When I was but a lowly classroom teacher there began a trend- likely it persists today- in 'utilising' those who were seeking promotion. What the 'School Management Team' used to do was to arrange for any member of staff who might be seeking to climb the career ladder to lead one, or even a series of, staff meetings.
Obviously this could almost be seen as routine; it would be of limited benefit if the deputy headteacher was going to be expected to instruct the art coordinator in painting techniquery. Unless that same head was also an art specialist- most unlikely! Far more likely a business-minded type, limited teaching experience necessary! Anyway, subjects such as art and music have long since been marginalised as (almost) private (school) property, as austerity funding has dictated.
But these meetings, targeted for the budding next deputy or departmental head, were different. These meetings were often of a more sensitive- far less educationally valid- nature, for a far more politically expedient reason. Often, or more invariably 'frequently,' these meetings were the ones where 'new initiatives' were going to be introduced to lesser colleagues. That is to say that 'new,' usually 'work-heavy,' initiatives were now more often being introduced by the more lowly ranked members of staff. Initiatives, for example, that required staff to spend ever greater twilight hours in record-keeping, or updating online lessons, or reappraising multiple educational targets for individual children- those initiatives that favoured the 'more of' approach over the 'instead of' approach. Few, if any of which, benefited the children.
This method did several things. Firstly, it (often) tended to subtly distance the targeted member of staff from colleagues and maybe work-friends. Secondly, and probably more intended, what it also did was to initiate those members of staff into the hierarchy of modern business practices. Thirdly, it cemented the concept of division, an idea of the 'us-and-themness' of it all, ties were duly severed, or they were loosened!
Ergo, people sometimes climbed the ladder being sought, but those same people were also often compromised, or initiated into the the idea of greater division!
Now, in modern day Britain- more so than in any other time-remembered Britain- this is rarely questioned. Our MSM would argue than neither should it be! Division grows up and around us like a mighty forest! Perhaps it is intended that it should substitute for the forestry that is being sacrificed to another aspect of this same division? Ironically, this division is currently being exploited in order to drive home yet more hierarchy, in the name of Brexit. A faction of those at the very top paying to misinform- they anyway own so much of the media- the populace into raging, perhaps even rioting, in the 'better' interests of an elite from which they are necessarily excluded. Really, you couldn't make it up!
Most evident in the layering of British (and maybe Western) society is that of the celebrity- celebrity A, B and C lists! I remember, several years back, whilst watching Graham Norton on TV (sorry!), he said something to a guest. He lifted the lid and allowed those prepared to see, a glimpse of another world! I cannot now recall who his guest was, nor can I recall the date- maybe it never happened at all, one could level at me. But, it did!
Mr Norton was speaking with a newly elevated musician or actor- I think the character was a male- and he happened to ask whether the 'celebrity' was enjoying the resulting benefits of said elevation. The celebrity replied that (he) didn't want to lose touch with (his) other life, that (he) wasn't yet comfortable at such elevations, something about nosebleeds maybe. Mr Norton's response was telling, he said, "You will be, you will be!" and he sort of winked or nodded, or smirked. And that was that! On with the interview...
Now, if we watch The Graham Norton Show, we have grown accustomed to his lead-ins, where he warms up the TV audience with a bit of light politics, carefully pre-scripted and moderated so as to hit just the right permissible pseudo-balance between questioning and endorsing, far more endorsing! Often these parts of the show, amongst others, can be particularly cringeworthy! But, I am not here so much to write about Mr Norton.
Celebrity Master Chef
Celebrity Big Brother
Celebrity IslandCelebrity SAS
Married to a Celebrity: The Survival GuideI'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!
Celebrity GoogleboxPointless Celebrities
Celebrity Five Go Barging
Britain's Worst Celebrity DiverCelebrity Apprentice
The Real Marigold HotelCelebrity Master Race?
And, of course, programmes like the Graham Norton Show! There are just so very many of them; more TV stations and yet, curiously, less TV content. More adverts! And some of these are far more sinister than would have been permissible 'way-back-when.'
There are just so many of them, aren't there? Celebrity-based programmes that is. Well, there needs to be, in order to sustain that newly created layer, more 'layers,' within 'our' society. And, much as with the teaching profession, there will be errands to be undertaken. And, with greater elevation comes greater financial gain.
There will be tasks such as the fielding of questions that might seek to undermine the layering process. Characters, perhaps mistakenly thought to be devoid of full thought-process, who will be tasked with dumbing down or bolstering up, entirely dependant upon whence, and from where, the questions are being directed. The Matt Bakers, the Graham Nortons, the Richard Madeleys, the Eamonn Holmes's, more aggressively the Laura Kuenssbergs, the Piers Morgans. The latter character, perhaps, a sign of the growing confidence on the part of a largely hidden system that seeks to perpetuate and grow what is basically uber-inequality.
Moving obliquely, Ray Winston was once a gritty TV/film character, ex-low-grade-boxer, oft portrayed in roles perfectly matched to suit. These days he is more likely to luxuriate in one of any number of multiple homes (or castles), purchased not so much thanks to his acting prowess, far more his blatant disregard for those he is charged with conning into gambling away their earthly possessions. He does not really do much more than to appear as a floating head, fronting 'Bet365.' Our regard for him is dragged low! He cares not, if he ever did. The likelihood seems questionable!
The football pundits and the climbing comedy actors (all male, I think) who elect to front the gambling cartel adverts, aimed at whoever they can access- there is no moral perspective being exercised here- also seem not to care very much. If they do, then this is severely mitigated through their own desire for betterment, or rather financial gain.
But, am I the only person thinking, "Does Brian Blessed (Ladbrokes) really need the cash?" or isn't Kriss Akabusi (also Ladbrokes) supposed to be just a fun-to-be-around ex-athlete-come-commentator? Kiss Akabusi, really, a motivational speaker? "It obviously pays far better than speaking up against the growth in the UK's gambling addictions?" something that one's unlikely to hear Matt Baker utter on the 'One Show.'