordinary people, refusing to adhere to the American rules on segregation of black troops in this country. It is just not the British way…

Baroness Warsi also warns against dividing Muslims into moderates and extremists, without appearing to clarify how to distinguish between those Muslims who carry out terrorism and those who do not. But a divide does need to be made, as without doing so would inevitable lead to tarring all with the same brush (although with her comments Baroness Warsi does not appear to be against that).

Soon after 9/11 my very young niece and nephew asked me by about the men who carried out that act of terrorism, with media everywhere discussing Muslim extremists. In explaining, and rationalising those actions to the children, I could only do so by distinguishing them from other Muslims, emphasising that the key word was extremist rather than Muslim, that their religion was almost irrelevant to it, their blind faith being used to radicalise them and use them as a political force.

It is a shame that Baroness Warsi does not use her position to encourage integration between different communities, rather than adding to what may be the underlying tensions between them. As a Muslim in position of power, she could be doing so much to unite any factions, educating the public as a whole, rather than appearing to pander to a section of it, certain Muslims who may hold the same views as her.

In her position Baroness Warsi should be emphasising to the Muslim community that there is nothing to fear from Britain and that many ethnically British people, if not most, have been brought up in the British ideals and values; and she should be clear in educating the Muslim community that they should be clear in condemning any acts of terror by any Muslims anywhere in the world if that value is not to be eroded.

Baroness Warsi also has the power to speak as a moderate Muslim to ethnically British people, which provides her with the opportunity to comment in such a way to show that Britain has nothing to fear from the Muslim community, thus reinforcing its values of tolerance. To do otherwise does nothing for cultural relations, to add to the tension rather than defuse it by encouraging integration, to positively encourage Muslims to respect this country and its history, culture and tolerant attitude.

Unfortunately, Baroness Warsi herself appears blinkered to those values, the current state of Britain today, and the role of Muslims in modern Britain. Therefore, Baroness Warsi is also blinkered to her own role in that.

The Tuition Fees Protests: Student’s, Think!

2010-12-15T13:54:00.000Z

If there is one criticism of recent graduates from our universities, and therefore its current students, it is that with the cynical drive towards passing exams and obtaining qualifications rather than the actual process of learning, students are now only learning what they need to know and no longer actually thinking: as a result they are no longer able to think, analyse, debate and argue issues through to a logical conclusion; this would appear to be the case with regard to the issue of the treatment of Jody McIntyre by the police, Richard Littlejohn and Ben Brown.

Richard Littlejohn has been widely criticised for belittling Jody McIntyre, if not all disabled people (view his opinions here, rather than giving The Daily Mail traffic: http://www.minority-thought.com/2010/12/richard-littlejohn-plumbs-new-depths-of.html).

Ben Brown has been criticised for the manner of his interview with Mr McIntyre (see the interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/).

It is difficult to disagree with Richard Littlejohn without questioning the ideal of whether or not we should have a free press: you cannot campaign for that and then complain that what is written is wrong (even if it feels like it is), particularly when a matter is one of opinion. Mr Littlejohn may be wrong in his opinion, and in so many ways, but it is his opinion nonetheless and though I would rather kill myself slowly by drip feeding arsenic into my bloodstream, whilst torturing myself with a combination of liquid nitrogen and burning hot coals, and sticking hedgehogs in my eyes than read his pathetic bile myself, I would still defend his right to freely comment as he does. That is his opinion, whether right, or whether or so wrong.

It is also difficult to criticise Ben Brown for the manner of his interview with Mr McIntyre; he was just doing his job (and I do not mean that in the sense that, therefore, he should get away with anything) and we cannot complain about the freedom of the press, and the BBC, if they do not vigorously question every person who appears on their channels. And there is no reason why that should not include a disabled student; if he has been given the airtime to provide his argument, it is only right that he should be questioned accordingly.

Simply, how would students feel if a police officer appeared on the BBC giving his view of the student protests and his views were not questioned? And, just because Mr McIntyre is in a wheelchair, does that mean that he is not capable of being involved in the riot element of the protests? I don’t think so, we should not be so prejudicial.

To defend Mr McIntyre’s treatment beyond that of a non-disabled student also does no credit to him, or any other disabled individual. It is clear from the interview that Mr McIntyre is a strong minded, intelligent and driven individual who was more than capable of holding his own counsel against an experienced news presenter. Indeed, disabled people can take much pride in him, in showing so clearly that just because a person has a disability it does not mean that they are so in mind and spirit. Mr McIntyre is proof of what disabled people can achieve if they have the drive to do so; and students too, for he may well become a beacon for the student’s protests, beyond rioting, that their campaigning has been crying out for.

If anything, Ben Brown’s interview with Mr McIntyre showed him to be too strong minded, too set in an ideological argument when there is a practical argument to be had and most possibly won, if only they thought through their arguments.

In an interview over the weekend Michael Portillo questioned the motivation of the students taking part in the protests, that it was just a case of self-interest and it was a shame that students were not protesting against something worthwhile, like human rights abuses in China. Before and after the vote on tuition fees, government ministers talked of losing the argument on the issue. If the students are able to think clearly on the matter, it is they who will win the argument and, maybe, win public opinion so that in due course the government’s plans are reversed.

Students like Charlie Gilmour show that the issue of tuition fees it is not just a matter of self interest, for it is doubtful that he is concerned about the effect of the rise in tuition fees on him personally. Hearing the students’ talk, it is also clear that their concerns go beyond tuition fees, that they are also concerned that the young and the socially disadvantaged are taking the brunt of the government’s budget cuts: on not just tuition fees, but with general cuts in education budgets, school sports partnerships, the Education Maintenance Allowance.

It is also clear that the government, and Michael Portillo, fail to understand that the fees talked about, and the ensuing levels of debt, are to many people astronomical and that many young people will now leave school to face a stark choice between getting a dead end job or going to university and facing a level of debt; to many that will be an absolute deterrent to going to university. It is inevitable that many will feel that they have nothing to lose by protesting, to any degree, to try and change that situation; they have nothing to lose, and in that situation, they have nothing to lose by rioting. That makes them very dangerous indeed and I would be putting any money on the protests dying down any time soon, or indeed increasing as time passes.

Government ministers, and Michael Portillo, need to ask themselves: what would they do if they found out that there chances in life had been stunted? In such a situation, would they be rebelling, maybe even rioting, too?

At present, many of the students feel that their argument is not being heard, in a manner that other sections of society are. Is it any coincidence that Topshop, owned by Phillip Green, who headed a government review into its efficiency and is said to have avoided billions of pounds in tax, was attacked during last week’s protests? And is it only a question of time before banks in the City of London are attacked as the students realise that the government will not do anything to deal with their bonuses at a time when young people have to suffer a brunt of the cuts?

I am not defending the indefensible, or saying what may be right or wrong. All I say is: students, think it through, as if you do, there may just be an argument to be won.

My X Factor Shame

2010-12-13T14:03:00.000Z

As The X Factor finishes for another year, I would like to say I don’t care, I didn’t care, who won. But, somehow, I do and I did. And, yes, I feel the shame.

Ordinarily, I would not care for such things, such music. I cannot think of more than one other show on ITV that I normally watch (except from I’m A Celebrity, of course, who would not want to watch some celebrities being tortured, or in the case of Katie Price not being tortured enough?). And my CD player (yes, I know I should be writing IPod, what can I say, I am so old school?) normally plays albums classed as ‘indie’, like Arctic Monkeys and Kasabian, having been honed by teenage years listening to Blur and Oasis and numerous Britpop bands.

But, somehow, I get caught up in the whole excitement that is The X Factor phenomenon (and, no, I’m not proud). Each year, yes, every year, I settle down to watch each and every episode. Why? The soap opera, for that is what it is, TV’s simplest form of entertainment: with heroes (this year Matt and Rebecca) and villains and (this year Katie and Cher and Cheryl), and smartarses (Simon) and idiots (Louis). Oh yes, I know all the names and, if pushed, though not even very much, I could probably tell you all the winners, and in order too (without Googleing too, honest). Steve Brookstein. Shayne Ward. Leona Lewis. Leon Jackson. Alexandra Burke. Joe McElderry. Matt Cardle. Yes, I do feel sad, in every way, now…

Take out the soap opera, there is also a beauty to The X Factor: giving people a chance in life; giving those who have talent (for that is what singing is too, despite the protests of songwriters) but not had the belief or the drive or the sheer bloody-mindedness to make their dream come true; or the opportunity. So much of life now is dominated by who you know, not what you know or how talented you are. A recent survey highlighted that sixty percent of the charts is now dominated by ex-public school pupils, as opposed to one percent twenty years ago:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1335880/Public-school-singers-pop-charts-60-acts-privately-educated.html

Yes, that could be due to talent being nurtured better by public schools but also to do with those ex-public school educated people being more likely to have the contacts in the right places to get their music heard and to get that lucky break that is all important. The X Factor cuts through the need for that, being a direct line to the people. Yes, no doubt corralled by Simon Cowell’s mind bending editorial persuasion, but the people, none the less. But maybe even Mr Cowell’s power is overestimated; do you really think he really wanted another male vocalist to win, when there is clearly a gap in the market for a teenage boy band like One Direction?

In any event, watching dreams come true may be obvious and formulaic, but it is beautiful nonetheless: hearing and watching someone grow, with humility slowly realising their own talent, or connecting with the sound and emotion of a song so that the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end, is beautiful too (as Matt did, last night, singing his winner’s song).

A collection of musicians, ‘real’ musicians they would probably say, have queued up to denounce The X Factor, to question its integrity and quality in being nothing more than a cash cow for Simon Cowell and a driving force towards making music bland beyond creativity and diversity. Whilst I must admit that it breaks my heart to hear classic songs turned into ‘cheese’, such as Heroes by The X Factor finalists (don’t get me started on their use of finalists… all those in who take part in the live shows are finalists but then near the end of the live shows there is a semi final and a final and within the live final two then get through to the final proper… what the…?), music is not about snobbery, life should not be about snobbery.

It is easy to sneer at anything you do not like (yes, Noel Fielding, it is easy to criticise you, you know, you haddock skinned, sixties bowl cut haired, comically backward, inbred, badly dressed transvestite giraffe). But music is really in the ear of the beholder, and who knows where musical taste is really formed? Musical taste is like an inbuilt belief, like religion, and so difficult to really question.

It should also be asked whether pop music has ever really been any different. Pop, in being popular, is inevitably middle of the road. And, how has that ever stunted creativity? There has, and no doubt always will be, different types of music and, in this day and age, there are more outlets than ever for any kind of music. And, if anything, the more money music companies make from the gravy train of pop, the more they can use to nurture those bands that may require that, to reach their full potential. Music is not, and has never been a monopoly of pop. And ‘real’ musicians should not so judgemental: they should know more than anyone, that there is no right and wrong in this day and age, only the way things are. Who is to criticise anyone for doing anything if it does no harm to any other human being?

The X Factor simply provides an opportunity and only time will tell whether that will be for a one hit wonder or a long term career. And what is wrong with that?

As for the future of this year’s finalists: Matt Cardle is clearly a talented musician and, as Take That has shown, talent can persist beyond the initial headline single; Rebecca Ferguson may struggle in the long time, as while her voice is uniquely beautiful she appears to lacks charisma and the confidence to perform (if she ever has; did she ever move on stage? Is she able to?); One Direction’s career will depend on their management, whether they look for the quick buck or to the long term.

As with anything, only time will tell.

The Atheist Christmas

2010-12-08T13:14:00.000Z

Take a look at the following conversation that I overheard (in my head) between Richard Dawkins and two of his disciples:

Disciple One: Richard, I love the way you tear apart the accepted rational of religion and demonstrated the stupidity of all those who believe in it.

Dawkins: I know. I know. Every day I wake up and think how can I change these people’s lives? How can they be so deluded that they believe in such things, to pray, to take such heed of a ‘holy’ book, and to attend ‘church’! What a state of affairs!

Disciple Two: Mr Dawkins. You must use your power to spread the word, to save these people. You must find a way.

Dawkins: I know, I know, but how?

Disciple One: Well, maybe you should right a book, I mean, another book, but one that is an authoritative guide to atheism, like a guide to atheists so that we can live our lives to your word.

Richard: Yes. I can see it now, a final collection of all my works. A book of scriptures no less! I like it!

Disciple One: And we can recognise the supreme being of atheism, The Atheist, as the creator and ruler of the world!

Disciple Two: With atheist buildings all over the country, no, the world, where people can go and express there reverence and adoration for you, and make solemn requests for help or express their thanks to The Atheist, to you.

Disciple One: We could even sing songs of approval or admiration for Atheism, The Atheist, and you.

Richard: Again, I like it. All that attention on me… and atheism, of course, what my life’s work has all been for!

Disciple One: You deserve it, Richard. You are the Atheist’s disciple. You are the Son of Atheism!

Richard: Yes. Yes, I am!

Disciple Two: And we could have one day a week set aside for visiting the atheist buildings. Sunday’s a good day, not a work day for many, and less busy than Saturday.

Richard: Another good idea. And wouldn’t it be a good idea if everyone celebrated my birthday?

Disciple One: Yes, Richard, yes it would. When is your birthday?

Richard: 12^th December. Not a good time for another birthday of a legend, though at least I am real legend!

Disciple Two: Why don’t we change it to another, more convenient time of the year? What about the summer holidays, say the last day of August, to coincide with the Bank Holiday?

Richard: What a good idea! Everyone could have the day off work to celebrate my birth. Everyone could come together as families, exchange cards and gifts in celebration, attend those atheist buildings, and sing songs in praise of The Atheist and me! What a wonderful, magical time that would be!

Disciple One: Oh, Richard, yes!

Richard: And what about a day to celebrate my life, and before I die so I can appreciate how everyone adores my work, me?

Disciple One: You mean a day where we celebrate your life and remember your death, even before you are dead?

Richard: Exactly. It would be like my re-birth, forever! I, my fine works, could live forever!

Disciple Two: Yes, yes you shall. But when shall that day fall, Richard? When?

Disciple One: Why don’t we let nature decide? How about the first full moon following the Northern Spring Equinox?

Richard: That is perfect!

Disciple One: So there we have it. We shall spread the word. We shall study the book of scriptures. We shall attend the buildings of Atheism. We shall express our thanks to The Atheist; sing songs of reverence to Him, Atheism and the Son of Him. We shall have whole days to celebrate His life, His death, His re-birth. He shall live forever!

Richard: Yes, yes, yes!

Disciple Two: The Atheist, the Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. Praise be Him!

Richards: Yes!

Disciple One: The Son of The Atheist. Praise be Him!

Richard: Yes!

Disciple One: What greatness! What shall we call it?

Disciple Two: You mean what shall we call this greatness?

Disciple One: Yes. Richard. What can we name it, how can we define this pursuit or interest followed with devotion?

Richard: Ah. Religion…

England’s Bid for the 2018 World Cup: Football R.I.P.

2010-12-06T14:49:00.002Z

As the fallout rumbles on from England’s failed bid to host the 2018 World Cup, the only real, clear thought on the matter is that it shouldn’t have to be like this.

It may be galling for many English football fans to hear but we do not own the game, we are not the home to football, though we talk, or sing, about it coming home to us.

It may be even correct for FIFA to take its premier tournament to the furthest corners of the world, that in this day and age the world is global and football is too, so it should be taken around the world, to places where it has not been before: Eastern Europe and the Middle East. And so FIFA and, in particular, Sepp Blatter’s talk of legacy, taking football and the World Cup to a new continent, may well be considered as admirable. Or it would if FIFA had taken a more moral high ground to the matter, encouraging countries such as Russia and Qatar to bid for the tournament but only on the condition that they deal with any issues that should be abhorrent to the average football fan elsewhere in the world, or at least to the western world.

Talk of legacy goes beyond football, to culture and society in general (hence why England’s bid presentation included a youth worker at Manchester City FC, Eddie Afekafe, who said that he turned his life around thanks to football). FIFA, therefore, could have used the bait of hosting a World Cup to change societies in such countries as Russia and Qatar. FIFA has always taken a rather lax approach to the issues of racism and homophobia in football, dealing out measly fines to those clubs and countries whose supporters have continued to use those tags to barrack players, rather than taking the ultimate sanction that would hit those supporters the hardest: banning clubs and countries from participation in tournaments.

Now FIFA has awarded the World Cup to a country where black players still suffer racist slurs and another where homosexuality is illegal. FIFA should have used its clout to encourage those countries to deal head on with these issues, in the hope of one day rewarding them with the World Cup. Instead, FIFA has almost condoned the behaviour but not dealing with it, taking the decision to take the World Cup to those countries as a matter of policy, without having a policy to ensure the integrity of the tournament will not be disrupted by those issues.

It also seems absurd that such a decision, one of apparent policy should take place when countries are spending vast amounts of money, at a time of austerity (not a word FIFA delegates are aware of, I am sure), and when millions of pounds of public money is in fact wasted on those bids. And we are not only talking about England having wasting money on achieving the best technical bids, the USA and Australia bids also failing to gain more than two votes.

However, even talk of policy does not hold muster against the evidence of the voting of FIFA’s Executive Committee: fourteen members voting for Qatar, whose bid was deemed to be risky and with its country and population smaller than Fiji, not exactly a hotbed of football activity. It can only be speculated what caused so many members of the Executive committee to vote in favour of Qatar.

Andy Anson and Peter Hargitay, respectively England and Australia’s bid co-coordinators, have talked of ‘accountable’ bids failing and ‘unaccountable’ bids succeeding. It does not take much to read between the lines of these comments: accountable bids being required to account for every penny, pound or dollar spent on a bid would not allow for any haggling in the buying price for any member of the Executive Committee; unaccountable bids, say those backed by individuals whose wealth may the size of the Gross Domestic Product of a small country, may easily find that money down the back of one of those individual’s sofas, or that of a member of the Executive Committee. Is it any wonder that those two bids succeeded?

It is one thing for such conduct to take place but another for those running a governing body to turn a blind eye to such behaviour. Indeed, when The Sunday Times broke the story of the corruption within FIFA, it felt as if it was inconvenience to FIFA rather than an opportunity to ensure fair play off the field as well as on it (though FIFA does not do that good a job of that either, given the way International Football is now, with the last World Cup dominated by dull, cynical play and gamesmanship almost bringing into disrepute the game we love). And that rouses suspicions too, as if they know that the practice was taking place but did not want it publicised. You cannot help but feel that FIFA believes that that is just the way the bidding process is, and accept it for what it is: their version of oiling the wheels of power, the way business is done in some areas of the world.

So what for England’s FA now? It is in an unenviable position, torn between what it thinks must be the right thing to do and that animal instinct of politics, which will be telling them to keep their noses clean and wait another day as they try and ingratiate themselves into the brotherhood that is FIFA. Whether the latter course of action is the correct one, though the one most likely to be taken, the bravery of the first not something that most political animals hold, will remain to be seen.

It is widely stated that power corrupts, though it is often not realised that corruption corrupts too, like a black death that quickly spreads through organisations until everything is infected. Just imagine this scenario: now we are watching the world Cup bidding process wondering how much it may have cost to buy the votes of a member of the Executive Committee. In eight years time we may be watching Russia winning their home tournament of 2018 by due of a doubtful refereeing decision, doubting if we are watching a real, honest game of football.

And that would mean the death of football, the game we love.

So, for the love of the game, the FA must take a stand, join forces with other countires such as the USA and Australia, and no doubt others who may also be dissatisfied with the FIFA, in refusing to take part in any FIFA led tournament until a full, independent investigation has taken place into the World Cup bidding process, that process is restarted to a transparent system of voting, and FIFA’s current management is replaced by one wholly elected by every member state of FIFA.

Otherwise, Football R.I.P.

Sly News

2010-11-26T14:01:00.002Z

Cue over-dramatic music/news theme.

Cue over-dramatic voice over.

Voice Over: Sly News. (Pause). Always on air. (Pause). Waiting for, and wanting, something really bad to happen to justify our existence.

Ymerej Nospmoht: (In over-dramatic newsreader voice) Good evening. You’re watching Sly News. I’m Ymerej Nospmoht. We have breaking news.

Cue over-dramatic voice over (again).

Voice Over: Breaking News. What keeps the rolling news channel going.

Ymerej Nospmoht: (In over-dramatically serious news reader voice). We are just getting reports in that. (Pause). There has been an incident. (Pause) As yet unreported. (Pause). Somewhere. (Pause). As yet, also unreported. (Pause). For further details I believe that we can now cross to Nitram Notnurb in the Sly News newsroom. Nitram, what more can you tell us about the reports of a reported incident?

Nitram Notnurb: Well, Ymerej, as you stated previously, there are reports. (Pause). Of reported reports. (Pause). Of an incident. (Pause). As yet unreported. (Pause). So, to confirm, as yet we are unsure of the incident or, in fact, if there has been an incident at all or, if there has been an incident, where that incident has taken place. Ymerej, back to you in the studio.

Ymerej Nospmoht: Thank you, Nitram. (In over-dramatically serious newsreader voice). So, just to update you if you have just tuned in. (Pause). We are getting reports that. (Pause). There is. (Pause). Reported reports. (Pause). Of an incident. (Pause). As yet unreported. (Pause). Somewhere. (Pause). Also, as yet unreported. We will of course keep you updated with any developments on that fast breaking news.

Cue over-dramatic voice over (again).

Voice Over: Breaking News. What keeps the rolling news channel going.

Ymerej Nospmoht: Reports. (Pause). Of reports. (Pause). Of reported reports. (Pause). Of an incident. (Pause). As yet unreported. (Pause). Somewhere. (Pause). As yet unreported. We’ll keep you updated as those reports come in.

Cue over-dramatic voice over (again).

Voice Over: From murder crime scenes to red carpets, Sly News is always there.

Ymerej Nospmoht: Welcome back. You’re listening to Sly News. I’m Ymerej Nospmoht. Just to update you on the breaking news.

Cue over-dramatic voice over (again).

Voice Over: Breaking News. What keeps the rolling news channel going.

Ymerej Nospmoht: Those reports of an incident that we were reporting on previously. We are getting reports in of a reported incident. (Pause). As yet unreported. (Pause) Somewhere. (Pause). As yet also unreported. For further details on the reports of the reported incident, we can now cross to our chief reporter, Yak Yelrub, who is in North London, where the incident may or may not have taken place, if indeed there has in fact been an incident anywhere. Yak, are you able to shed some light on the reported reports of a reported incident?

Yak Yelrub: Yes, Ymerej. I can confirm that there are reports. (Pause). Of reports. (Pause). Of reported reports. (Pause) Of a reported incident. (Pause). As yet unreported.

Ymerej Nospmoht: Are there any further details as to where the reported unreported incident may have taken place?

Yak Yelrub: Yes, Ymerej. I can confirm that if indeed there has been an incident as reported then that incident might have taken place. (Pause). Somewhere. (Pause) Possibly North London, where I am this evening, or possibly anywhere. (Pause). Or possibly not anywhere. (Pause). If indeed the reports. (Pause) Of reports. (Pause). Of reported reports. (Pause). Of a reported incident. (Pause). As yet unreported. (Pause) Did not in fact take place at all. Ymerej, back to you in the studio.

Ymerej Nospmoht: Thank you, Yak. You’ve certainly helped to shed some light on the breaking news.

Cue over-dramatic voice over (again).

Voice Over: Breaking News. What keeps the rolling news channel going.

Ymerej Nospmoht: There have been reports. (Pause) Of reports. (Pause). Of a reported incident tonight, which is. (Pause). As yet. (Pause). Unreported and took place. (Pause). Or did not take place. (Pause) Somewhere. (Pause). As yet, unreported.

Cue over-dramatic voice over (again).

Voice Over: Sly News. Always on air. Finding news whether anything is happening, or not.

The Student Protests: The Out of Touch Minister

2010-11-25T10:09:00.004Z

With more student protests yesterday, and continuing media coverage of the students’ opposition to the government’s proposed rise in tuition fees, to up to £9,000 per year, attention has been drawn to David Willetts, Minister of State for Universities and Science.

Yesterday Mr Willetts appeared on BBC Three’s Young Voters’ Question Time, demonstrating an apparent patronising attitude that antagonised the audience. Indeed, at one point, with a pompous tone, he stated that he was ‘only a millionaire if you counted the value of his two houses’.

Previous estimates have the public school (King’s School, Birmingham) and Oxford (Christ Church College) educated Mr Willetts as worth an estimated £1.9 million.

Perhaps it helps that between 2001 and 2008 Mr Willetts claimed £143,764 in second home expenses, including home improvements. Perhaps it helps also that even the most menial of work carried out in that second home was done by an experienced labourer, with Mr Willetts once claiming £2,191 for ‘odd jobs’, including the changing of 25 light bulbs, costing £115 plus VAT, though he was refused permission to claim £175 for a dog enclosure and £750 for a shed base.

See this article for more information on Mr Willetts expenses claims:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5304988/David-Willetts-skills-minister-who-cant-change-a-light-bulb-MPs-expenses.html

Mr Willetts apparent attitude on Young Voters’ Question Time once again highlights how such people fail to understand the concerns of students, and no doubt their parents too. Whilst government ministers talk about the rich paying more and the poor being subsidised, it makes no account for those in the majority, the hard working middle classes, who are invariably neither rich nor poor but in most cases living hand to mouth in order to keep their financial heads above the muddied, money waters who see the £9,000 tuition fees as exorbitant.

Yes, ministers state that the money will not have to be paid back until a certain level of income has been obtained. But, to the ordinary, middle class person, this is no use to them. The middle classes are naturally cautious, brought up on the idea that you live to your means. So, suddenly, university would not be within that means. Yes, again, the money would not be paid back until a certain income is attained, but middle class student and their parents know how hard it can be to live to your means and still attain the basic aims of many in life: to buy a home, not a house, or houses, as an investment; to get married, have children, just live a comfortable life, not well off but comfortable. And to do so every penny counts, but if the government’s plans are put into action, every penny over £21,000 will be subject to that tax. So it is a tax on the ambition of every middle class family in this country.

Some people say that others should not subsidise others to attend university. But, surely that could be said for anything. Why do the well subsidise the sick? Why do workers subsidise the retired? The argument should be that everyone should have the chance to attend university, or any course that they desire in seeking to attain the future that they would like, or their sons and daughters in the future? What kind of a society, or country, would we be where it may make financial sense for our students to study abroad, with universities in the USA, Canada and the Netherlands, promoting their courses as being cheaper, including everything, than studying in the UK?

It seems as if the real argument of the students is the amount of the increase in tuition fees, there being an acceptance that they should contribute to what they get from university (note the change in mood from when tuition fees were first introduced, with a whimper not a bang). It can even be argued that an increase in tuition fees by an extra £1,000 per year may be swallowed by current and prospective students, that they would accept that as part of the austerity measures the country is undertaking. And so the issue returns to level of fees suggested, and that is the key issue to the protests.

Ministers, especially those ‘millionaires’ like Mr Willetts, fail to understand that to many the current level of graduate debt is a lot of money (on average approximately £12,000), and so talk of increasing that level to £60,000, is beyond comprehension. As are tuition fees of £9,000 per year.

But I guess it is understandable that Mr Willetts would not understand such concern when the fees for a year’s education at his former school, King’s School, Birmingham, cost, yes, you’ve guessed it, approximately £9,000.

Have I Turned Into A Girl?

2010-11-23T13:09:00.001Z

It’s Saturday afternoon and, with no plans, it is a lazy one, in front of the TV, watching the football scores come in. How is it, somehow, just as exciting as actually watching a game? Or, with many of the matches shown on Sky, more exciting than actually watching a game? Watching Birmingham versus Stoke a couple of weeks ago, you actually wondered whether the players had ever seen a football before. Or watching teams coached by Italians, playing to avoid defeat, even against lesser teams, so that even if they win it seems incidental to their aim, to avoid defeat.

Anyway, I digress. So it is Saturday afternoon and I plan to watch the football scores come in. Or, for the benefit of marital peace, I cede the TV to my wife and gain the credit for doing so. It is always good to have credit in the bank, which I gratefully accept, declining to tell her that I am more than happy to listen to the scores coming in on the radio whilst snoozing on the bed, or reading the papers, or surfing the internet.

But, just as I settle down to the latter, my wife suggests we make a cake. And, for some completely unknown reason, I accept, quickly abandoning the football.

Within two minutes I find myself creaming (yes, I know the terms, now) the flour, eggs and butter. And singing Lady Gaga: Papa, Paparazzi. And barely thinking about the football. I could even put the football on the radio in the kitchen, but that does not even occur to me. It does not even occur to me when we continue to listen to music whilst we wait for the sponges to cook. It does not even occur to me as we make the icing, creaming the butter and icing sugar together (yes, I don’t just know the terms now, I know what to use too), whilst the sponges are cooling.

Soon, the cake is iced and I stand looking at it with a pride that I am unsure that I have ever felt before. Like a baby, my baby, that I (okay, we, me and my wife, have made). I made that, I think. And then we eat giant slices, and I am even more filled with pride. I made that, I think, and it tastes good. I feel warmth inside, and not just the cake satisfyingly inside my stomach.

Until, I think, my god, what have I just done? What am I doing, and feeling? Have I turned into a girl, baking a cake instead of thinking about the football?

Or, am I just man enough to do what I like? It could be watching or listening to football. It could be baking a cake whilst listening to Lady Gaga. Maybe that’s the age we live in. No boundaries, just whatever we want to be. As Lady Gaga would say… No. I can’t go that far. Just do whatever you want to do. Have no fear what people think of you. But, if you want me, I’ll now be listening to the football, with a beer.

The Curse of Data Protection

2010-11-22T14:21:00.000Z

Me: Hello
Bank: Hello. Mr Trew?
Me: Yes, speaking.
Bank: Hello Mr Trew. My name is Shivani. I’m calling from Your Bank plc. I’m calling concerning your bank account.
Me: Yes.
Bank: Before I discuss your bank account, for data protection purposes I need to ask you some security questions. Please can you confirm your postcode and your date of birth?
Me: Yes, of course I can.
Bank: Okay, Mr Trew. Please can you confirm your postcode and your date of birth?
Me: As I said, yes I can.
Bank: Okay, Mr Trew. Please can you provide me with your postcode and your date of birth?
Me: Why?
Bank: For data protection purposes, Mr Trew.
Me: But you called me.
Bank: Yes, Mr Trew, but I need to confirm that you are who you say you are.
Me: But you called me. How do I know who you are?
Bank: I told you Mr Trew. My name is Shivani. I’m calling from Your Bank plc.
Me: No. I said how do I know who you are, not who do you say that you are, again?
Bank: But I called you Mr Trew.
Me: Exactly. I don’t know who you are.
Bank: Mr Trew, my name is Shivani. I’m calling from Your Bank plc.
Me: I know, so you keep on telling me.
Bank: Okay, Mr Trew. Please can you provide me with your postcode and your date of birth?
Me: No.
Bank: Why not Mr Trew?
Me: Because I don’t know who you are.
Bank: I told you Mr Trew. My name is Shivani. I’m calling from Your Bank plc.
Me: I know that. You told me that before. Three times, at least. But I don’t know that you are who you say you are. Can you provide me with your details and a contact number so that I can call you back?
Bank: Unfortunately Mr Trew our call centre does not accept incoming calls.
Me: Sorry. You are in a call centre?
Bank: Yes Mr Trew.
Me: And yet you cannot accept incoming calls?
Bank: Yes Mr Trew.
Me: That sounds suspicious to me. I’ll tell you what, if you can tell me some details about me, I’ll speak with you now.
Bank: I’m sorry Mr Trew, I cannot do that.
Me: And why not?
Bank: Data protection.

Lord Young’s ‘Apology’

2010-11-19T14:09:00.000Z

So Lord Young has apologised for talking about the ‘so called recession’ and commenting that ‘most people had never had it so good’? And David Cameron has rebuked Lord Young for making those comments?

Well, not exactly. Read between the lines of the ‘apology’ and the rebuke and it may be questioned if they are at all and, if so, in all but name.

Lord Young is quoted as withdrawing the remarks, apologising for them and stating that he deeply regretted the comments and understood the offence caused by them.

Note the lack of the word sorry, or that what he said was wrong or inaccurate.

In other words, Lord Young believes what he said.

Given that situation, it is worth analysing exactly what he said in the first place, to see if there is any substance to his comments.

Firstly Lord Young talked of the ‘so called recession’ – so he does not believe the recession to be a matter of fact? Oh dear, not a good start.

Lord Young then considered that, having doubted the recession, ‘most people had never had it so good’. Perhaps, in giving Lord Young the benefit of the doubt, it is a logical conclusion given that he does not believe that there was a recession.

However, perhaps it is Lord Young’s comment that most people’s mortgages had gone down by £600 per month that really lets the cat out the bag as to who the people are that he thinks have ‘never had it so good’.

For someone’s monthly mortgage payments to decrease by £600 would, on average, require a mortgage on a property worth more than £1million. Maybe I’m being unfair on Lord Young, therefore. Maybe he is right that most people, with houses worth more than £1million were not involved in the recession and have never had it so good.

Lord Young also dismissed the number of public sector jobs expected to go in the budget cuts, some 100,000, stating that in terms of the employment figures it was a mere ‘margin of error’. I’m sure that’s comforting for those 100,000 workers.

Lord Young then dismissed those who complain about the budget cuts, saying that they were people who think the state has a right to support them, like councils and charities. I thought those organisations were crucial in the big society?

In response to the comments, David Cameron has said that they are embarrassing and unacceptable and that Lord Young will be doing a lot less speaking in the future.

Note the words used and the clarification of their meaning at the end of that sentence. In effect, David Cameron is saying that Lord Young’s comments are embarrassing and unacceptable for being said in public, not that they were wrong or inaccurate. I guess it is difficult to rebuke someone for telling the truth, isn’t it David?

The Royal Engagement/Wedding: So What?

2010-11-18T12:46:00.002Z

With the greatest of respect, and wishing them all the best as individuals and as a couple on their engagement, wedding and marriage, am I the only one who couldn’t give a tiny rat’s arse that Prince William is to marry his girlfriend? It just makes me think so what? Simply, I don’t know him, so I don’t care. Or I do, just not about that. For I know that, yes, he is heir to the throne and all that but, surely, that issue should not matter in this day and age, should it?

The answer is obviously no. In any other walk of life, where would the oldest male be accepted as the heir to anything? So, why should we accept that for our Head of State (unless it was a dictatorship or the state was one run by a fascist regime, though I guess that is the point)? We look across the world at other countries, see such regimes and mock them, and yet here we are in Britain with such a situation.

We have kind of forgotten, what with the question not having been raised that, with the Queen having been on the throne through so many generations and changes in society, it is hideously anachronistic for us to be considered subjects and ruled by a monarchy, out of place in a modern, meritocratic world.

Maybe all this country’s problems derive from that, some people knowing that no matter what they do in their lives they may never really make it.

Look at the manner in which some commentators are addressing Kate Middleton and her family, wondering how she and they will fit into the royal circles, how she, the privately and university educated Kate and her millionaire parents will fit in, as if they were living on benefits in a tower block in Dundee (not that there is anything wrong with that, unless you are Frankie Boyle).

Maybe the issue of the monarchy will be raised when the Queen has departed, and any emotional attachment to her has passed and we are left with Prince Charles, with many people underwhelmed by that prospect. We’ll see.

Having dismissed the idea of the monarchy, and the associated hysteria in the media, which seems at odds with modern Britain’s actual reaction of indifference to the engagement, may I raise an issue that, to be frank, slightly freaks me out?

Prince William’s giving of his late mother’s engagement ring to Kate.

Yes, he said it was a way of Princess Diana being involved in all the excitement, but does anyone else just find it a little, well, freaky, you know, giving the ring of your dead mother to your wife to be? And not just that but giving of a ring that was from a disastrously unhappy marriage, which caused his mother great unhappiness and that, if conspiracy theorists would have us believe, ultimately led to her death.

Anyhow, that is my miserable take on the issue. If you want me, I’ll be in The Tower.

David Cameron: The Insecure Boyfriend

2010-11-16T11:18:00.001Z

So, David Cameron wants to measure the mood of the nation, to measure our happiness and develop a so called Happiness Index?

It is like an insecure boyfriend who constantly ask what his girlfriend is thinking, asking if she is okay, if she is okay with him, if their relationship is okay.

The questions are asked because the boyfriend knows that something is wrong or, at the least, they are insecure as to their own attraction, either as a person or a partner.

I wonder what kind of boyfriend David Cameron is?

Insecure? I didn’t realise that David Cameron would be so, but then those that are, those that ask if things are wrong, tend to know, at least deep down in their subconscious, that something is wrong.

So, David Cameron has asked for the Happiness Index because he knows something is wrong. He knows that we are as a nation are deeply unhappy, living in a country riddled with inequality and an all work and no play culture, with life a constant struggle for even the most middle class of families. And then the coalition government comes to power to make things worse, with cuts, cuts and more bloody cuts cutting away at the very fabric of our society.

On benefits? They’re going to be cut.
Working? Work longer, and harder.
Got children (and hopeful for their future)? Pay, if you can, for them to go to university.
Work in the public sector? Your job is at risk.
Old and/or infirm? Worry. There is going to be less police officers, nurses and carers.
And who knows whether we as a country would be able to defend ourselves should we come under attack from a rogue state?

Happy? If we were, we should all be sectioned.

Yet, the irony is that some group of people somewhere will be delirious at the news of the Happiness Index. For those people will be those whose jobs have just been secured by the news that, at a time of deep government cuts to even the most frontline of services, they will be the ones compiling the bloody Happiness Index. Lucky them. And lucky David Cameron. At some people in the country will be happy.

The rest of us will be simply miserable, wondering about the cost of the exercise during a time of government cuts. And wondering what will come next. Bullies asking the bullied to rate their bullying experience? Victim’s ask to rate their attack experience? Or Prime Ministers asking their public to rate their happiness during a period of cuts? Oh, wait, that is happening already…

The Welfare Fate

2010-11-15T13:47:00.001Z

It would seem that every person on Incapacity Benefit is a cheat, a scrounger, and a workshy malingerer. Or that is what every benefit claimant seems to be if you believe what you read, see or hear in some of our media. Or that is what every benefit claimant seems to be if you believe some of the words used by the Government in stating that it will, not may, reduce the welfare budget by at least £7bn per year. It always seems as if no one stops to think that but for that unknown and unpredictable entity of fate, it could be them incapacitated and claiming benefits. I know, for although I am not yet claiming any benefits, I may soon be.

My problems began four years ago with a meagre infection that three doctors misdiagnosed; it was only when I saw the fourth one that it was diagnosed correctly, a particular type of infection requiring a particular type of treatment. I took that course of treatment, but still the pain persisted. I was prescribed different medications; some made me feel worse, all were to no avail. I had a scan and saw a specialist, who found the resolved infection and a cyst but said that it was nothing to concern me.

Some nine months after the first twinge of pain, I saw a pain specialist: he said that the nerves had been aggravated and that I needed specialist treatment. Over the next three years I had five courses of treatment into my spine, botulism toxin and radiofrequency treatment. Each treatment was like being tortured by a James Bond villain; I laid there trying to block out the pain, trying to think of beautiful sunny days, on a beach with my family, trying to fight the natural urge to cry and scream as the pain intensified. After each course of treatment I had brief moments of respite, before that faded and I was back to normal, with differing levels of constant pain.

Earlier this year I saw the pain specialist for the last time: he told me he could not do anymore treatment because it could cause more damage to the nerves, thus do more damage than good. I have seen a physiotherapist since, and I am trying a regime of exercise and rest to at least try to manage the pain better but, realistically, I know that I will now have to live with the pain for the rest of my life.

I was twenty-nine years old when the pain began, a recent law graduate with good work experience. I felt like I could be something, do anything. I felt like I could go wherever I wanted, whenever I wanted. I could travel; go to the theatre, gigs, watch the football, the cricket. I felt at my peak, as a man, as a human. I felt strong, mentally, physically, emotionally. I felt free from teenage angst but young enough to not be worn down by life. I felt ready to take the burden of life from my family.

Now I am thirty-three years old, less fit, less agile, less strong, mentally and physically, with a bulging stomach having replaced one that was trim. It may come to all men, and it may have happened in any case, but I feel that it has come too soon, and in a manner beyond my control.

The pain is there, all day, every day, with only the briefest glimpses of respite, and that is an easing of the pain rather than it gone. The more I do the more pain I am in, whether it be walking or sitting or travelling. Each time I do more I risk the pain flaring up so that anything I do hurts, really hurts, the kind of pain that makes you dizzy and nauseous, one step away from fainting. At those times any movement is a struggle and I need help with the simplest things, like getting up from a seat or putting my socks and shoes on. It is times like those that I feel like a burden on others, my wife. The rest of the time I am left with a constant nagging, toothache like pain.

The pain is at its best when I do practically nothing. Now a good day for me is a combination of rest and exercise, so that the pain will ease or, at the least, not be aggravated. With sitting aggravating the pain, I must rest lying down; my life seems to revolve around lying down, reading books, newspapers, magazines, and watching television, sport, Sky+, The Wire box set. Yet, I am never relaxed and comfortable, always aware of the pain and the need to move, as I know that if I do not the pain will increase. I must do particular exercises to ease and control the pain, as I have done for three years now, a combination of yoga and stretching exercises, and, now, cardiovascular exercise. I also take tablets each night, to ease the pain and help me sleep; if I do not, I have trouble sleeping. When the pain is at its worse I take more tablets and still that is not enough, each turn in bed aggravating the pain and waking me. I feel, or maybe I know but do not wish to recognise, that I will be so lying down, exercising and taking those tablets for the rest of my life.

It is the loss of freedom that most upsets me, always having to be aware of the pain and always having to consider the effect my actions will have on it. As a consequence I feel that I am not really living anymore; I just exist, trying to get through each day without aggravating the pain so much that I cannot do the things I have to do or really want to do. All the while I have this dread of the pain, knowing that the pain will come, like a spider crawling ever closer to an arachnophobe.

I got married in July, yet on the day all I could think about is that it was a long and painful wedding day. On our honeymoon (a cruise, the only realistic way we could get abroad), we visited some of the most beautiful cities in Europe and I was not free enough from pain to see them. I knew that even visits to our local town have to be brief and orchestrated, dominated by my need to stop and rest.

I was working when the pain began. I worked on a contractor basis: if I did not work I did not get paid, and so I carried on working. Most of the leave that I took in the last three years was to have treatment for the pain. And work was the worst thing for me: sitting at a desk for hours when even minutes can inflame the pain so that it grows and grows. By the end of a day in the office I was mentally and physically shattered, having fought the pain all day long. But I continued to work where I did because I knew that I could not leave; I could not get another job whilst I suffered the pain, even though it caused me more pain and I began to hate it (who likes anything that causes them pain?). I felt trapped. I was trapped. I could not sit down and yet my work was a desk job; it is all I knew. In the state I was in I did not know what else I could do, or who else would employ me.

Three months ago the worst happened: my work contract finished and I was left to find another job, and yet I really didn’t feel able to. I still don’t. Yet we’ve not claimed benefits, not one penny. We don’t want that shame, because that is what it is, a stigma, with all the bad publicity that benefits, and claimants, receive. Our backgrounds are strong, working to middle class, self-sufficient. We do not claim, not out of snobbery, but pride. We think we don’t need to, that they do not apply to us. We think: we can find work, we can earn good money, we can pay our way, and we can give our children the future’s they would like. Our family and friends tell us to claim, that we have paid my taxes and it is fair that we should now do so, but I don’t want to be one of those people the press, the government, talks about. And I don’t want that small amount of money that comprises those benefits. People talk as if they are a king’s ransom but they are not, I can assure you.

I am trying to forge a new career for myself, as a freelance writer, writing like this, as I managed to complete a couple of relevant courses whilst I was working (in pain, of course; that in itself feels something to be proud of). But even that is a Catch 22: I know I need more experience, and I guess that I won’t get that as that will hurt me too; I know that to write you need to sit at a desk and persevere until it becomes habit, which of course I struggle to do. But I am trying, relying on my wife’s income to support both of us whilst I find a way to earn a living without being in pain, if that is possible, or at least not aggravate it so that doing anything is impossible.

I do not complain about the pain, or my situation, as that is just not me. As my wife would tell you, it is my stubbornness, my sheer will to not give in to things that I dislike, like the pain, that has got me this far. I hide my pain, my feelings and my thoughts and just get on with life; at least I have until now. Somehow I have kept on going, having faith that everything will be okay. Somehow I have kept on fighting, taking one day at a time. Somehow, I have never, ever, given up. It is how I have got through the last four years. If I had not done those things, I do not know how I would have coped with what happened, or continue to cope to this day. So I will try and make the freelance writing work, we will try and avoid claiming benefits.

I dream of a way out, not of the pain, but the situation. I can accept the pain now; I have come to do so, it having been with me for so long. I cannot accept the situation. I just want a normal life. I want my wife and I to have children, get a dog, and lead a normal family life. But life for me now is a constant struggle, to fight the pain to do what I want to do. I do not know how we will, one day, maybe soon, have children when sometimes I can barely look after myself. I know that my wife to be, we and maybe I have the love for children but I do not know if we will have the resources, in every way, to do so whilst my pain continues. I have shown that I am resilient over the last four years, but I do not know if I have the resilience to take on responsibility for others. But somehow I will. Somehow I will have the faith. Somehow I will keep fighting. Somehow I will never, ever, give up. I just do not know whether or not financially we will ever be able to do so. If not, and rightly or wrongly, I guess that we may have no choice but to claim benefits and I will become one of those scroungers, malingerers and cheats, claiming benefits.

Conservative Life

2010-11-12T13:06:00.001Z

Following the tuition fees protests and the government’s recent spending review, I realised what a scary prospect a Conservative-led government is for many people, concerned at what effect it will have on our lives and our country in the next few years. And that got me thinking…

Imagine what life would be like if we were governed by the Conservatives for our entire lives (cue blurred vision effects and voodoo music…)…

You’re born to parents who are good, honest, middle-ranking, hard-working civil servants, whose jobs are to help the most disadvantaged in society; the work is challenging and rewarding but not very well paid and constantly under threat from governmental spending reviews, who question the need for all civil servants.

Your parents don’t get the child trust fund monies as that has been abolished and they don’t get child benefit because they just about earn enough not to; with being required to pay more for everything, such as pensions and local services, for your entire childhood your family are living hand to mouth.

You go to ordinary run of the mill schools, which are under funded in terms of teachers and resources because of continuous cuts, so you do okay, just okay, so that you’ll be able to get a job, just a job, not a career, and you’ll never be something.

You think about going to university but are put off by the exorbitant tuition fees, student loans that are now charged at a market rate and the government (in the form of an Eton and Oxford educated minister) stating that not everyone should aspire to going to university (and, in effect, accept their place in society).

You get a job as a low ranking civil servant, which you find satisfying as you are helping the most disadvantaged in society; the work is challenging and rewarding but not very well paid and constantly under threat from governmental spending reviews, who question the need for all civil servants. And you can’t really progress at work because to do so you require a degree, and you haven’t gone to university.

You don’t earn enough money so you can’t afford to buy a property, and because the budget for social housing has been reduced you can’t get that either, so you live at home with your parents into your thirties.

You finally have to move out and buy a property when you meet and fall in love with the love of your life, another low ranking civil servant, which you do with a mortgage ten times your salary and monthly repayments fifty per cent of your monthly income.

You don’t want to marry the love of your life, as you think you don’t have to in this day and age, but the tax system supports marriage, so you have to.

You have two children but you don’t get child trust monies or child benefit as these have now been abolished; with being required to pay more for everything, such as for local services, for your children’s childhood your family are living hand to mouth.

Your wife loses her job following a spending review and struggles to find a new one as her background is in the public sector, which is not recruiting, and the private sector do not like that background and the fact that she is a mother; there is no recourse for this as the government cut such ‘red tape’ on business, and you cannot afford to do so in any case as legal aid has been abolished for being too expensive.

You’re told that public sector pensions cost too much and that you should be putting more aside to save for your retirement, but you just about earn enough to live on let alone save in general or for your retirement some years away.

Your children go to ordinary run of the mill schools, which are under funded in terms of teachers and resources because of continuous cuts, so they do okay, just okay, so that they’ll be able to get a job, just a job, not a career, and they’ll never be something.

One of your children dies after being attacked by a paedophile out on bail, the government having cut police, courts and prison numbers for being too costly.

Your children simply cannot afford to go to university, the free market system having resulted in fewer universities charging unlimited fees and loans at market rates.

Your other child dies after Britain is attacked by a rogue state, having been seen as an easy target for having no nuclear deterrent and having no way of defending itself, having no fighter planes and aircraft carriers from which to launch them due to cuts.

Your parents retire and as their public sector pensions are barely enough to live on and you can’t help them as you do not have the surplus income to do so.

One of your parents dies, of pneumonia in the cold of winter, with winter fuel payments having been abolished by the government for being too costly, and you not having the surplus income to pay for it for them.

Your other parent needs caring for, which the government no longer pays for, so your parent has no choice but to go into a care home, which is also no longer funded, so they have to sell their house, their home of forty years, to pay for it.

You carry on working for forty odd years until, as you struggle to cope with working into your sixties and begin thinking about retirement, though you know you will be poor on a public sector pension, the government abolishes the retirement age.

You work until you die.

The Tuition Fees Protests: Hope Sinks

2010-11-11T11:23:00.001Z

Whilst there can be little doubt that that it was only a minority of students who took part in the violent protests following the rally in London by the National Union of Students, nor that the rally was apparently overtaken by anarchists intent on causing disturbance, it is clear that a number of students were involved in some of the most mindless acts of violence and disorder, with a number of commentators recognising Oxbridge scarves being warn by some of the most violent protesters.

However, whilst many commentators have also recognised that the rally was the most attended by students for some twenty-five years, and that the protests were the most violent since the poll tax riots twenty years ago, there has been little observation as to why, now, after such a long time since such a rally and a protest, has it now occurred?

When I attended university towards the start of the noughties, I never came close to any rally, let alone any violent protests, and neither did most of my peer group, to the point that we were almost dismissed by previous student generations for being too timid, too apolitical, and too indifferent to what was happening in society.

The reason for the apparent indifference was that we bought into that society and the idea that we were participating in it. We thought that we would get a good degree, get a good, job and have a good life. We even accepted paying tuition fees and a graduating with a level of student debt on the basis that we would attain that good degree, job and life, that it was simply reasonable to pay a reasonable amount to do so. We saw a future, our future, and we were hopeful for it.

Now compare my generation of students and graduates to those of this and future generations, and the world in which they live.

Having been brought up on the ideal of my generation, students of today are now realising that university simply may not been an option for them.

The government has stated that the new system of tuition fees will be fairer and more progressive than the old system, that the rich will pay more and the poor will pay less.

The apparent problem with the new system, and no doubt the problem with the coalition government, which seems oblivious to it, is that it takes no account of the vast majority of students, those of normal, hard-working families. With the new system of tuition fees, whether to attend university for such students will suddenly feel like a gamble, whether it is worth paying up to £9,000 per year and graduating with debts of £30,000 or more when there is no guarantee at the end of it that they will get the good degree and the good job to justify that level of debt.

To my generation, average debts of £12,000 were still a huge amount of money but we viewed it as a reasonable, worthwhile gamble in seeking that good degree, job and life. To many prospective students now, the figures involved are simply prohibitive.

Perhaps that is the key to identifying the reason for the angry protests yesterday.

The coalition government simply does not understand the figures involved, that debts of £30,000 are considered to many to be extortionate and prohibitive, as many prospective students will decide that it is not a price worth paying, or a gamble worth making, in the hope of that good degree, career and life, and so many of the students and prospective students yesterday cannot now see themselves attaining good degrees, good jobs and having good lives. They simply could not see any hope for their future. And that is a very dangerous thing for society, for people with no hope for the future feel that they have nothing to lose by behaving badly. And so yesterday they did.

The anger of the students at the rally yesterday was no doubt exacerbated by the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg’s decision to renege on specific pledges made during the general election to not abolish tuition fees.

Whilst older generations of voters may now be used to the apparent whims of politicians and their ability to blatantly renege on election promises, to a young person who has had their first exposure to it must be particularly galling.

Imagine if you are one such student, who maybe got interested in politics for the first time, or voted for the first time, or voted Lib Dems, or queued in the cold and rain to vote on election night on the basis of that pledge. Imagine the feelings of that student, the feelings of outright betrayal.

And so on top of the feelings of having no hope for their future the students also felt that they had no faith, or hope, in our political system either. Hope had sunk.

The Rise in Tuition Fees: Making University a Gamble

2010-11-10T12:58:00.000Z

As students rally in Westminster against the government’s planned rise in tuition fees, perhaps it should be considered that such a rise was inevitable with this government. Perhaps it was inevitable that a government dominated by public school educated, Oxbridge graduates would fail to fully understand what was truly at stake in their decision to allow tuition fees to be set at a limit up to £9,000 per year, meaning that an average student could well end up finishing university with debts of at least £30,000.

Whilst the figures are eye watering for many parents and prospective students, the government seems unable to comprehend the magnitude of such figures to the ordinary family, with the only conclusion being that this government is out of touch.

Although the governments proposals on tuition fees takes account of the rich, with mention of such fees, and also mentions concessions for poor students, it takes no account for the ordinary people who are neither rich nor poor, people who are the parents of students who would be judged the average student, people who would class themselves as middle class and earning a reasonable salary, but who still struggle to make ends meet. Even if we are not personally in that category, we know of many families who are. But I would bet that no one in this government knows what it is like to lie such a life, let alone understand it, and because of that it is difficult for them to understand and comprehend, as they clearly do not, that even £1,000 to a middle income family is a lot of money, with £30,000 more than one year’s salary.

Although the government has stated that if graduates don’t earn enough, either by taking lower paid work or raising a family, the money won’t be paid back, with a limit of £21,000 mooted, up from the present limit of £15,000, the fees and loans accrued whilst undertaking a degree would, to many, still seem astronomical.

The average student considered by the government in his report may be considered as being those we all know: comprehensive educated, students and graduates at run of the mill universities and in jobs not requiring a degree as they follow their parents into struggling to make ends meet. In the future, university for such prospective students will feel as if it is merely a gamble, with vast debts incurred and only a possibility that a better job would entail to allow the repayment to be made.

I know because not long ago that student and graduate was me; though I had good grades and excellent work experience, certain universities were not open to me, thus certain career options were not open to me either. I could have gone on from university to study a postgraduate course but, with it costing more than £10,000 and no guarantee of work after, it was a gamble I could not make.

In effect, this government is deterring a whole generation of prospective students from going to university, for many it simply not being a gamble worth taking.

Call of Duty: Black Ops: Eighteen Certificate!

2010-11-09T13:12:00.000Z

So Call of Duty: Black Ops is released today in the UK, with an eighteen certificate. So it cannot be sold to anyone under the age of eighteen. Eighteen!

So a seventeen year old can drive a car but cannot play a computer game (a computer game!). So a seventeen year old can drive a car, potentially really killing people but cannot see pixalated images of people dying.

Having written that, I’ve seen the adverts for the game and it looks good, like really good, almost real but not. But, it is still just pixalated images.

People, always the same people, often say children must not be exposed to such images, that it desensitises them. But, if the graphics are so realistic, surely that is a good thing; as if the children are ever involved in a rampage situation they will be desensitised and so it won’t do them as much harm…

I actually take issue with Call of Duty: Black Ops, and other such games for being dull and uneducational. I mean just going around shooting people. It should have a maximum age limit not a minimum one. Where’s the use in a game like that unless players are going to become serial killers? Although, I guess playing the game increases the chances of that happening. So it is useful after all, but I guess that’s the point in the age limit… So just ignore me on that.

Computer games were never the same when I was younger.

‘Horace Goes Skiing’ was the most advanced computer game when I was eleven. Press return and watch Horace move to the bottom of the screen. Although the game was complicated by the fact that for some unknown reason Horace had to cross a road to get to the ski slope. Many a time I was run over, gutted at the thought of Horace being killed; though the character was in fact was a cross between a pixalated dustbin and a simple X. You know if that game was made today it would have warnings on it, or it wouldn’t even be allowed to have the road crossing element on it: far too scary…

And yet there is no warning for games like Football Manager. Forget alcohol, or drugs, or gambling, now that is addictive.

If you have never played Football Manager, it is a game where you manage a football team, basically buying and selling players and selecting tactics for particular games and, because of the intricacies of the game, one season can take at least one full day’s play, I mean a whole twenty-four hours. The high of just win in that game is enough to keep you going back, carrying on, as you just can’t get enough. And here’s the strange bit: you can’t even actually play the game. Until recently you could not even see the game and, initially, when you did you saw little dots on a screen.

I feel sad and ashamed to be writing this. It feels like Alcoholics Anonymous. And it is that serious. Friends of mine have been kicked out of university, called in sick to work, had partners leave them and not even noticed, having spent all their time playing the game. If you did that for any other reason, drink or drugs, you would be sectioned. Or, if it was because of Call of Duty: Black Ops, it would probably cause the game to have a certificate of sixty-five.