Major Minor? A work in progress.

As the UK drifts aimlessly, ever further out into the Atlantic, I was given to consider the potential ideological 'adjustments'- either imagined or engineered- that might soon come to redefine our
societal and political idea of what actually constitutes a 'minority.' Numbering unfavourably within an identified or stipulated 'minority' may well be perceived to be any of all things to any of all people. Given that we are all human the wonder- wonder is not quite the coverall word- is that there are so very many!

Should we search hard and honestly enough then I would seriously doubt that there are any amongst us who could not apportion ourselves at least one or two societal 'minority' labels, deserved or otherwise. But then, that's very much the gist of what I'm attempting to explore here; there are those 'minorities' who might consider themselves superior, and there are those who might find themselves deemed somehow inferior. There are those who are currently comfortably, and relatively-safely neutral, and there are those who might consider themselves to be threatened. There are those that might judge themselves to be superior whilst being considered by others to be  inferior, or conceivably vice versa. Some minorities may slot comfortably, almost invisibly, between the other majorities, whereas others are more likely to be driven to consolidate their minoritiness amongst others of a similar minoritiness. There are minority labels that might be proudly worn as a badge, and there are others that might perhaps be carried as a curse!

For myself, I would allocate several 'minority' labels, a number of them perhaps traceable back to the fact that I have always, in adulthood, considered myself to be a socialist. And, while this label does not necessarily afford me access to all of those other variable minority groups, it does perhaps afford me a kind of 'get out of jail' card, should anyone attempt to lump me wholly into any of those other groups- minority or majority- that I might find rather more itchy to be associated with, or so I like to think?

So, I can perhaps dissociated myself from, for example, ostensibly-white, passive-institutionalised racist gatherings that might occur within certain families. Or I can argue and upset the hosts, which is sometimes preferable. Either way, I'm 'out of jail!' Maybe.

It might be argued that, ideally, we should all just work harder at breaking down those societal barriers that currently help to define what is and what is not a 'minority.' But this 'argument' is, of course, currently and far too often just so much wasted oxygen, newsprint, cyberspace or whatever, because, as we all know, there are still those more-specific societal barriers which have been knowingly and aggressively built into our society, built up, shored-up and buttressed over the centuries, to define where we are now, which is most definitely... not any form of acceptable society! We could, and so we should, do our bit, but our's is not yet where the necessary clout lies.

These?

So instead, in order to properly respect and to preserve the identity of certain more worthy minorities, it will still prove necessary to 'iron out' other less desirable groups, both minority and majority, if we are ever to aspire to any sort of cohesive societiness.

One other minority label which I wore for so long that I sometimes find it to be perceived by others as still being there, even though it most certainly no longer applies, is that of 'vegetarian.' Following several decades of abstinence I finally relinquished this label whilst travelling through a handful of Africa's southern countries. It was, with some encouragement, considered that I should again partake of fish, as any wider-ranging national concept of 'vegetarianism' was initially unknown. I really needn't have buckled, but the break was anyway made. Further, I have since and again partaken of other meats, although time had already effectively driven a wedge between us.

I now find that I no longer actually like the taste of flesh, excepting that of well disguised, fried fish. As with other waverers, bacon I think I just might like, but the thought of further pig-sourced flesh passing my lips remains quite troubling to me. Thus, I invariably still eat as a vegetarian, which I am not... quite! And, I shop and dine out as one.

Restaurants today, some of them we may find, are simply bursting these days with ideas for the meat-averse-or-inclined customer. Further, eating out in the UK is no longer the worrisome venture that it once was. But, even so...

Just the other day I was shopping for something foodwise, in Marks and Spencer's food department, when I chanced upon one of the store's more revered offerings, 'Dine in for Two,' cost £10. The label so often draws me in- perhaps it's also the wine- despite it's habitual tendency towards minority discrimination. The minority in this instance being 'vegetarians!' Obviously, there will be other minorities more harshly excluded, but bear with me here...

These perhaps?

After a short search I located the solitary main course vegetarian offering, nestled amongst the familiar vast array of weighty meat-based alternatives. I plucked it out and held the lonely item betwixt two fingers- it was quite bereft of weight, just four thinly rolled spinachy sausages- glancing down to the various meats on offer, and ultimately to the whole generous 'roasting' chicken. And I was given to inwardly sigh! Little wonder that vegetarians often appear so undernourished! I might well have actually enjoyed the offering- it was a Marks and Spencer offering- but I just could not bring myself to condone such 'discrimination.' The item was duly returned to its shelf. Solidarity, I thought! I doubt that either Messrs Marks or Spencer noticed.

Marks and Spencer appear to have missed a trick here, as the minority that is the vegetarian also looks set to significantly increase its 'investment.' But, as for the socialists, the residual conscience of an ever-decaying morality-UK, whilst the interests would appear wonderfully ripe for a veritable explosion in numbers the media machine is currently battling over and above the 'call of duty' to ensure that profits continue to rise whilst everything else simply crumbles before our eyes! Thus the socialist looks well set for yet further targeted misrepresentation... definitely a discriminated against minority!

The size of this particular minority may, and so it should, exponentially rise to threaten even majority status but how would we ever reliably find out?

Other minorities to which I might, at times, lay claims to would, or could, be those of 'cyclist' and/or 'pedestrian.' Although I am also a motorist, which might, in certain eyes, exclude me from either of the harder-core inner- circles? Is there anything that might better define any minority than conflict with others? And there is certainly much animosity to be found where any or all of these minorities and majorities are required to share any given space.

In my capacity as a cyclist I have been forced with intent, and quite criminally, off the road. And I have been otherwise intimidated into cycling off the road, so as to ensure that 'busy' other road users might not be inconvenienced those 'costly' seconds. Of course, the impact of such intimidation rather varies, depending upon whether one feels somehow impeded or else in genuine mortal danger from, for example, the immense thundering wheels of one of the nation's more weighty vehicles. I have watched the road before me being sliced away to nothing by unconcerned or disinterested articulated-lorry drivers, who I absolutely know have clocked my presence, and I have exchanged heated words with other drivers who have then felt so aggrieved by my 'challenge' that they have additionally wasted yet further seconds by turning their vehicle around, simply to attempt another unseating.

Or these?

As a cyclist there are certainly times when the ability to swiftly detour 'off road' might be significantly preferable to this kind of additional conflict 'on road.'

Successive governments have continued to massively favour the motorist- sometimes seemingly any motorist far beyond even the next horizon- over any pedestrian hoping soon to cross any road. And, at least in partial consequence of several recent and ongoing changes, we now often have cyclists resorting to substituting pavement for road. Pedestrians and cyclists vying for dominion in an ever-more-populated arena, or so it often seems, whilst the motorist pays ever more handsomely for a seat at the high table! The clue ultimately is in the paying!

With an eye to greater clarity, whilst the above may, at worst, constitute justifiable annoyances- excepting those rarer truck and van-driver moments- few are so troubling as to warrant any sort of organised march upon parliament. There are already far more than enough of these queueing up for attention!

One might just as 'reasonably' curse the fact that one resides in a hard water region, or that it has been several years since it was possible to build a snowman, or conceivably a snowwoman, in one's back garden. Even our location, it would appear, has conspired to set us apart, but then are these not some of the joys of travel, to thrust one's hand into softer, flowing water, or to peer from the bedroom window onto a freshly fallen carpet of pristine snow?

Far better, and far less ironic, to seriously consider the nation's festering racial tensions, those of immigrant status versus those self-appointedly and 'more deserving' Anglo-Saxon types, or the UDP versus the open-minded? Maybe also the simmering class issues that are still clearly evident within and about tower blocks such as Grenfell? The divisions thread their ways through the social structure rather like a form of 'malevolent' human dry rot. Gender pay? Celebrity privilege versus the media's lesser mortals? Oxbridge versus those who might actually and more properly serve the electorate? Regional accents versus the queen's English? Conservationists against the 'developers?'

Or maybe these?

Religion, another one, may currently prove far more complex, often seemingly able to swim against the tide, despite the increasingly incontrovertible evidence against even its Medieval 'justification' and continued presence. Societal cohesion can only bring us closer, whereas structured division re-rationalises and reapportions our values so that all may certainly not be equally served! Ultimately, it's not about what 'the people' want/require/desire, it's far more about what one 'superior' group wishes to impose upon other 'lesser' groups.

The UK media- good riddance to Mr Dacre!- is expert at keeping a lid on things, but even this struggles with events such as Grenfell. Rest assured, however, that there are already great forces working underground to ensure that the current status quo will not be overly inconvenienced by such a significant collateral loss of life.

What Mr Dacre, 'the voice of Middle England,' was so expert at championing and at channelling was a well-honed reactionary pseudo-middle class, who often behaved as if brainwashed when the 'right' buttons were pushed. He and his types in the editing suite had long since recognised the value in channelled anger and frustration. Consider hard enough and we might almost find ourselves believing that double yellow line parking restrictions were put there to deflect from the wholesale racism evident in the manner in which (for example) the Windrush families are currently being treated. Mr Dacre would have known!

If we are to dig deeper, in order to unearth perhaps the very spinal fluids of the anti-nation, as with any organic neural network, we may easily lose our respective ways. So, it might be easier if we were first to circumnavigate the most ugly, that being the anti-nation's tendencies to lapse, during harder times, into such as racism, sexism and or class divisions. These are anyway well-documented failings! The UK may well (at least in pretence) wish to present itself as battling eternally to overcome these societal hurdles, yet it may at the very same time be devising more convoluted means to maintain the status quo. This much is known and is well documented.

So, let us instead consider those other, currently second division, minority partitionings that are even now consolidating themselves, care of our media machine, winding their divisive tendrils ever more deeply into the fabric of the UK. I suspect, what with * slavery being somewhat old hat, and other more traditional prejudices proving increasingly difficult to justify, that several twenty-first-century targeted groups have already been earmarked for 'promotion,' far more a demotion really.

These maybe?

The media, no more so than the Satanic Mr Dacre, has decreed that it should be the turn of the public sector, that it is now, and in due course, their fault that the UK is underperforming. So 'we' shall slash and burn and decry their being. If racial intolerance is so hard to justify and to maintain, it will instead be the turn of the teachers and the 'minion's' of the NHS? Is it not, at least in part, their doing that the anti-nation has fallen, is still falling? 

So, encourage now the fallacy that everyone is, care of one's tabloid, an expert in the fine art of teaching. If not an expert then at least worthy of a regurgatitive (negative) opinion? At the very least, given open license to lambaste the profession? The latter option may not quite have fully and openly manifested itself in public, but privately is where it truly matters, nestled darkly within, where the media may have slowly charred the soul.

Balance that, if you can! 'Turn your talents to shiny teaching...' and almost instantly feel and observe the lustre losing its sheen! Instead, feel the tax-'hyper-aware' public resentment, as austerity bites! The eternal pay freeze that will again and again, and as if through alchemy, lubricate the economic recovery!

But, in the race to the bottom few if any are so ideally placed as the developers. 'Carters Cutting Corners Quicker!' Or quite conceivably 'Cwicker?' There you go Mr Carter, or whoever, that one's on me, your very own TV jingle in the making! Of course, it's not just Carters, every developer with an eye, or half an eye, to the 'investment' sector will need to wrestle with yet more ingenious means to reducing the sizes of those matchboxes. Does that toilet roll dispenser actually need to be inside the door? If the bedroom door opens outwards, does it matter if said room is barely bigger than the bed? Surely this cladding is cheaper, shhh! With all the 'right sorts' in The Commons we can surely ease these process a touch further?

Or simply these?

The landlords versus the tenants? Another case of the minority subjugating the majority! So those investment homes are racing to change the UK skyline. The BBC, I think, devotes far more time now to selling the concept than it does to questioning the state of Britain's housing market; it surely is now slowly devouring its own tail! 'Homes Under the Hammer,' but do be careful, deregulation's made them just that shade more fragile... and smaller... and meaner... and more expensive... and less safe!

I blame the Fire Brigade, for not reacting to those depleting regulations fast enough. And, has anyone yet reasoned that with fewer tower blocks to 'protect' we might get away with fewer fire fighting resources?

Whatever the minority- it's numerically more 'beneficial,' these days, to go with a majority- the aim is first to objectify, then it's likely free-wheeling... until we hit one of those damned potholes! Dacre's off and Murdoch's not long for this world, we must hope, but watch and listen to the news- who's being celebrated, who's being knighted for services unknown? Which group are they in? And, once we've identified the buggers, that's where the ironing needs to start... nice and hot, please!

So long, Mr Dacre, champion of the 'we worked hard and paid in all of our lives' generation, your work here is done!

* Of interest and some alarm, during a recent family dinner, the subject of slavery came up. Even here (family) one might have been forgiven for considering the slavery debate, actual slavery!, to have been won and thus closed... but no! Instead, it was argued that slavery had, at least at one time, been entirely acceptable, instead that the debate had been reframed(?) The guilty party has worked, occasionally, upon a building site, cash in hand! And we feign shock horror when our news channel informs us that modern-day slavery is on the rise!

Where Next?

Brandon Lewis, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, has recently written to me (letter dated 9th January) regarding the recent Tenancies (Reform) Bill. Well, not actually Brandon himself, more Simon Wright, my (apparent) MP. But Simon was doing what MPs (are supposed to) do, he was 'standing up' and and acting very much 'on behalf' of his constituents. That would, in part, be me!


Magnificent vista?

Acting largely in the go-between role, Simon's attention had been brought to bear upon a recent spate of 'retaliatory evictions' by 'rogue' landlords. Responding to Simon's consequent enquiry, Brandon mused that such practice was "unacceptable," but went on to elaborate upon a few reservations that he has held regarding the aforementioned bill. The bill should not, "adversely affect (on) the overwhelming majority of responsible landlords in the private rented sector," he clarified. Mmmm!

"The overwhelming majority of responsible landlords" (?) Brandon didn't expand upon the basis for this assumption, but he is an 'elected' MP, so should we take it that he's still busily tampering at the peripheries of housing and planning legislation or thereabouts, very much in the better interests of his constituents? Or, maybe just on behalf of the usual selected favourites?


With spacious sweeping entrance.

When I was a student, one of my fellow collegians spent the duration of the post graduate course living in   a converted- I say 'converted'- garage. At the time I never gave it a great deal of thought. It had seemed better- indeed it was- than many of the alternatives. When my daughter moved back to Norwich the kitchen- I say 'kitchen'- of her apartment- I say 'apartment'- was fitted with a cooker hood that simply sucked the cooking smells and steam up towards the high ceiling, to percolate within the same room. There was no further- I say 'further'- means of 'extraction.' When she left the place the damp patches that had bloomed upon the walls cost her half of her deposit. Thanks for that 'Premier Properties.' Such, Brandon, is the unscrupulous power of landlord and his/her Uriah Heepish minions.

A somewhat Orwellian interpretation of the word, "premier," me thinks.

We could pretend- indeed this is entirely what the media tend to do- that there is a cosy client-provider-relationship operating at the heart of the UK rented sector, but the truth is often somewhat different. I could selectively glean information to support this premise, much as 'our' 'free' press routinely does on behalf of the landlordly classes. But instead, I have spoken with those I know who are renting. Here the landlord-tenant relationship is frequently one of nervous uncertainty! Outstanding issues, such as leaks, heating and faulty washing machines are commonplace. I know of two individuals who have been 'evicted' under the false premise that a property is about to be sold, only to find that new tenants, paying even more outrageous rents, have instantly replaced them. Even, where tenants 'feel' relatively 'secure' the rent is likely to be well in excess of what is reasonable, particularly when current average wages are factored into the equation.

The ruling elite will counter with, "the market rate," but students of the truer economy have long since recognised that the system is now so skewed that property prices, and thus rents, have not been subjected to the simple rules of supply and demand for seemingly-a-lifetime. When an uber-wealthy one percent own as much as half the entire globe (including especially huge swathes of the media) the pseudo-forces of supply and demand are always going to be subject to covert manipulation. Any attempt to analyse the recent slump in oil prices should swiftly reveal that global demand is but a tiny cog within the fuller machinations.


Private parking by arrangement.

The pseudo-recession, as endorsed by the hyper-monetarists, has long-since lifted 'home ownership' well beyond increasing numbers of working families. And whilst we might be aware that thousands of the most desirable apartments are now routinely brought up and left vacant by uber-wealthy 'clients,' the bigger picture is far from clear to we, the minions. That is except to say that the very briefest of perusals of the thrust of government policy, working entirely at the behest of the puppet-masters, is increasingly towards an ever more greatly consolidated oligarchy. As already mentioned, the most affluent 1% now own nearly 50% of everything. And whilst that vague 50% refers to things almost entirely monetarily related, this faceless 1% also own far, far more than 50% of the blackened souls of their puppets in The Commons. That includes you, Mr "Fairness" Clegg!

So, in this context, "How," we might be forgiven for asking, "is the landlord in need of protection?"



Where next?

The answer, of course, is that the landlords are already fairly safe and so do not, otherwise why would there be quite so many individuals snapping up properties as second, third and fourth homes, when others simply cannot afford the one?

As it happened, Brandon's concerns were largely unfounded. The bill never really stood a chance! A couple of similarly concerned playmates managed to talk out the bill. Christopher Chope and Philip Davies were apparently also alarmed at the prospect of landlords not having complete control over their almost-certainly-over-paying tenants. Christopher is far more concerned that food in the Commons Canteens be further subsidised, 'rightly' understanding that inanimate items like his antique Chesterfield sofa (second, third or fourth home?) rank far more highly than either struggling tenants or those lowly "servants" working in the Commons canteens. Gentleman Christopher clearly has both feet firmly grounded in the Victorian ideology.

This chap (YouTube) on the other hand, seems to have identified something of the bigger picture. 'Hats off' to him, I say. I wish I had his energies.


Room for one more on top?

Young Philip, 'champion' of the disabled, is of similar blue-blooded credentials to his playmate, Christopher. Logic might suggest that, in Philip's ideal world, the underpaid-disabled should not be permitted to undermine the finances of 'hard-working' landlords. That is, should the 'need' arise, that landlords should be able to evict them as swiftly as is humanly (or otherwise) possible! Britain has many such reasons to be 'proud' of its 'democratic' credentials, its 'hard-working' and its highly-'representative' MPs. 

Converted chimney. Would suit heavy smoker.

So, the question has to be, 'where next?' 'Where next' will we witness the 'blossoming' of 'free'-market accommodation-for-rent, springing up? In relation to this desperate need to see working families putting in the hours, simply to line the pockets of absentee landlords, 'where next' will be deemed fit for assimilation?

If it's roof-able, then it's do-able! Legislation can no-doubt be swiftly tailored to suit. If you're looking to convert the 'spacious' fireplace and hearth- would suit tenant with a quirky sense of space- or rickety garden shed, of a recently acquired terrace in the golden triangle, then I suggest that you drop a line to Philip Davies or Christopher Chope. But not, of course, during Gentleman Christopher's lunch break.

It seems most unlikely that either of these chaps will soon lose their seats. UK 'democracy' has long-since 'evolved' well beyond such bothersome matters as democratic accountability.

I Also Wish...

"You're full of opinions, but with none of the solutions!"

It's probably been said many times, by many people, often at a particularly 'telling' point in a heated discussion or an argument. It's the sort of statement many of us wish we'd used, instead of the perhaps shouted jumble of expletives that unfortunately burst forth during our last strong disagreement. The aforementioned statement was used again, just the other day, by someone who I deeply admire, aimed forcefully at someone who I really don't. What's more, the comment hit the target, sent the bugger reeling, it did! But, I digress. Like I've already made clear, I wish I'd said it.

I often think that it's the sort of comment that might be levelled at many of my posts. A significant number of them are, after all, far more opinion than solution, the 'directionless' rantings of an angry soul! In my defence, many of my critiques are more than justified, the sentiments are indeed shared by many others, and are far beyond urgent in terms of needing to be addressed. I would also be prepared to concede that many of the issues about which I write may appear to have no obvious 'complete' solution. Some of them 'appear' to have no apparent solution whatsoever... or perhaps it would be fairer to write that stacked up against the clearer solutions are forces so damned powerful as to send shivers down the spine. David Kelly might have elaborated, were he not otherwise... dead! 

In order to even voice a counter-opinion to some of these issues we are first required to brave a vast acreage of thin ice. Vested interests will have us entirely and very much the wrong side of the glassy sheet before we have even drawn breath, starved of oxygen as it were. Remembrance Day and Children in Need are two such verboten issues. So steeped in partial mythology are they now that we are likely to be plunged into the waters before we have even placed both feet tentatively upon the ice.

So, here's another opinion (without a solution?). It was prompted by one Bono, having just emerged from his chauffeured lift, to the recording of another Band Aid song, thirty years on from the first. Upon exiting the vehicle Bono shared his wisdoms with the world. Thanks Bono!

The rock 'giant' was asked, "How do you feel about taking part in this today, of course, thirty years after you did the original Band Aid single?" And the self-important, tax-avoiding deity plastered on a thin veneer of 'sincerity,' before replying, "As I say, I wish we didn't have to do this, and there will come a time when we won't... " Unpalatable on oh-so-many levels!

It's at this point that the chastisement, "You're full of opinions, but with none of the solutions!" might be levelled. Undoubtedly the single will raise piles of money, some of which will undoubtedly find its way to its intended and deserving recipients, those tens of thousands of African Ebola victims. Certainly their situation will be better- some of their positions- with, rather than without another Band Aid single. This much, I do not doubt. Our 'uber-benign' government have even agreed to waive VAT, currently standing at 20%, on sales of the single... but ultimately this effort is entirely akin to Henry VIII having an oh-so-brief flirtation with salving his conscience, before he reverts entirely to type and snatches it all back with interest!

Sounds like the vast sweeping statement of someone, "full of opinions, but with none of the solutions!" And it sort of is, but only sort of, especially when you consider the interconnectedness of the wider global situation.

You see, the problem that I have with this state of affairs concerns a wider and far more real world, wider than the 'convenient' planet that Sir Bob et al like to pretend to themselves that they have opted into. Please permit me to contextualise; I'll be referencing two news items in order so to do.

Property of Geldofoto.com
Registered in the British Virgin Isles.

The first of these concerns modern-day slavery, as recently discussed on the BBC. It's another important and topical issue that absolutely demands airtime. In the UK alone, there was a 47% increase in known cases, from 2012 to 2013. 1,746 cases reported within UK borders! The global problem is absolutely immense, currently standing at almost 30 million slaves! Consider also, that slavery is, by necessity, an underground issue, thus the true scale is completely unknown!

The second news item (barely) concerns the four Russian war ships that were recently stationed off the Australian coast, but solely as a point of access. I have specifically chosen to pluck a single figure from the adjacent G20 Summit, near where the aforementioned war ships were 'anchored,' that of a '2.1% pledge of growth' amongst the 'represented nations.'

So, to meld the two points: in an increasingly international marketplace, upon a finite planet, the G20 leaders have pledged to grow their respective economies by 2.1%, thus- although this is, of course, left unstated- committing their respective workforces to competing, ever more robustly, upon an international stage. The workforces are therefore also committed to salary competition with countries where modern-day slavery is even more prevalent and is almost routinely used as a tool of the wealthy-but-morally-bankrupt.

Property of Bonophoto.com
Registered in Amsterdam.

In the UK slavery is currently (and officially) frowned upon, but the zero-hours culture is established and thriving in the workplace, as is the stubborn refusal of huge multinationals like Amazon, to pay their workforce a living wage. And so the interconnectedness of all things looms, hopefully, into view! A wealthy-nations-dominated world, where downward pressure upon wages will indirectly bring about a proliferation of legally and morally questionable practices in the UK workplace...

... In a world where, interconnectedly, the gluttonous wealth of certain individuals directly affects the lack-thereof of millions of 'lesser' individuals, operating further down the ladder. Thus, 'boss chooses to take home 20% more' equates entirely to workers being expected to absorb this, either as a reduction in pay or as an increase in 'efficiency' for which they will be reaping no reward.

And if the market elects to create more money to compensate for such gluttony we will need to factor in the consequent impact upon the value of this money; create too much and we might conceivably be saddled with hyper-inflation. So Messrs Bono and Geldof, the fact that you have chosen to cut such a fat slice of the cake for yourselves will have a direct impact upon the slices that others may receive. It would of course be, at best naive, in Sir Bob's and Bono's case, disingenuous to attempt to deny the interconnectedness of relative wealth and relative health.

Very much part of the problem for 364 days, and yet but a very small part of the solution for merely part of a single day. Factor in that reluctance to accept taxation as one's fellow citizens do and the skewing is amplified. Sir Bob's response to this? "It's a load of bollocks!" always the refuge of the 'moral high'-grounders.

Here I am, full of opinions but with, perhaps, more than a hint at a viable solution?

Angels and Demons

Angels and Demons: are they amongst us, what do they represent, and can we really tell the two apart? Often I'm far from certain on any of these points.

'Demons' is more succinct, but a few of 'my' images are probably gargoyles, or, more often, chimera, even just bosses. The former is from the French, 'gargouille,' the word simply (almost) translates as throat, perhaps suggestive of the oft functional aspect of these 'creatures,' the bubbling, gurgling sounds of running water as it is voluminously jettisoned from a building. Historically, gargoyles and their cousins have featured in the church's long and dubious history of misinformation to the illiterate masses, representative of evil, but obviously not that that might be perpetrated by the church itself. They may quite literally have hearts of stone- the gargoyles, obviously not the church- thus rendering them harmless, yet are they not also curiously aesthetically pleasing?

And Angels? Well we all think we know what Angels might represent, but wasn't The Devil himself a fallen Angel? So what about the fallen ones, and fallen whence? Were they somehow better, before they fell and became so much worse? Even at such heady heights, clearly they are not infallible.

The BBC covertly raised the question(s) for me, on Friday morning (22nd August) on Breakfast TV. Two news items juxtaposed, within the blink of an eye.

First: "Hospitals are admitting more malnutrition cases than ever before." I have paraphrased the headline, but this news is still being widely reported. "Malnutrition soars by more than 70% since Coalition came to power," is the Mirror's take on the same story. "Malnutrition cases in English hospitals almost double in five years," would be the headline in the Independent. The latter two don't quite tally, but the gist is there; namely that things have got a lot worse for some of the population. And let's not forget that 'we' are the sixth richest nation on the planet.

Second: "The Weather!" Well, I realise that these two 'stories' don't quite appear to impact in the way I was intending. So let me just contextualise "The Weather," for those who were already off to work or otherwise occupied. Carol was delivering as usual; all smiles and kind thoughts for those who might be suffering under the more inclement of our weatherly options. During the faultless delivery of this update, an intrusive revving could be heard. I'd thought it might be one of Norwich's intellectually challenged males- I live in the fine city- but not! 'Twas an idiot upon the screen; why Carol was effectively killing two birds. In the field behind 'our' presenter a petrol-head was pointlessly spinning some sort of car in a field, advertising no less! Round and round, and round he went... Angel or Demon?

The weather forecast was being delivered from Jody Scheckter's Laverstoke Park Farm in Hampshire, where a weekend Chris Evans's CarFest was scheduled to be taking place. Let's hope the weather held! So whilst the viewer was still pondering the immense inequality that might cause a (let's just say) significant rise in hospitalised malnourished patients, he/she could also be reassured that there was an upside to things, a rosier side to life in the UK!

Compartmentalisation! That convenient 'art' of perceiving items or issues separately, as if mysteriously totally disconnected from all others. Thus permitting unthinkable decisions to be made in isolation, pretending (as it were) that one self-serving choice will not have an adverse affect upon another (already covertly demoted) issue. Breakfast TV had done this through juxtaposing serious-faced reportage of the UK's rising health issues and smiley Carol with the weather. "These two items are not in any way connected!" the BBC was stating, albeit subliminally. Angel or Demon?

Not true! Britain's much-talked-about debt is entirely peculiar to certain institutions, businesses, departments, impoverished individuals, whatever. In much the same manner as the less-talked-about beneficiaries of this debt are also peculiar to other institutions, trusts, organisations, money-rich individuals etc, etc. But to pretend, for 'convenience' sake that 'our' whole country is suddenly in debt is, at its very best, disingenuous. Just as it would be duplicitous to imply that the two sides are not inextricably linked. The global market is such that the idea of whole countries owing other countries is highly misleading and simplistic, yet 'convenient.' The global market, as it currently 'operates,' has moved well beyond respecting those vague, often abstract, borders. Hidden in full sight, there will be the huge beneficiaries of this vague debt (recession), living in (but not in any way beholden to) the UK, just as there will be the victims. The UK government is just one of these 'affected' units, currently presented as being on the 'victim' side of the divide. Angels or Demons?

It is simply the case that Chris Evan's mates' rights to 'play' have been deemed more worthy than your right to peace and quiet, because the former will have paid £1,999 + VAT, in order to modify his exhaust, whereas you have not paid anything in excess, in order to remain unaffected by the same. Chris's mates will also have paid quite substantially, to live well away from the consequences of their own ego-centric behaviours.

Highly 'curious' is the overbearing reluctance to openly discuss the economic fact, that monetarism heavily relies upon borrowing, thus debt. Without such the whole system starts to look very shaky! Even for the major beneficiaries! Most of us have been encouraged to embrace debt, it suits the system, it's the means by which most of those with a home managed to acquire it. It also perfectly illustrates that monetarist relationship of borrower and lender.

Oz the Great and Powerful is ignobly exposed! If Toto can spot the ruse, why are not more pertinent questions being asked by 'our' TV news teams?

Instead, it appears that we are to muddle on. 'Muddle' hardly hints at a state of affairs whereby government ministers, who feature largely on the beneficiaries side of the divide, are to make significant national decisions, in the guise of political representatives of 'our' government, portrayed as being on the side of the current losers. Indeed, what could possibly go wrong? An economically thriving (benefiting) minister, operating behind the screen of a national debt... Angels or Demons?

Thank the Lord above that they will always be operating in the 'best' interests of the UK population. Otherwise, Heaven alone knows what might result.

A tightly related issue would be the recent dismissal of the role of food banks, by one Edwina Currie. "Are you telling me that some people in this country are going hungry? Seriously? Seriously?" she disdainfully spat.

Rolled out, entirely like merely an expendable foot soldier, dear ol' Edwina appears eager to exploit her portrayed eccentricities, that might 'permit' her bumptious dismissal of the yawning economic chasm that has opened up in 'our' society. We know, with an unbending certainty into which category we'd lump Edwina, but it is the constructed apparently bullet-proof environment within which she resides that should cause far greater concern. That societal tumours, of the ilk of Edwina and Ann Widdecombe, might be repackaged as celebrity 'characters,' should be raising far wider concerns. More of the sordid work of the recently discredited publicist Max Clifford?

"Idi, in this series of Strictly Come Dancing, you're going to be dancing with..." Cue round of applause, cut to now standing members of the audience. Angels or Demons?

Finally, presented, predominantly by themselves, as being on the side of the Angels we have Norfolk County Council (@ your service).

Upon a recent trip to one of the county's refuse tips I was astounded to learn that paint, correctly categorised as a hazardous waste, is no longer accepted at any refuse disposal point. I had been planning to travel out to Mayton Wood Recycling Centre, but as usual had not sensed Norfolk County Council's covert agenda, thus effectively 'missed the boat.' The County Site is eager to clarify that the, "disposing of hazardous waste incorrectly is illegal, and may harm the environment." Angels or Demons?

Ever eager to (pretend to) regain the upper ground Norfolk is offering a two day amnesty at this site, after which the cash registers will begin to chime. Responsible ol' Norfolk County Council, @ our service!

If I were less concerned with the ever-depreciating state of the environment, I might opt for the growing trend for transference of responsibility- that would be fly tipping. Of course, I cannot!

But if I did, whose crime would really be the greater? Mine, at least, would only have caused five half tins' worth of damage. Angels or demons?

Brace yourself for a subtle change to the verge-side litter, adjacent to your local hedgerows.

                                                                                                                   

20,000!

When I heard that it is estimated that there are currently around 20,000 modern day slaves working in the UK I reached for the red wine and nodded sagely. Like many other listeners, I had assumed that these figures were merely a rejig, a relabelling if you like, little more than a recent addendum to today's unemployment figures. I had assumed that perhaps those Tesco et al workers struggling below the living wage, all of those interns, might have been lumped together into yet another created statistic.

But no, these 20,000 souls were in addition to the aforementioned. Mmmmm! Twenty thousand, that many? One wonders how it might be, that quite so many actual slaves might have been permitted to accumulate, in a modern day 'democracy?' Human rights, benign employment contracts, the roundly supported minimum wage, "all in it together Britain;" what could possibly have gone so terribly wrong?

Let's just sketch out a rough picture of the UK's working environment, see if we can't spot a tiny loophole, one through which a few slaves might have been permitted to slip, shall we?

Lovely links. Thanks Haya Benitez

Given that governments traditionally (that would be always these days) are far more (entirely) beholden to the wealthy business man- and it invariably is men- than the general population it's interesting to note that there are those still in denial over the issues of the minimum wage. Less interesting, or surprising, is the fact that these reality-deniers are invariably drawn from the more comfortably-off types, or otherwise the alarmingly gullible (Daily Mail reader).

Charles Orton-Jones (23rd August 2011) made the 'interesting' point that, "wages are a cost, not a benefit to firms." Already- and I have no prior knowledge regarding the 'credentials' of this man- I feel able to hazard a guess as to where young Orton-Jones slots into 'our' society. Mr Orton-Jones goes on to argue that, "wages must reflect productivity."Oh, thank the Lord above, for the insights of the 'neutral' businessman! Are you listening, George? Of course he is!

In order to counter this argument I'm going to create an imaginary scenario, one whereby I manufacture picture frames for a living; not a great living, but a get-by form of a living. Should I wish to expand the business, by upping production it would either have to be because the market for picture frames is known to be ripe for expansion, or because I have sorely misjudged the same. If it's the former then my new workforce will be helping me to tap into a viable market, and should consequently be earning a viable wage, because we will all be working towards the same goals. If the latter then the business isn't there anyway; if I still wish to employ new workers and to offset the poor market returns by underpaying my workers then it could, indeed should, be argued that there are no realistic employment opportunities on offer.

Also, Sandra Gonzalez

If I want to exploit the workforce entirely to my own ends, then outsiders should be permitted (even encouraged) to accuse me of treating my workforce little better than 'slaves.'

Of course, those in the current government-thinking camp have often been heard to argue that this tiny step 'up' from unemployment is, "the first rung on the ladder." But never are they heard to concede the fact that the market influences of high unemployment upon the job sector will often ensure that the, "first" and the last rungs might transpire to be entirely one and the same thing.

Whilst you and I are undoubtedly of the opinion that payday loan companies are entirely the work of Beelzebub- how could they not be?- George Osborne recently expressed the 'opinion' that there was, "a place for the payday loan company." The Internet may since have virtually esponged this comment from view, but we all remember watching him saying this. Also highly significant is the fact that many payday loan companies are significant contributors to Tory coffers. Why, a conspiracy theorist could have a field day; one could almost draw a convenient parallel between an economy in enforced recession and that of jolly fine business opportunities for Wonga and the likes.

Lest working individuals existing at the unacknowledged lower end of the employment spectrum should still have manufactured some sort of living standards for themselves, 'your' government has fully utilised the smoke-screen of the 'recession' in order to deter such complacency. Had we, "all been in this together," there was the option of reigning in some of those excessive rents that have been permitted to spiral, under thirty-five years of jack-bootingly rightwardly-leaning government(s).

And finally to Wendell

Sadly, Tory landlords were given priority. So instead, housing benefits were tampered with. Nobody was made homeless overnight, but benefits were capped, creating the ludicrous scenario whereby families and individuals were permitted to stay put by making up the difference between that of the newly capped housing benefit and that of rent. Thus thousands of living-below-even-the-government's-calculated-minimum-standards families were almost instantly created.

What to do? To carry on living below this adjusted poverty level or to search out new accommodation, that might not actually anyway exist?

So, slaves now, is it? As if conjured from the very aether itself...

Linear Philanthropy

It's that time of year again. Christmas! 'Peace on earth to men of goodwill,' and all that sort of stuff.  But, let's not forget, that it's also a time for huge over indulgence and simply bucket loads of questionable TV 'entertainment.' At our home, we've begun to accumulate bottles on the theme of alcohol, the like of which we've not tasted since last Christmas; it's what's expected in a monetarist society. "Another mince pie, anyone?" "Baileys?"

It's to be hoped, of course it is, that most families (those who behave like families) are able to muddle through to at the very least an acceptable, or maybe a passable, Christmas. Also that they make precious time for their more elderly and lonely family members, and manage somehow to resist getting sucked into the spending spree maelstrom, that's been chugging up through the gears since mid October. In my humble opinion many of the most delightful children often transpire to be those who have not systematically been overindulged at these times- of course there may also have been one or two other contributory factors.


Thanks and seasonal greetings to Constance Wiebrands

Fortunately, if one is not overly dazzled by the constant bombardment of TV, radio, high street et al glitz, one is still occasionally reminded that there's a tad more to Christmas than indigestion and hangovers. Hell, yes, there's also crippling hunger, the freezing homeless, aching loneliness; oh, and that humiliating guilt that many families are forced to undergo, when they can't afford the price of these seasonally prescribed overindulgences.

Just a teeny tiny point at this juncture, more than a 'fair' deal of the above is as a direct result of the current government's austerity drive. In the interests of political balance, it should also be mentioned that Cameron, Osborne, Johnson and the likes would have been driving home much the same sort of divisive measures, entirely without the operating screen of a recession.


Fantastic! Thanks to Alex Laurie

We have come to expect the precipitated excrement generally to prevail, regardless of the misnomer labels 'our' political 'representatives' choose to hide behind. In my defence, this is absolutely not a personal acceptance of the current government approach to anything- if there's something upon which we chance to agree then it's generally because I've overlooked or misunderstood something- yet it appears to be something into which the majority of those who still bother to vote have been prepared to sleepwalk. So, there we have it! I'd say the future looks sort of sludgy.

So, in the light of the long overdue 'revelation' that successive governments have finally managed to achieve their unstated goal, that of reversing the trend towards a more egalitarian society, is there still a line left to be crossed? In good ol' Britain, where the London Mayor may now openly celebrate spiralling inequality as, "incentivising," where the inheritance twins of Cameron and Osborne * may openly refer to many less-fortunates as being of, "a dependancy mentality," should we simply hunker down and prepare for the engineered return to an openly feudal system? Or are there still lines that should not be crossed?


Exactly, Byzantine_K

"And the generals sat and the lines on the map moved from side to side," but where are those lines today? Allow me to suggest that the following is still an example of just such a line being crossed. Stomach-churningly, such an occurrence as the following is by no means an uncommon mishap.

So finally, to clarify, my stated line was rudely violated the other day by one Giles Brandreth (BBC 1, The One Show). I would strongly urge that he is the type of character of whom we should all be wary. The man speaketh with forked tongue, he doth. On this occasion he was lecturing to the nation, on the theme of Victorian philanthropy. "Hmm!" we might be forgiven for thinking, particularly if we were unfortunate enough to have witnessed Giles's dalliance with politics in the eighties.

Yes you, much as I do, will no doubt recall that the very same Giles Brandreth once slotted perfectly into one of our more callous governments, even by today's 'standards' and that's saying (writing) something. Under Thatcher the word philanthropy was allegedly deemed unpalatable- "let the oiks eat cake!" Rumour has it that, prior to the facts being politically sanitised, Anne Widdecombe once almost choked upon the word. If you don't recall, I'll just whisper the words, "queen mother," and "fishbone," into your shell-likes.


Here we go, Giles. National Library of Ireland...

Anyway, Giles was recently savouring the sound of his own plummy voice, as he professed empathy for the less-fortunates of Victorian times. This he did through the painterly perceptions of Samuel Luke Fildes, a Victorian painter, of philanthropic bent. Giles was referencing Fildes' painting, 'Applicants for Admission to a Casual Ward,' in which we may witness a depiction of destitute Victorians queuing for tickets to stay overnight in a workhouse.

"Where was this pseudo-compassion, during your time in government?" the more elderly viewer should have been thinking- not necessarily shouting, red-faced, at the screen, as I might have been. Giles, replete with self-assembly acme spine in situ, could be heard to feign sympathy for the, "hard working man who's lost his job," and the, "widow with child." I'll bet he forces out a few crocodiles, during Christmas screenings of 'The Christmas Carol' too.

Again, in the interests of a bit of balance, Giles did also get around to heaping much praise upon the 'underground' benevolence of Victorian Britain. So, perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt; perhaps, in his self-appointedly Scrooge- like way, all he really hopes for is a Britain where the likes of the modern day Samuel Fildes will be able to salve his conscience by painting huge canvasses of the created poor. Happy Christmas, Giles!

And finally, let me also wish the equally benevolent Bono a plentiful New Year!

* Could sitting on an inheritance cushion of millions ever be considered a, 'dependency mentality?' Hmm...

Squatters in the Fast Lane

Like a great many people I've always had a view upon the act of 'squatting.'

In the spirit of modernisation here I've applied the word 'always' very much in line with popular usage, that is incorrectly! Of course I haven't always had an opinion on squatting; there was a time, many years past, when I didn't even know, or probably care, what squatting was. At that time I would have been a child, a young child, more than likely a child still shackled with a great deal of egocentrically-clouded thought. An approaching meal, a favourite possession, what would I be getting for Christmas; those issues would have been of far greater concern. As I raced from one moment to the next, with an energy that has long since deserted me, undoubtedly causing my own fair share of thoughtless damage to the family home, I wouldn't have given so much as a passing thought to those less fortunate than myself.

Many thanks to SnaPsi Сталкер

Probably, my first 'thoughts' upon the subject of squatters and squatting would have been 'helpfully' squidged in amongst all of that overriding self-interest by an early evening news report or 'care' of 'our' daily newspaper, more than likely accidentally chanced upon. At which time, I'm guessing that I may have been of junior school age.

All of those years ago, in a seemingly more innocent time, I resided within a stable family home, in a comfortable outer London suburb. The chances of encountering a squatter or even a suitably squattable building would have been less than minimal. The daily 'news'paper that would, of a morning, have flopped 'invitingly' upon our doormat would have been The Daily Mail, although I seem also to also recall the Daily Express intermittently featuring, thus any first view, upon the act of squatting, would very much have been one siding towards reactionary.

So, since the age of approximately eight or nine, I've always had a view upon the act of squatting.

This statement is more accurate, but is still left open to misinterpretation or misrepresentation; thus is, in effect, only rather less inaccurate. You see, it would be fairer to write that, since any first thoughts upon the act of someone occupying a 'left-vaccant' property, without the consent of the 'legal owner', I have always maintained an opinion. It would be even more informative to clarify that the opinions of that long-ago child and those of the older and far slower pensioner that he eventually became are currently ranged upon almost entirely different sides of the political fence. The variable opinion was always there, but it has had decades in which to morph through periods of serious self-doubt, a great deal of back-tracking and rehashing, and much heavy revision, so much so that in the mind of an ever-interested pensioner the opinion is far less clear now than ever it was in the mind of that long-ago disinterested child.

And thanks to Greenstone Girl

To further clarify, the opinion that I currently hold, I like to think, is neither blindly pro nor anti but merely informed by events. As a home-owner, who regards his one small home as something of a sanctuary from so much of the largely dispassionate world, I absolutely recognise the benefits of safeguarding some properties from the unwelcome attentions of squatters. I recognise the anger and even violence that one might feel towards those who may have turned one's life upside-down. Although not personally given to acts of violence I can still truly imagine sharing such a desire should someone choose to squat in my home.

And, on the surface, that's much the line of thought that 'our' government would like to present to the wider population, as it prepares to soon make the act of squatting illegal. But, is this 'argument' really as black and white as 'our' (mis)representatives would have us believe? Surely, there is also another side to this issue. Nick Ferrari certainly 'thinks' not. I had the misfortune to stumble upon some of his thoughts on the subject only this Sunday, on BBC 1 (Sunday Morning Live, 2nd Sept 2012).

At the programme's outset Nick, the 'shock jock', Nick the 'combative journalist', sat fidgeting, somewhat like a rather truculent schoolboy, awaiting the opportunity to 'share' his 'wisdoms' with the world. His facial expressions appeared to range from disinterested to affronted anger, towards anyone who might dare to think differently to himself. Presumably, we might, oh so briefly, have been forgiven for hoping that Nick's opinions would transpire to be those of the informed adult and not those of the ego-what-will-I-be-getting-for Christmas-centric child. He looked like an adult, at the very least an overfed and somewhat angry child trapped in an adult's body.

So what, in a country quite literally heaving under the weight of nearly a quarter of a million 'intentionally-left-empty'-homes, were Nick's 'informed' views? Was he quick and eager to jump at the opportunity to condemn a society that seeks to covertly protect billionaires, who seek to buy up thousands of empty properties, purely for tax purposes, a society where huge numbers of these homes are boarded-up and left unoccupied to rot for years on end? He's an adult, we might have reasoned, he's had the time and the experience to develop informed opinions, hasn't he?

Also, thank you to alfromelkhorn

Allow me, please, to here deviate, briefly, a tad from the chronology of the broadcast. This, I really need to do, in order to accurately prepare the canvass awaiting Nick's broad-stroke analysis of the situation.

Thus, the second issue to be debated upon the programme was to be the pros and 'cons' of Britain's continued aid to the Third World.' Nick, never shy in coming forward, had also already pre-prepared a short piece, clarifying his 'opinions' upon this subject. You'll probably already have gathered that he was/is rabidly anti such benevolence- no real surprises there- yet, it is more/entirely the evidence he cites, in this short film, that leaves his arguments so much more akin to those of the aforementioned egocentric child than those of the informed adult. At this point, Nick, in an apparently hermetically-sealed bubble of ignorance, suddenly feigns concern for all of those, unable-to-afford-to-heat-their-own-homes-pensioners, all of those Brits who can't afford to buy food and rent a 'home.' Nick would rather, in a far from ideal world, witness a steepling rise in the number of deaths from malaria, than allow money to be diverted from 'solving' these problems closer to home.

"But, many of these unfortunates would be the same people, over whom you were eager to argue the right of billionaires to guarantee the sanctity of their empty townships!" one might have wished, at this point, to scream at the TV, "The very same people!"

Nick, with an apparent balletic prowess that belies his frame, also recognises that the UK's waste-bin-packed front garden culture has proven to be the blight of millions of homes, spinning suddenly through one-hundred-and-eighty political degrees, to 'champion' the ordinary citizen again. In reality, we can only deduce from this evidence, that at least one of Nick's homes is an inner city terrace, with minimal front garden space. Any other conclusion would require Nick to have developed the far more demanding skill of empathy. All evidence to date would suggest that this is highly unlikely to be the case.

Finally, thanks to - reuben -

So, back to the main theme, that of squatting. Nick- and just why he was deemed more worthy of air-time than any reactionary tabloid reader plucked randomly off the street, here remains a complete mystery- without apparent embarrassment or conscience, gave the subject both barrels. He contested that there was absolutely no argument whereby the rights of a homeless or 'criminally' underpaid individual, or parent with young child, was to be deemed more important than the rights of a billionaire to own and leave vacant hundreds of boarded-up properties, purely for the purposes of tax gains. He saw no division between the use of one such property to avoid freezing to death of a winter's night and theft, curiously whilst failing to recognise the abuse of massive property ownership as an act of far greater theft on the part of the billionaire. As far as 'our' Nick was concerned such properties could be boarded up for not just four or five years but forty-five years. And, from such eloquently spoken thoughts, we might also gather that Nick has never, even for the briefest of moments, slipped from the lap of luxury and that he remains thus, very much, a beneficiary of the inner machinations of that much abused tool, networking.

I would contend that Nick 'also' has always had a view upon the act of squatting.' Far more consistent than my own views, probably cemented into place at an early age, Nick's views appear entirely indicative of those of the egocentric child, rather than those of the informed adult.

Finally, of note during Sunday's broadcast, the, unsupported, global figure of 'one in seven people currently being a squatter' was mentioned. I would imagine that this is, if anything, an extremely conservative estimate. And, if those like Nick Ferrari continue to misrepresent the issue upon the national stage, this figure is going to continue to head very much in the wrong direction.
    

New Pioneers of Old Frontiers

I really wish I'd said it first, I really, really do. Really! But I didn't, and what's worse is that I heard it first during a popular TV drama. Even worse than this, on American TV- that is of the US of A- those who, so often in the broadcasting of such 'opinions', seek not to address the issue 'confronted' but rather to hide the bigger problems behind nothing more substantial than a glitzy facade of freedom.

So exactly what was it that I wish I'd said first? And by 'first' I really mean first, as in at that perfect moment, launched into the air at that exquisitely judged moment of honed perfection, in order to really nail the argument. To really knock the stuffing out of some sanctimonious git! It would be a shame to waste such a thought upon less than a substantial audience, or, at the very least, a long-time nemesis. The wisdom, of which I write, was, "And so would slavery," proffered in response to the claim that abolishing the minimum wage would create jobs.

The US TV programme in question is really almost irrelevant; more than likely the programme nabbed the idea from somewhere else entirely. Even if the line was original, as seems highly unlikely given all of the great speakers in the world, it wouldn't have been the light-bulb-moment of one astute character, it would have been the creation of a team of script writers, the result of hours of bouncing ideas off of one another in order to create maximum effect, hardly the spontaneous line of judged perfection, which was, 'naturally,' how it was presented upon the TV.

Thankyou Teo's photo

I don't think, for the merest second, that I'm the first person to have been impressed by something spoken upon the 'silver' screen; I know for certain that I'll not be last. There are just so many words out there, strung together in such perfect fashion as to appear, at times, to almost undermine some of the greatest speeches ever to have been penned and delivered.

Of course, historians and others would be quick to point out that great wisdoms and speeches are invariably best judged to be great in the context within which they are delivered. These same people might also go on to correctly argue that any speech or line delivered in a fictitious context cannot realistically be judged 'great', not historically great at any rate. Perhaps the best that Hollywood (and not just Hollywood) can ever hope to achieve is simply to accurately repeat already historically great speeches.

And really, we should endeavour to keep this ever in mind. As I've already written, 'there are so many words out there'. If we are to become dazzled and less discerning as a result of such a bombardment- how many TV channels are there now?- we could even find ourselves judging the world's most significant historical moments according to the fiction of Hollywood.

I realise that this might, on the surface, appear a tad alarmist, but have you ever sat and listened to people talking on the bus, as they perhaps piece together their latest gleaned wisdom? Have you ever sat and pondered the puzzling growth in the number of 'significant' US citizens who appear in all sorts of supposedly-historically-accurate Hollywood blockbusters? Perhaps during a Hollywood-recreated-moment in which you thought, until this moment, that no US citizen had even been present?

Thankyou bandarji

It would be a shame, would it not, to see historical reenactment going the way of a significant bite of the music industry? All of those once great songs that are, perhaps, beginning to grate ever such a tiny bit, as they are rehashed yet again, by Simon Cowell's latest aspiring, "I've dreamt of this moment all of my life!" teenager. I realise, of course, that this is just a tiny blip in the larger music world- and thank the lord above!- but the blip seems to be growing, like some form of aggressive and inoperable tumour. A dark, dark shadow upon the latest x-ray of the music industry, as joyfully presented by prime-time TV and radio.

History, quite apart from it's huge academic credentials, should be important to everyone; an informed electorate, imagine that! Imagine a country served by politicians elected by people desperate not to repeat the mistakes of the past. We'd quite literally be rewriting history, we'd certainly be heading in a vastly different direction, with vastly different people at the helm. Vastly!

And, it's so darned easy to write people into history, isn't it? But, it's altogether different hoping to scrub them- the mistakes- out again. Hitler... Stalin... Thatcher... Which is why we should endeavour not to keep repeating the same mistakes, time and time again.

I'd be right, of course, in assuming slavery to have been much more of a mistake than a benefit to society, wouldn't I? I'd also venture to assume that I'm right in having spotted a not too tenuous link between slavery and the abolition of the minimum wage.

See, just because it's been secreted within American TV, it doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be a few choice cherries worth picking.