A Rich Tapestry

… or an oily rag, fit for disposal?

A while ago I stopped to consider the sparsity of 'hits' that my posts might attract. I know that I tend towards verbose- not always a good thing in these busy-busy times- and that I remain a relative 'nobody,' so why expect more? Which I really didn't.

But, then I paused to further consider the many sites that I routinely visit, a few of them clearly attracting far greater footfall, but most perhaps not, yet all with something to report which I'd considered worthy of a read. You see, the thing about many of these sites- just a few linked via my blog- is that the vast majority of them tend to widen the national and international debate; that is to say that, often, they consider issues which 'our media' have either 'chosen' to ignore, misrepresent, or have simply attempted to bury. And invariably, it seems to me blatantly wrong to ignore/accept this approach.

So, then I duly reconsidered my own contributions, yet, all the while recognising my tendencies to prattle on, and to have a politicised view upon so many things. In conclusion I thought I'd tail it back a bit! But then life goes on to bite one in the posterior yet again, upon which one absolutely has to respond!

So, t'other day caught us watching ITV! Thank the Lord that there were no witnesses. Our excuse being that ITV have commandeered the Tour de France coverage. This in itself is actually a very good thing, if you pre-record and fast-forward all the gunky commercials. It might otherwise have gone to parasitic Sky, thus further depleting the UK's already sparse sports coverage- care of Jeremy Hunt (JC) et al! At this juncture, we could reflect upon recent government assault upon The BBC, and whether we expect this to enhance our TV access or to impinge upon the same. We could consider the vastly increased volume of commercials to which your viewing-hungry child may consequently be exposed. We could, but we shan't.

After The Tour stage completion, we simply stopped watching but entirely foolishly permitted the TV to drone on in the background, washing our subconsciouses with all manner of drivel. That is, until the 'News' happened to refocus our attention. Two items stood out, I think in succession but cannot be sure upon this latter point.

The first item involved Kleyo De Abreu, a young student who tragically struck an adjacent bridge whilst bungee jumping in Lanjaron, Granada, Spain. The second item concerned an incident closer to home, at an industrial estate in Norwich, where two men were sadly killed in an explosion.

Neither of these incidents were new to me; I'd gleaned details about both from earlier reports. And here's the thing, in each of the earlier reports a close relative had been interviewed by news teams. A father and a brother had both naturally expressed great sadness at the loss of a loved relative, a daughter in the former report, and a brother in the latter. Both father and brother presented with dignity, whilst being understandably saddened by these awful events. Each was quietly trying to somehow to comprehend the tragedy.

Which rather begs the question, why it was that these victims of cruel circumstance were to be so shoddily treated by (on this occasion) the ITV News Teams. During the evening reports both victims were seen to be insensitively badgered until the requisite tears were duly extracted. Thereupon, the camera man-or-woman zoomed in to concentrate the viewer's gaze upon the grief-laden faces. Whereupon tears could be witnessed to fall, the (online gaming) viewer judged perhaps incapable of otherwise imagining the grief! Job done, swiftly onto something else!

Aspirations! As a news team, ideally these might be to expose rampant corruption or injustice, to draw the viewer's attention to the most pressing of national and international concern, to ensure that democratic ideals are always upheld- clearly failing on this point- to highlight humankind's greatest achievements. There is a wide array from which to choose.

Or they might be, to focus upon the bullied face of grief, that we might catch the cameraman's drooling reflection in a single perfect crystal tear. I give you art, Mr Damien Hirst.

It's easy to criticise.

Well, all too sadly, yes it is! And just because it is so easy it doesn't mean for a second that we shouldn't do it. Consider for a moment! What is the manner in which you are motivated to undertake the work for which you are paid? 'Motivation?' I can already sense some of you thinking, 'It's the need that I have to feed my family, it's as black and white as that!'



Good old fashioned values from Powerhouse Museum Collection's photostream

And this is a fair point. It 'worked' for the Victorians and it has continued to work, from back through the eons of Feudal Britain, right up until the present day. Yet we're supposed to be living under the auspices of a democratically elected government, aren't we? So I would say to you that if this (feeding and clothing the family) is your perceived purpose and reason for being at work then there is a fair chance that you are motivated through, at best, anxiety; frequently concerned that there isn't someone out there who can do your job cheaper than you, faster than you, better than you!



Real democracy in action. Thanks to National Media Museum's photostream

If you're not then I wish you well and would strongly advise you to stick with it! Genuine job satisfaction is not quite as common as you might have been led to believe. 'Twas a recent visit to the school of my grandson that caused me to ponder the issues raised. He'd been peripherally involved- that is witness to- an incident of bullying at his school. Not party to, I was more than a little relieved to discover. The Deputy Head Teacher was at great pains to explain to 'all present' that, 'bullying would not be tolerated at this school!'

Many of the parents in attendance were left in no doubt; this was a man of his word, but I detected the whiff of a thinly disguised reservation from the few. My grandson's class teacher was more candid, revealing, off the record, that bullying, 'like the weeds in your lawn' will never completely go away. My grandson was quick to concur.

Without dwelling overly much upon the school, she was clearly either less guarded about the facts or else considerably more in touch with her pupils. Had I known her as more than just my grandson's teacher I suspect that she might have revealed that bullying at this particular school was by no means confined to merely the pupils. Scratch the surface and…

We only need to search back a year or so to unearth the then Education Minister welcoming thousands of newly qualified teachers into their sparkling new posts with his (I'm sure it was a he) opinion that the profession was jam-packed with 'failing teachers'. What a warming thought, as many of them- yet to conduct their very first lesson- were already bracing themselves for the impending visit of Ofsted; a panel of glad-to-be-ex-exteachers and other nefarious would-otherwise-have-been-bailiffs, eager to fabricate failings in yet another school.

It's often the same amongst the children; the big bully at the top begets smaller, don't-rock-the-boat, bullies. 'Trickle down,' I think a once immense bully who really is best forgotten might have called it.



Mmmm... Thank you to quixotic54's photostream

And the Faeries? Let's just hope and pray that they continue to show no interest in the hierarchical machinations of our society.

No place for bullying

Every school, we are assured, is required by law to devise and 'operate' an anti-bullying policy. The number of Head teachers lining up to state that, ‘this school does not tolerate bullying,’ is matched only by those eager to point out that, ‘every school has its ‘fair’ share of bullying.’ And thank Christ too, if the little innocents that are being readied for the real world are going to stand the slightest chance of surviving out there, in the grown-up's world. This way some at least, with the capacity to evade this 'noble' yet almost unenforceable goal, may learn a fair deal about the ‘successful’ application of this much used tool in the British workplace.



Thanks to DVIDSHUB's photostream

I would imagine that you, like me, chuckle conspiratorially along with each new government initiative. There are, after all, enough of these- like raindrops amid the monsoon season- to keep us busy, should we regard them as ‘chuckling’ material. The public sector ‘initiatives’ alone are enough to almost perpetually keep us doubled up.

I have considered, rather more thoroughly, however, the ‘initiative’ (not really the right word, is it?) of attempting to ‘stamp out’ bullying in our schools, especially in the light of that claimed attempt to ‘fully equip’ our children for adulthood.



Much thanks to Joriel "Joz" Jimenez's photostream

You see, what we actually have here is an impasse; in this case an insurmountable Everest of a task! It need not be, but unless the old ‘enemy’, honesty, is permitted to re-enter the wider debate any achievable solution can only ever be an illusion.

The thrusting entrepreneurial race, a daily more 'revered' minority within 'our society', are far more direct creatures, in this respect. They would endeavour to 'misunderstand' the current societal ‘need’ for such an oxymoronic pretence. Imagine, were such a thing possible, a 'free-flowing', 'open', 'honest' and 'bully-free' monetarist state; where could one even begin to dig out the flaws from this kind of false ‘aspiration?’



Nicely illustrated by psilver (silverph)'s photstream

Would it be naïve to suggest that we might start by analysing the relative methods of motivation that are routinely employed within 'our society'? I can sense that ol’ ‘relative size’ issue raising its head yet again. ‘Remuneration commensurate with the efforts, application and achievements of the individual,’ it all sounds so reasonable doesn’t it? But, let’s look a little more closely at this ‘ideal,’ shall we?

On the one hand we have those banker chaps- almost bankrupted the continent, didn’t they?- with the covert protection of our 'democratically elected' (that doesn’t sound quite right) leader, arguing so vehemently that these ‘role models’ should be free to determine their own reward system. Correct me please, but I thought I’d read somewhere that that idea had failed quite spectacularly just a short while ago.

On the other hand we have those employed to educate our children and grandchildren, set to be judged biannually by Ofsted and again annually through their relative placings in National League Tables. On top of this we have the spiteful misnomer of the General Teaching Council, applying themselves continually to the rather saturated task of finding continual fault with sections of the profession, a tabloid media that has made a virtual vocation of condemning anything public sector and a government whose first ‘commitment’ to the nation’s educational system was to appoint, as Head of Ofsted, a man who, with a heart fashioned from solid cold flint, seemed to defy the fundamental criteria for even being accepted into the outer fringes of the human race. I wonder if the workers in the teaching profession will also be permitted to write their own pay cheques? I’m guessing not.



Perfect illustrated by spierzchala's photostream

‘Remuneration commensurate with the efforts, application and achievements of the individual,’ discuss!