Children in Need

Children in Need? Of course they are- some of them- how could they not be, what with all of this austerity malarky? In fact there is much to support the contention that many of those most in need have, in effect and/or by default, been specifically targeted to shoulder far more than their 'fair share' of the current political austerity cuts. That is to say that they are thus far more likely to be in need as a direct consequence of current government policies. Enter, stage right, cuddly Terry Wogan!

It really doesn't take a genius to deduce that the more deeply divided a 'society' the more manoeuvrability there will be, at the bottom end, for all sorts of exploitation, from the driving down of the minimum wage in the resultant burgeoning black market economy, right through to various forms of child abuse for financial gain. Honestly, this resultant situation really isn't open to serious contention. If the truth be told, it's actually the free-market's usual response to tougher times.

Thanks to BabyBare11

Just as the ruling elite's response to any reportage of such might be to play down the significance of these issues, or to attempt to somehow undermine the credibility or scale of the problem. Much as George Osborne might continue to refer to the tax-avoiding wealthy as, "those hard working families," whom he doesn't want to, "penalise," with the nation's tax arrangements, just before he finds yet another means by which to overtax the rest of us.

There are those, more observant amongst us, who might even regard the current austerity measures, far far more worryingly, as a convenient subterfuge for the ushering in of a very much more corporate state. That would be the privatisation of huge sections of the NHS, creeping corporate sponsorship of education, the pandemic sweep of the multinational companies, the subtle undermining of all manner of employment or disability rights, that sort of thing, just in case you hadn't yet picked up on the signs.

Thank you University of Exeter

So yes, of course there will be children in need, just as there are elderly residents in need, just as there are seriously ill patients in need, just as there are supposedly 'fully employed' and 'legitimately' tax-paying families still, and increasingly, in need. One might never actually hear the words spoken, "It's the price worth paying, for the changes we wish to pursue," but current actions on the part of 'our' coalition government cannot possibly have completely obscured this begging-to-be-addressed issue.    

Thus it's well done again to Children in Need, is it? Something approaching £27 million raised at the last count, and who amongst us can deny that much of this might indeed enable all manner of much-needed work in the cause to ensue? But then, rather less popularly voiced, is it not also possible that all of that fun and fanfare of the big day is perhaps also masking several hugely-urgent but curiously never seen-to-be-asked questions? For example, 'Do all of those famous faces, all of those humorous sketches, does all of that marketable music, all of that glitz in any way exacerbate the problems that the whole affair attempts or purports to address?'

Thanks also to yksin

My contention is that a vastly divided state is a sure-fire way of creating many of the problems that Children in Need professes to be attempting solve. And we are very much a divided state, accelerating as I write ever further in that divided direction. No longer are we the 'aspiring to achieve better' state, more the 'aspiring to have absolutely everything' conglomerate of corporations and, again, it doesn't take a genius to surmise that if some of 'us' are aspiring to have absolutely everything then most of us will be left with vastly less.

Following this trail of thought for a while longer, allow me to draw to your attention the vast wealth that many of those most vociferously supporting Children in Need have accrued in this finite world. In Sir Terry Wogan's case some of that wealth-accruing has even been achieved care of Children in Need. Although it is not clear (to me) whether this is still the case, for many years, in the cause of hosting this worthy-charitable cause, Sir Terry was the beneficiary of a not insubstantial fee of around £10,000 per annual event.

Thank you University of Exeter

Supporting my contention that he has insidiously over-accrued, Sir Terry, I believe, upon first being confronted with this long-and-conveniently-obscured fact, claimed not to have spotted the change to his current bank balance. Easily done Tezz, easily done! Just the other day I found myself the unexpected beneficiary of several grand. It's happened to most of us at some time or other, I shouldn't wonder.

I believe that the iconic Gary Barlow also put in an appearance on the big day, although I have to admit that I was otherwise engaged at the time, so was unable to witness the grand spectacle. In Gary's case- or is it Sir Gary, I forget?- no fee was involved and I don't suppose he gave a moment's thought to the incidental publicity that his seldom-seen face received. Time given freely in the cause! But, another thought occurs, did the actual time given cancel out the taxes avoided; those avoided taxes that have, contra-aspirationally driven yet another small wedge between the have-a-lots and the have-rather-lesses?

Having not watched the night's charity fundraising I'm perhaps not in the best position to scatter such thoughts but, 'Were we operating in a fair and progressive tax society, just how much of that £27 million might have been raised, more appropriately and quietly, by those performing so publicly for the cause?'

I'm guessing that various PR teams would have been strongly advising against such blatant hypocrisy, so I'll assume that at no point during the evening did any important bod from Starbucks, Amazon, Google, or perhaps some mysterious tory donor, appear with one of those big cardboard cheques, for a seemingly large sum of money. You know, one of those self-publicity cheques that are always going to be (stage) wowed and applauded, yet are also always going to be worth immensely less than the accrued benefits of living/operating in such an unequally-taxed society.

Finally, thanks to prawnpie

So, go on, tell me that I'm wrong, or that I've missed the point. Better still, tell me that we have to continue to pursue these vastly divided 'society' policies, in order to prevent the multinational crooks from taking their businesses elsewhere.

Much better all round if we just bow down and accept the fact that we're going to have to increasingly compete with the third world, in so far as working market practices go.

At least that way we can all look forward to many more years of Children in Need, catering as a bizarre result for a growing number of children in need, brought about as a direct cause of the growing unequal division of wealth. The perfect example of a self-fulfilling prophesy!

Geometry

The circle, such a perfect shape, don't you think? Admittedly it doesn't tesselate, but then maybe that's because it's such a stand-alone shape. Try and tesselate the circle and you'll still end up with an aesthetically very pleasing pattern. Gaze up into that endless and remorseless vacuum that is our universe and almost everything that you're likely to see appears as a circle- the two-dimensional representation of the sphere- and anything that isn't yet will be eventually. The laws of physics have decreed it to be so. The sun, the moon...

We should count ourselves fortunate indeed, then, that it is the 'perfect' Circle that is now charged with bringing certain other forces to bear, upon our NHS. Circle! Who wouldn't want to think of the NHS in such perfect terms?

Type "Circle" into your choice of search engine and you might expect, at the very least, to find images that strive towards such perfect symmetry, sites that allude to something magnificently aspirational.

Beautiful! Thanks Esparta

Alas, the very first site that my search has revealed unashamedly uses the word "corporate" upon its home page. Now my head is corrupted with terms like, "square the circle." Read on and the subterfuge and consequent slide, swiftly away from perfection, will send your head spinning too. Spinning, contradictorily, further from the perfect circle. "Circle" and "corporate" do not sit comfortably together!

Circle have been charged with the 'safe-handling' and 'care' of Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire. They are aiming to make £300,000,000 in savings during the ten years of their tenure. And if they don't, or should they happen to run up an 'unexpected' overdraft, it's important, isn't it, that nobody 'at the top' should be left out of pocket. 'Happily' there will still be at least a choice few at Hinchingbrooke Hospital who won't yet be needing to watch their backs, or their salaries.

CEO Ali Parsa claims that Circle will be able to break even by 2013. That would be the same Ali Parsa who was Executive Director of Goldman Sachs's European Banking Investment Team.  And that would be the same Goldman Sachs that, last year, paid only £4.1 million in corporate (that ugly word again) taxes, on pre-tax profits of £1.92 billion.

Let's just place those two figures side by side, shall we? Just so that we can better compare the two:
£4,100,000      
£1,920,000,000
That's just over 0.2% in taxes. Yes please! I would imagine that most of us would be happy to sign up to that sort of deal.

Also exquisite, Fillmore Photography

So- still thematically- just to round things off for you, Ali Parsa pocketed £169,000 in 2011; Lord alone knows by just how much this sum will have rocketed in 2012, CEOs generally tending to have developed a convenient immunity to the usual restraints of austerity. Presumably most of this somewhat overgenerous sum will have found its way into the man's overly-copious pockets, via the tax payers. Hinchingbrooke's savings will have to be carefully targeted, so as not to impinge upon Mr Ali's cut.

'Care' of Circle, Hinchingbrooke Hospital is now operating upon something akin to corporate business lines. One can only wonder as to the tax affairs of such a place and those of its board of directors. Will Ali again be able to sort it so that the top brass are to be taxed at 0.2%?

A logo with a circular theme is surely just aching to materialise. Something to do with "cutting corners with the nation's health," I should imagine. Any ideas?

The Unspoken.

Everything is almost indistinguishable, visually every bit as sharp, audibly just as crisp, so exactly how does this unspoken phenomenon manifest itself? Or perhaps, more pertinently, to which purpose did this otherwise undetectable screen first elect to descend?

Challenge me to provide concrete evidence, simply for its mere existence and, every time, I'll draw a complete blank. "Have faith!" I might be tempted to retort, if I am left with any inclination whatsoever to respond.

That isn't to say that the required evidence cannot be unearthed- locked away as it is in our tiny gene pools, secreted within those mysterious chemical imbalances and under-performing neurotransmitters. But buried it is, and deeply enough to suit those who might wish to to deny, or conveniently relegate, its immense significance. Enough manoeuvre for the overindulged art of denied culpability then; indeed who amongst us might have the required computer printout of our own mind's chemical imbalances conveniently to hand?  

It was there again the other day, tangible enough, one might mistakenly have assumed, to afford a full and yet mysterious protection from vehicular impact, should its muffling accompaniment transpire to impair my usually fully-adequate road sense. Muffled and yet nothing is hazy; it doesn't actually prevent or seriously impair conversation- other than, seriously, any inclination towards such- nor tactile experience. Yet still I am here, encased within, and everything else is there, just outside.

Thank you, Jason A. Samfield

Defying inclination, I might speak, express myself almost as fully as at any other time, be observed to continue much as before. In any physical sense it is a barrier to nothing, except that I might be less driven to relate to those beyond its perimeter. So, is it even there? Were I pressed could I locate it?

Whilst weaving a pathway through the busy city crowds I have sometimes perceived it to be something akin to a fully multi-sensationally-transparent screen, perhaps located just a few metres outside of my being. Yet this has, in no way whatsoever, clarified the issue. Should another happen to wander inside my boundary they would, by necessity, be closer and yet still be very much outside of the screen. Should I so choose, I might easily make physical contact with any 'outsider' and yet, even during such a contact, we would remain firmly upon either side of this indeterminate boundary; I entrapped within, the other obliviously without.

I know that I am not and yet it is almost as if I am, in some sense, invisible. Should I elect to- desire, at such times remains entirely outside of my sphere of relevance- I might sit and observe the other world, inexplicably unnoticed, perhaps then almost invisible.

And lest this ultra-vague attempt at clarification should chance to (appear to) illuminate the topic, allow me, please, to waft a further belt of blanket cumulostratus before your powers of perception. This being that, upon meeting up with my adorable daughter, which I did upon that day- ever a warmly-anchoring and welcome occurrence- that she was able to slip effortlessly inside and to thereupon rupture this invisible barrier, affording almost instant and fuller access to a wider world. Once again to be readmitted to the world beyond!

Conjured with impeccable stealth from the very aether, an hour-and-a-half later, no longer residing within that protective aura, separated once again from my talisman, the screen had again returned.

And thanks to atmtx

It does not, not for me, descend like the alliterative black cloud, nor does it prevent my actual ability to rise from my bed, nor, I would argue, my ability to appear to fully function. It does, on the other hand, seriously impair any desire or compunction to do or partake of any of these things and, by association, anything and virtually everything else. And yet still, in so many societal senses, it does not exist at all.

The point at which I first slipped seamlessly behind life's double-glazed unit, this place from whence I might continue, far more remotely, to observe life's comings and goings, remains, by design, a well-cocealled secret. That I might, never have forewarning of its approach seems to have very much fashioned who I am. And this much I know to be true, regardless of whether those on the outside acknowledge the existence of such a phenomenon or not. Further, it does not console me to believe that I am not quite so alone as my perceptions would often suggest.

Thank you, very much, geoftheref

Might there be something peculiar to this life in the Western World, that has brought about such a rise in the effective emotional withdrawal of so many? This is a thought which is never far from the forefront of my thinking during such isolated times, perhaps something about the values we choose to hold dear and maybe about those that we choose not to value at all?

Another question which crossed my mind recently was that, once the chaos and the debris and the bodies have been tidied away, once Hurricane Sandy has had its shout, who will be reaping the financial rewards? Clearly it won't be the poor souls who have returned to find much of what they once owned scattered to the four horizons. But, in this world of share-holding, where fatal disease can be and is perceived as a nice little earner, where the push to 'invest' in our once great NHS is currently gaining pace, we can be certain that somewhere, perhaps more quietly celebrated, there will be stock market gains, and champaign corks a-popping!

A similar thought crossed my mind as I first watched the twin towers crumble in to the dust.