Legs propped-up upon the cushion of choice, placed there for optimum comfort, I supped at my early morning decaffeinated beverage, singeing lips. Health dictates that I don't overdo the caffein, and being somewhat addicted to coffee I invariably prefer to savour that particular small concession rather later in the day.
At my side, perched upon a small occasional table and not yet fully consumed, nestling alongside a half-read novel, sat a far healthier breakfast option than any that is ever likely have been advertised upon the vast array of alternative, more-commercial, TV channels- sugar, also in later life, having become a growing issue. The BBC was 'dutifully' 'updating' me with the latest 'news'- seldom a spotless start to the new day- ever more of a duty than a pleasure.
As my early-morning brain set about the task of gearing up for the day ahead it would probably be fair to write that much of what was being broadcast was drifting randomly across my consciousness, rather than in any way efficiently filing itself away for later easy-access reference. The BBC News Team had opted to share, with the viewer, the thoughts of one Stephen Birch, of Bierce Technical Services. If, at some point, the nature of the man's work had been revealed to the viewer, I confess that I must have missed it. I really didn't know the man 'from Adam', yet I felt 'certain', or more I hoped, that there would be thoughts, opinions or expertise, secreted somewhere amongst his ponderous words.
However, it very soon occurred to me that such was not going to be the case. No doubt one can quickly avail oneself of the 'user-friendly' version of the technical nature of Bierce's talents, or the degree of support that such Services might afford, if one chooses to Google the company. But for my part, in so far as Bierce Technical Services are concerned, I have opted to remain comfortably in the darkness. There is only so much information that one 'needs' and I have decided that Bierce Technical Services are currently entirely superfluous to my requirements. Maybe, at some point in the indeterminate future, circumstances shall dictate that I regard them differently, who can say?
As I have already made clear, I know nothing, almost nothing, about the man. He may well be a wonderful individual, the perfect father, a technical genius of some kind; I really don't know. I know his stated name, that of his company or employer- I think the former, for reasons that might soon become apparent- and, most significant to this blog entry, that he is one man, one adult male. Just the one!
Stephen- I hope that he won't mind if I here adopt the less formal approach- was sharing his views regarding what 'our' government 'needs' to do in order to attract 'the voter'. Already slightly irritated- it's so easily done these days- I persevered. The message was a short one, not unduly arduous upon the brain, not too demanding of one's precious time. I even partially rewound the short news item, in order to ensure that I caught the man's name, along with that of his company.
What Stephen actually had to say is almost, if not entirely, irrelevant to my imminent point. This point being that he was, and remains, one man; one man, shackled to just the single vote. One vote that is not any more nor less significant than your's or mine. Nor is it of greater significance than that lorry driver's, nor that lady's at the supermarket checkout, nor that street busker's. So, just in case you're not up to speed yet, my thought is this, "Why place far greater import upon what this one man might consider politically pertinent than that of any other individual?"
Lest you should think it relevant, and honestly, it absolutely isn't, Stephen was expressing an opinion that the government 'needed' to adopt an even more business-friendly approach to its methodology, that they (The Coalition) needed to listen even more closely to what businesses wanted.
A short while later, during an altogether-presented-as-different-and-unrelated-news-item (you be the judge) the never-comforting voice of one Ed Balls was to be heard, very much in appeasement to entirely the same ilk of business-friendly 'wishes'. Obviously 'our' Ed didn't refer directly, or even obliquely, to the earlier, and 'unrelated' news item; the opinion of Ed was an altogether separate 'newsworthy' item. Or so we were being permitted to believe.
I certainly can't quote dear Ed- a rewind was absolutely out of the question- but, let it suffice to be written that, he pushed his face at the camera and gushed 'positively' about 'a need' to nurture all of those business-friendly policies. Apparently, it would seem that we have moved on apace from those Government-getting-too-close-to-business days, those days that, in one highly significant way, helped to bring about the current global monetary meltdown; oh, and the absolute disillusionment of the electorate with the machinations of New Labour. That's you, that is, Balls! Some of us do possess memories.
I know that we're constantly being told that voting is our 'inalienable right', indeed that it's really virtually an obligation, that the universal vote has been fiercely fought for and that the right to use it (that vote) needs to be rigorously defended. "If you don't vote, then what right have you got to criticise the system we end up with?" I know the arguments, I've heard them and taken part in some of them, many, many times. Really, dozens if not hundreds of times.
And I also know this; that in a Feudal Britain the ordinary citizen didn't tend to bring about a great deal, in the manner of positive changes to 'The System', by queuing in order to place an orderly cross in a box and then waiting patiently for things to kick in. I'm sure that if one of Britain's feudal masters had thought of such a system, as a means of appeasing the unsettled peasants, way back when, voting would have caught on during Medieval Times.
Feudal, that's as in absolute control, exercised by the landed and privileged very-few, over the less-fortunate very-many. You know, the sort of absolute power that might, for example, enable a widely-known-about injustice to perpetuate, despite anyone and everyone who is even remotely interested being able to immediately identify and recognise this injustice.
The now twenty-three-years-past Hillsborough Tragedy could be said to fit comfortably into this category; that is in so far as it can sit 'comfortably' anywhere. A national state in which huge numbers of police officers can be seen to almost 'openly' collude in a massive cover-up. Many of the facts of the case are, as of now, even more widely available, and have been reported in far greater detail than I intend so to do here, the ninety-six deaths, the one-hundred-and-sixteen police-altered statements, the inexplicable Coroner's cut-off time for 'acceptable' evidence and the unanswerable question regarding just how many of the nearly one-hundred deaths that might have been avoided.
Much of this awful event was actually televised, thousands of eye-witnesses lived through this tragedy, and yet the nationally reported and peddled 'version of events' persisted for nearly a quarter of a century. If this isn't symptomatic of a state that falls alarmingly short of democratically accountable then perhaps someone could explain to me exactly what it is symptomatic of. No wonder the political 'elite' are lining up to disown the original 'verdict', hoping to put a great deal of distance between themselves and anyone finally judged to be even remotely culpable.
The Sun 'newspaper', a paper that, despite its atrocious history, still regularly holds sway over the political 'opinions' of numerous British adults, brazenly addressed the findings of the Hillsborough Enquiry with the banner headline of "The Real Truth." And, while it would be unfair of us, even in judgement of a paper of The Sun's lowly calibre, to blame those currently in charge, for something that happened a quarter of a century ago, to see this newspaper attempting to lead the charge against the, now official, injustice must still, for so many of us, feel desperately uncomfortable.
I am sure, I cannot be alone in sensing a less than unreserved remorse, from a paper that chooses to allude so very, very closely to its original headline verdict of "The Truth." The Sun newspaper of twenty-three years ago, elected for political expediency over honest reporting, much as it so often does today. And despite its uncomfortable show of pretended progress there is just too much evidence to the contrary to suggest any real move towards the largely uncharted realms of honest reporting. I wouldn't doubt for a moment that The Sun has learned a lesson, but I would doubt, with every fibre of my being, that it's the very same lesson learned as the one presented.
Instead I would guess that, in future, we might all have to dig that little bit harder, to unearth the next major Sun subterfuge; that is at least until its editors feel that the dust has safely settled.
In the good ol' US of A the Republican Tea Party- such a benign-sounding name, don't you think?- appear to be less concerned with such subtleties. Recent voting law changes in this Land of the Free, driven largely by Tea Party Republicans- even typing these words curiously leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth- require photo identification before US citizens will be allowed to vote. Although all US states have not yet adopted this 'rigourous defence against voter fraud' it is estimated that perhaps 11,000,000 US citizens are currently thus being denied access to due democratic process.
It obviously hasn't slipped the mind of certain Republicans that those without passports and/or driving licenses, that would be the necessary photo-ID, tend to number amongst the elderly, ethnic minorities and the poorer citizens. And, as a general rule of thumb, the less-well-off tend not to endorse the policies of billionaires who are seeking to push through ever more blatant regulations, or lack thereof, to concentrate all power and wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. And, oh so often, what's happening in the USA today is a bit of a pointer to the route that the UK will, at some time, be looking to tread.
So, just to finally draw all of those cunningly, widely scattered earlier-mentioned-points together- an internationally scaled-up dot-to-dot, if you like- permit me please to summarise thus. My contention being that, inexplicably still dissatisfied with a state of almost absolute power, there is much evidence to suggest that the uber-wealthy-and-landed elite have grown tired of a state of 'almost' and are now looking to consolidate further. Recognising the cachet of the word 'Democracy' upon the CV, yet also the bothersome practical issue of having to suppress any genuine moves towards such a 'messy' state of affairs, the dark underbelly, operating somewhere that is barely short of a coup, is becoming ever more blatant in its thrust towards a modern day feudal-type system.
Short of abolishing general elections, misdirection of political thought and denial of contrary thought are really the only means by which the wolf of modern-day feudalism is able to slip 'stealthily' within the skin of the summarily slaughtered democratic lamb. Just a thought!
Is that the kettle I hear boiling?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment