In my post of 16th March 2007, 'Bullying in the UK Workplace' I outlined how three colleagues at my company were being bullied by managers using the company's mechanisms to do it. The intention of the managers is to get these people to leave or be sacked simply because the managers do not like these staff. The colleagues are all hard working with years of service to the company, but that seems to count for nothing when a manager simply takes a dislike to you.
The worst bullying, of a woman by her female boss, has now been going on for over 6 months and I assumed that it was common knowledge in the company as it is often a topic of conversation when I meet with people across the company. Last week towards the end of a very informal meeting (one of the colleagues described a play she had seen recently and people talked about the weather) among colleagues of the same rank and status across the company, one manager was present. She has begun bullying a different colleague so that he retires early as she seems to see him as 'dead wood' which has clearly distressed him. I thought (probably foolishly) if I brought up the other two cases of bullying currently going on in other sections, that it might make her stop and reflect on what she is doing herself.
What I had not anticipated was that one of the colleagues on my level was surprised when I mentioned the bullying of the woman that has been happening for 6 months. She dismissed it as nothing and furthermore that the manager in question (who I assume now must be a friend of hers) had the right to behave how she chose because she headed a section. When I complained about the time and effort that must have gone into the trumped up complaints, she dismissed this too, saying if discipline was needed then it had to be thoroughly documented. She gave no consideration that the poor woman being bullied is not guilty of any of the charges put against her. That seemed to be less concern than the manager being able to act how she felt fit.
Now, I know that we all live in hard times in business, but the assumption that someone can simply have someone they dislike removed seems to jar with the personnel policies of the company which portrays itself as a model employer. The dismissal of a complaint because the manager has an important job simply smacked of the attitudes you find in totalitarian states, that the leader is always right simply because they are the leader and no morals come into it. I had previously respected the colleague who spouted these views and she lost that respect entirely in a matter of minutes. I did not come into this business to work in an environment, which I accept is not like a real dictatorship (I have studied enough of those over the years), but is showing similar patterns of behaviour.
I had joked with another colleague who was at this meeting, that in the bullying environment we were now working in, we had to be careful about who overheard our conversations. In the meeting I also began by saying that I was worried that once the three people being bullied have been pushed out or left, the bullying managers would turn their targets on other people. Both of these things now seem to have come true and this week I have found out that that I should not have treated them lightly or rhetorically.
Back after the Bank Holiday break, I was called immediately to my boss's office and warned that my comments in the meeting had been reported to senior colleagues and that there was now a sense that the section I am working in 'is out of control'. I was a fool to take the informal atmosphere at face value, I was a fool to think my previously respected colleague had shared my opinion on the rights or wrongs of what is going on. Now I am seen as a trouble maker and am being encouraged to re-build bridges for the sake of my section. My workplace has changed in 6 months to a place where you cannot judge any situation on its merits or morality, you simply have to toe the line of the managers as they seek to expand their empires and not only eliminate anyone who stands in their way, but anyone they simply take a dislike to.
No, I am not going to be found face down in the company pond, but I could find difficulties in my work and under attack from the managers I have raised concerns about. I cannot believe that morality has gone so quickly out of the window at this company, which was never previously a 'greed is good' place to work. The greed here seems to be about arrogance and vanity, that managers cannot accept anyone with a different view to themselves or even a different way of behaving or thinking, despite all the supposed efforts at inclusivity. No-one seems willing to stick up their hand and say 'hang on, surely we should not behaving so shabbily to workers here'. This is not the place I came to work for in 2005 and it is not an atmosphere I want to remain in.
I need to get out as quickly as I can and find somewhere with the approach this place had a couple of years ago. I know that is abandoning a sinking ship (I doubt this company can succeed in the long term if it permits such corrosive behaviour among its managers) but I fear I will damage my long-term future if I stay here, whether I protest or not, especially if the 'removal machinery' is turned on me. I know my life is nowhere near as bad as those who flee tyranny, but these incidents have certainly allowed me greater insight into what people must experience in those conditions.
Clearly I am not going to risk my job by stating the name of the company here, but if you wish to know, especially if you work or intend to work in the UK, then email me and I will let you know. Saying that I increasingly guess from what I read that tens of UK employers in my industry and elsewhere turn a blind eye to bullying especially when it is carried out by senior staff.
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Rehabilitating John Buchan
There are many things which come back to irritate me at regular intervals, that probably seem trivial to the bulk of the population, but for some reason grate me. One purpose of these 'lead tablets' is to get them out in the open and so lift some of that irritation from myself and to show people my particular perspective on these things, a perspective they are free to agree with or challenge or ignore as they feel fit.
Now, whenever a version of 'The Thirty-Nine Steps' (there were versions made in 1935, 1959 and 1978) is shown on television, someone writes in the review 'based on the book by the anti-Semitic author John Buchan'. I have no time for anti-Semites (i.e. people who hate Jews) and I once dumped a friend immediately when she spouted anti-Jewish views (I stand up equally strongly for Arabs not to be prejudiced against either), but I do have time for John Buchan (1875-1940). In some ways he stood for things I am opposed to, the nobility (he ended his life as Baron Tweedsmuir) and imperialism, but certainly in the novels of his I have read I have not detected anti-Semitism which is why I get irritated when he is labelled constantly that way. He acted as a journalist and as an intelligence officer, being UK Director of Intelligence at the end of the First World War. He was a Conservative MP 1927-35 and ended his life as Governor-General of Canada. He published almost 30 novels, 7 collections of short stories and about 60 historical books, political tracts and even a tax guide. You can find one of his short novels, 'The Power-House' in available in its entirety online and extensive extracts of his other novels are also available if you surf for them.
Buchan is best remembered for his Richard Hannay books, 'The Thirty-Nine Steps' (1914), 'Greenmantle' (1915), 'Mr. Standfast' (1919), 'The Three Hostages' (1924) and 'The Island of Sheep' (1936). These stories drew on his own expertise as an intelligence officer, from South Africa and living in London. They are of their period and exhibit attitudes of the time such as a hostility to foreigners (though this is one that has persisted in the UK into the 21st century). Hannay is a so-called 'clubland hero' but unlike the heroes of other similar authors of the time such Dornford Yates and Sapper, he is more of a self-made man, a mining engineer originally from Scotland, (a country which influenced Buchan's work, for example also in 'Castle Gay' (1930)) who though he has experience in intelligence and warfare from the Boer War (1899-1902) is in fact an amateur who gets drawn into conspiracies. Buchan manages to bring excitement and realism to his plots, including incidents during the First World War which must have been difficult given so many people were affected by it at the time he was writing. The well written adventure of these stories often with themes that chime with us today is one reason why they have outlived many of their contemporaries. Even in 1988, Thames Television produced two series of dramas entitled 'Hannay', set in 1912, two years before 'The Thirty-Nine Steps' and based just on Buchan characters not actual stories, shows the kind of appeal the concepts retained. 'The Complete Richard Hannay' an anthology of the five original books was published as late as 1993.
To some extent, though an amateur, Hannay able to charm ladies (though as was typical of the time he marries and has a son in the later books) and mix in different levels of society he forms a link between Sherlock Holmes and James Bond and his legacy runs on into spy novels of the 1960s and 1970s such as the 'Harry Palmer' novels of Len Deighton and Robert Ludlum's Jason Bourne character recently seen in movies ('The Bourne Identity' (2002), 'The Bourne Supremacy' (2004)). These later characters are professionals but like Hannay are important for readers in an age when we feel we are at the mercy of faceless conspiracies and the machinery of governments and their networks (as people really began to feel for the first time during the First World War, a sense that peaked again during the Cold War), the individual, though at times cynical of what he can achieve, can make a difference through cunning, good humour and with a moral sense too of what is ultimately good and bad for the world.
So, this is really an appeal for television reviewers, next time, do not write 'John Buchan - anti-Semite', read the books and see that he was a man of his age with attitudes of his age, no less attractive than those of many authors today, and see that he wrote exciting but realistic stories that decades afterwards people were keen to film (another screen version, probably for television, of 'The Thirty-Nine Steps' is being discussed, apparently).
Now, whenever a version of 'The Thirty-Nine Steps' (there were versions made in 1935, 1959 and 1978) is shown on television, someone writes in the review 'based on the book by the anti-Semitic author John Buchan'. I have no time for anti-Semites (i.e. people who hate Jews) and I once dumped a friend immediately when she spouted anti-Jewish views (I stand up equally strongly for Arabs not to be prejudiced against either), but I do have time for John Buchan (1875-1940). In some ways he stood for things I am opposed to, the nobility (he ended his life as Baron Tweedsmuir) and imperialism, but certainly in the novels of his I have read I have not detected anti-Semitism which is why I get irritated when he is labelled constantly that way. He acted as a journalist and as an intelligence officer, being UK Director of Intelligence at the end of the First World War. He was a Conservative MP 1927-35 and ended his life as Governor-General of Canada. He published almost 30 novels, 7 collections of short stories and about 60 historical books, political tracts and even a tax guide. You can find one of his short novels, 'The Power-House' in available in its entirety online and extensive extracts of his other novels are also available if you surf for them.
Buchan is best remembered for his Richard Hannay books, 'The Thirty-Nine Steps' (1914), 'Greenmantle' (1915), 'Mr. Standfast' (1919), 'The Three Hostages' (1924) and 'The Island of Sheep' (1936). These stories drew on his own expertise as an intelligence officer, from South Africa and living in London. They are of their period and exhibit attitudes of the time such as a hostility to foreigners (though this is one that has persisted in the UK into the 21st century). Hannay is a so-called 'clubland hero' but unlike the heroes of other similar authors of the time such Dornford Yates and Sapper, he is more of a self-made man, a mining engineer originally from Scotland, (a country which influenced Buchan's work, for example also in 'Castle Gay' (1930)) who though he has experience in intelligence and warfare from the Boer War (1899-1902) is in fact an amateur who gets drawn into conspiracies. Buchan manages to bring excitement and realism to his plots, including incidents during the First World War which must have been difficult given so many people were affected by it at the time he was writing. The well written adventure of these stories often with themes that chime with us today is one reason why they have outlived many of their contemporaries. Even in 1988, Thames Television produced two series of dramas entitled 'Hannay', set in 1912, two years before 'The Thirty-Nine Steps' and based just on Buchan characters not actual stories, shows the kind of appeal the concepts retained. 'The Complete Richard Hannay' an anthology of the five original books was published as late as 1993.
To some extent, though an amateur, Hannay able to charm ladies (though as was typical of the time he marries and has a son in the later books) and mix in different levels of society he forms a link between Sherlock Holmes and James Bond and his legacy runs on into spy novels of the 1960s and 1970s such as the 'Harry Palmer' novels of Len Deighton and Robert Ludlum's Jason Bourne character recently seen in movies ('The Bourne Identity' (2002), 'The Bourne Supremacy' (2004)). These later characters are professionals but like Hannay are important for readers in an age when we feel we are at the mercy of faceless conspiracies and the machinery of governments and their networks (as people really began to feel for the first time during the First World War, a sense that peaked again during the Cold War), the individual, though at times cynical of what he can achieve, can make a difference through cunning, good humour and with a moral sense too of what is ultimately good and bad for the world.
So, this is really an appeal for television reviewers, next time, do not write 'John Buchan - anti-Semite', read the books and see that he was a man of his age with attitudes of his age, no less attractive than those of many authors today, and see that he wrote exciting but realistic stories that decades afterwards people were keen to film (another screen version, probably for television, of 'The Thirty-Nine Steps' is being discussed, apparently).
Monday, 28 May 2007
Rubbish policies - the stench and the greed
If you live in the UK or have an interest in the country (which I acknowledge is a small collection of islands off the European continent) you will know that one key problem, as outlined in my posts is that utility bills are high and you get appalling service for your money. A 'utility' I have not mentioned so far is the collection of rubbish. This is carried out by local councils and is currently funded from council tax which every household pays. With rising costs, especially for things like residential care for the elderly, road maintenance, etc., many councils are finding it difficult to balance their accounts and have either had to cut back on provision of services or raise council tax. This is the legacy of the poll tax (a.k.a community charge) introduced in Scotland in 1989 and the rest of the UK in 1990. It was a charge at a flat-rate determined for each borough (taking no account of the household's ability to pay) levied on all households. The idea of the Conservative Government was that it would encourage people to vote for Conservative local governments which tended to cut services and charge lower poll tax than Labour or Liberal Democrat councils. There was massive default of payment (which still has a big impact as people remain worried about registering to vote even now, for example Tower Hamlets council in East London has 60,000 more adults registered with doctors in the borough than it has on its electoral register) and to rioting, notably in the centre of London in March 1990. It was scrapped and replaced by the council tax in 1993. However, the policy of always trying to keep council tax low because this is what voters want has hampered many councils from raising the revenue they need.
Another policy introduced during the Thatcher years had a detrimental impact on refuse collection. In 1988 all councils were forced to privatise 8 core services including collecting rubbish and they had to award it to the cheapest bid. Previously such work was part of the duties of the council, now they were forced to contract the work out but still pay for it. This meant refuse workers thrown out of work and often re-employed at lower wages, and refuse collectors never earned high salaries at the best of time. As always with privatisation in the UK it was the 'cowboy' companies who won the contracts and service deteriorated.
In the 2000s a new element has entered the equation, recycling. Though in some parts of the UK this has been improving, the UK was lagging behind its European neighbours, so last year councils were compelled to introduce recycling schemes. Each seems to have adopted different rules and some will recycle somethings such as shredded paper or bottles than a neighbouring borough will refuse. You now have a range of different coloured bins and bags and boxes and depending where you live you have to sort to a greater or a lesser extent what you throw out. People who get the wrong things in the wrong bag or box may be liable to a fine of £50 (€73; US$100) and it tends to be the elderly who suffer when they get confused, or as often happens, guidance is not clear. In my town they just stick embarrassing 'Contaminated' stickers on your bin. There has been a tendency not to consider the size of the households so blocks of flats often have too few bins and people with many children get penalised when their bins are over-full.
Now, I support recycling whole-heartedly. I have seen countries like Belgium and Germany that are well ahead of the UK in what and how much they recycle. Whilst there have been bottle banks and paper banks in the UK for years now, they tend to be used by a certain set of middle class people keen to show off how much wine they drink and what newspapers they read rather than by the mass of the population. In addition you need a decent sized car to transport all the stuff to the banks and there is a dichotomy here because you produce carbon emissions taking your recycling to these banks. So, to get up to targets the system has to be one of collection (one truck pollutes far less than a street of people driving to a bottle bank) and simple to understand, otherwise you will not get the bulk of people to be involved.
Of course the government, seeing that voluntary involvement has been so bungled by numerous councils now turns to penalties. About 4 million rubbish bins in the UK now have computer chips in them (we were told they would not be used for monitoring, but no-one believed that and of course we were proven right barely months later). Other countries, such as Belgium, already monitor how much each house throws out and matches this against what they expect for the particular household and rebates their council tax accordingly. In the UK it will be the opposite, you will be charged by amount of non-recyclable rubbish you throw out. Landfill sites are filling up so it is getting more costly, and given the shortfall in council incomes they cannot pay rebates on council tax. However, the government and councils do not seem to realise what they have unleashed.
I used to live in Milton Keynes in the early 2000s and it had one of the best recycling policies in the country at the time (though not always popular as it had potential of £50 fines and arsonists attacked both of its recycling plants and burned them to the ground). Yet, with all its woodland and parks it suffered immensely from people dumping their waste into hedgerows. Gypsies were often blamed but it was proven that none were in the city at the time the incidents occurred and then White, middle and working class people started getting caught on camera doing it. So, if in a town where recycling was easy and collected from your door, people dumped what is it going to be like elsewhere, especially when you begin being charged for every bin full of things you throw out. It will be far easier to throw it into your neighbour's garden or in the woods and avoid the charge.
The potential for hostility does not stop there, as some European countries have found, the dustbin collectors themselves become lords, as if they reject how you have packaged your rubbish or how small you have snapped the twigs, etc. they reject it and you pay heavily. In some areas of the UK dustbin workers have already come under attack and are likely to face that more in the future.
There is yet another twist to all this. An increasing number of councils will only collect refuse once per fortnight. Earlier this year there was scientific 'evidence' produced which conveniently showed that this was not a risk to hygeine. However, in London wherever you are you are only 13 feet (4.3 m) from a rat already. We are told that wrapping rubbish in two dustbin bags stops any smell. This is a scientific experiment you can do in your own house. After less than a week old food (which given that you cannot compost either, those people have the room for a compost anyway, usually consists of cooked vegetables and meat which vermin love) begins to smell, no matter how many bags it is in. In hot weather (and the UK reached 26oC (79oF) this week it gets even worse. Double the time you have to hold on to that rubbish and you can see how bad it is going to get in houses (and especially flats) across the country. The UK is set to become as smelly as some Third World countries and probably as equally plagued with rats and flies.
Yet again the UK has ended up with an ill-thought out policy. Most people see the point of recycling, but given that they already pay council tax which they resent, and have to pay high charges for utilities, adding an extra, complicated cost on to them is not going to win them over to recycling. In fact it is going to make rubbish a problem across more and more of our towns and rural areas. It is going to cost far more for councils to send workers round picking up all the stuff dumped in hedgerows than they are going to make from charging us for disposing of our rubbish. The fortnightly rubbish collection is unnecessary, especially if we are going to be paying more for our refuse collection, surely some of that can fund a weekly collections (some towns used to have collection every 4 rather than 7 days, but that was in the days when hygeine and not greed was the driving factor). So, if you live outside the UK, I suggest making any tourist visits you are intending to the UK in the next couple of months, otherwise you will be coming to a country with rubbish abandoned on every and the stench of two-week old decayed food in every kitchen.
Another policy introduced during the Thatcher years had a detrimental impact on refuse collection. In 1988 all councils were forced to privatise 8 core services including collecting rubbish and they had to award it to the cheapest bid. Previously such work was part of the duties of the council, now they were forced to contract the work out but still pay for it. This meant refuse workers thrown out of work and often re-employed at lower wages, and refuse collectors never earned high salaries at the best of time. As always with privatisation in the UK it was the 'cowboy' companies who won the contracts and service deteriorated.
In the 2000s a new element has entered the equation, recycling. Though in some parts of the UK this has been improving, the UK was lagging behind its European neighbours, so last year councils were compelled to introduce recycling schemes. Each seems to have adopted different rules and some will recycle somethings such as shredded paper or bottles than a neighbouring borough will refuse. You now have a range of different coloured bins and bags and boxes and depending where you live you have to sort to a greater or a lesser extent what you throw out. People who get the wrong things in the wrong bag or box may be liable to a fine of £50 (€73; US$100) and it tends to be the elderly who suffer when they get confused, or as often happens, guidance is not clear. In my town they just stick embarrassing 'Contaminated' stickers on your bin. There has been a tendency not to consider the size of the households so blocks of flats often have too few bins and people with many children get penalised when their bins are over-full.
Now, I support recycling whole-heartedly. I have seen countries like Belgium and Germany that are well ahead of the UK in what and how much they recycle. Whilst there have been bottle banks and paper banks in the UK for years now, they tend to be used by a certain set of middle class people keen to show off how much wine they drink and what newspapers they read rather than by the mass of the population. In addition you need a decent sized car to transport all the stuff to the banks and there is a dichotomy here because you produce carbon emissions taking your recycling to these banks. So, to get up to targets the system has to be one of collection (one truck pollutes far less than a street of people driving to a bottle bank) and simple to understand, otherwise you will not get the bulk of people to be involved.
Of course the government, seeing that voluntary involvement has been so bungled by numerous councils now turns to penalties. About 4 million rubbish bins in the UK now have computer chips in them (we were told they would not be used for monitoring, but no-one believed that and of course we were proven right barely months later). Other countries, such as Belgium, already monitor how much each house throws out and matches this against what they expect for the particular household and rebates their council tax accordingly. In the UK it will be the opposite, you will be charged by amount of non-recyclable rubbish you throw out. Landfill sites are filling up so it is getting more costly, and given the shortfall in council incomes they cannot pay rebates on council tax. However, the government and councils do not seem to realise what they have unleashed.
I used to live in Milton Keynes in the early 2000s and it had one of the best recycling policies in the country at the time (though not always popular as it had potential of £50 fines and arsonists attacked both of its recycling plants and burned them to the ground). Yet, with all its woodland and parks it suffered immensely from people dumping their waste into hedgerows. Gypsies were often blamed but it was proven that none were in the city at the time the incidents occurred and then White, middle and working class people started getting caught on camera doing it. So, if in a town where recycling was easy and collected from your door, people dumped what is it going to be like elsewhere, especially when you begin being charged for every bin full of things you throw out. It will be far easier to throw it into your neighbour's garden or in the woods and avoid the charge.
The potential for hostility does not stop there, as some European countries have found, the dustbin collectors themselves become lords, as if they reject how you have packaged your rubbish or how small you have snapped the twigs, etc. they reject it and you pay heavily. In some areas of the UK dustbin workers have already come under attack and are likely to face that more in the future.
There is yet another twist to all this. An increasing number of councils will only collect refuse once per fortnight. Earlier this year there was scientific 'evidence' produced which conveniently showed that this was not a risk to hygeine. However, in London wherever you are you are only 13 feet (4.3 m) from a rat already. We are told that wrapping rubbish in two dustbin bags stops any smell. This is a scientific experiment you can do in your own house. After less than a week old food (which given that you cannot compost either, those people have the room for a compost anyway, usually consists of cooked vegetables and meat which vermin love) begins to smell, no matter how many bags it is in. In hot weather (and the UK reached 26oC (79oF) this week it gets even worse. Double the time you have to hold on to that rubbish and you can see how bad it is going to get in houses (and especially flats) across the country. The UK is set to become as smelly as some Third World countries and probably as equally plagued with rats and flies.
Yet again the UK has ended up with an ill-thought out policy. Most people see the point of recycling, but given that they already pay council tax which they resent, and have to pay high charges for utilities, adding an extra, complicated cost on to them is not going to win them over to recycling. In fact it is going to make rubbish a problem across more and more of our towns and rural areas. It is going to cost far more for councils to send workers round picking up all the stuff dumped in hedgerows than they are going to make from charging us for disposing of our rubbish. The fortnightly rubbish collection is unnecessary, especially if we are going to be paying more for our refuse collection, surely some of that can fund a weekly collections (some towns used to have collection every 4 rather than 7 days, but that was in the days when hygeine and not greed was the driving factor). So, if you live outside the UK, I suggest making any tourist visits you are intending to the UK in the next couple of months, otherwise you will be coming to a country with rubbish abandoned on every and the stench of two-week old decayed food in every kitchen.
Return of the Sus Laws
I was not really surprised to hear this week that the UK Government has decided to re-introduce police powers to stop and search people at random. In my recent post 'Combating Terrorism - Responding to whose Agenda?' I wrote that I anticipated an erosion of civil liberties in the UK (and the USA) in the name of combating terrorism and it seems to be quickly coming true.
The UK has had bitter experience of so-called 'sus' laws before. In the 1824 the UK police just being created at the time were able to stop and search anyone on 'suspicion' (hence the moniker 'sus') of about to be doing something illegal. These laws do not seem to have been overly abused until the late 1970s when they were increasingly used against Afro-Caribbean people (usually young men) especially living in London. Blacks made up a tiny proportion of the police and the predominantly white police force, some of whom were being influenced by the attitudes of the NF (National Front - a UK Fascist Party) which was prominent at the time simply used the laws to harrass Blacks. Sometimes they did catch people with concealed weapons or drugs but most of the people stopped were just going about their business. In other areas young, male Whites suffered too, I knew someone who was stopped on his way to work and the police claimed the tools he used for his job as a printer (this was in the age before everything was electronic in printing) were weapons. The sus laws and their abuse was one of the major causes (though not sole reason) of the Brixton Riot of 1980. Brixton is an area of South London which has long had a large Black population, there was also rioting in the St. Paul's area of Bristol. This was followed in 1981 by the Toxteth Riot in Liverpool. Surprisingly, the Thatcher Government, despite being hardline Conservative, scrapped the laws in 1981.
Now (still) Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has announced the re-introduction of these laws in an attempt to combat terrorism. Now the police will be able to stop and search anyone even if they are just behaving normally. Up until now they had to be doing something illegal such as being clearly drunk or urinating in public or commiting a crime. Clearly this policy adds to the feeling that Blair wants an authoritarian regime as the people who have had these powers in the past have been forces such as the Gestapo (Nazi secret police), the Stasi (East German secret police), the KGB (Soviet secret police) and so on; not democratic police forces. In addition, the fear is now among Middle Eastern and South Asian people who made up 4% of the UK population in 2001. (If anyone says the UK is becoming 'overcrowded' with people of non-White races tell them Whites make up 92% of the population, so non-Whites are less than 1 in 10 of the population). Even Hispanic people are at risk from laws which open up opportunities for bigoted policing and the general difficulty the UK police have in identifying suspects. Jean Charles de Menezes, an unarmed, pale-skinned, Brazilian was shot 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder on 22nd July 2005 because he was thought to be a Middle Eastern terrorist. It is anticipated that young Asians and Hispanics going to work or going out for an evening will now be stopped and searched as 'terrorist suspects' in fact just simply to fulfill police officers' racist attitudes. It should be noted that despite having identified the men who would engineer the 7th July bombing in London in 2005, MI5 (the UK's secret police force) did not follow them or seek their arrest. They had the power to do that and yet they did not, so why do they think additional powers will help cover their inabilities?
Of course, it really has little to do with sufficient powers to stop terrorism. The UK has long had sufficient powers to do that, as was shown throughout the past 35 years in combating the threat from IRA terrorists. In the 1980s the UK Government even began assassinating Irish terrorists. No, this policy is about Blair (and his supporters) who feel Britain should move away from democracy to a 'moral' dictatorship, a kind of clerico-authoritarian regime as I have outline before. Blair has said that those who have raised questions about the re-introduction of the sus laws have made a 'misjudgement' about how important civil liberties are. Given that people have fought for centuries to try to secure these, surely he is misjudging what he is in such a hurry to scrap. The assumption is that these laws are to defend our democracy and we have to lose some freedom to protect it. However, I believe Blair has gone beyond that and is in fact seeking to curtail may freedoms, not because he wants to defend democracy, but because he would prefer an authoritarian state which he genuinely believes is what the UK needs.
It seems that the only hope is that Blair will leave before he can force through these new rules. People who love freedom and democracy and especially those drawn from the Asian population of the UK and putting their hopes in Blair successor, Gordon Brown and possible deputy prime ministers like Peter Hain (famous for campaigning against apartheid in South Africa in the 1970s). Once the Blair Party has yielded power, hopefully something more like the Labour Party will come to the fore and stand up for decency over dictatorship. We are holding our breaths and praying it will be so.
The UK has had bitter experience of so-called 'sus' laws before. In the 1824 the UK police just being created at the time were able to stop and search anyone on 'suspicion' (hence the moniker 'sus') of about to be doing something illegal. These laws do not seem to have been overly abused until the late 1970s when they were increasingly used against Afro-Caribbean people (usually young men) especially living in London. Blacks made up a tiny proportion of the police and the predominantly white police force, some of whom were being influenced by the attitudes of the NF (National Front - a UK Fascist Party) which was prominent at the time simply used the laws to harrass Blacks. Sometimes they did catch people with concealed weapons or drugs but most of the people stopped were just going about their business. In other areas young, male Whites suffered too, I knew someone who was stopped on his way to work and the police claimed the tools he used for his job as a printer (this was in the age before everything was electronic in printing) were weapons. The sus laws and their abuse was one of the major causes (though not sole reason) of the Brixton Riot of 1980. Brixton is an area of South London which has long had a large Black population, there was also rioting in the St. Paul's area of Bristol. This was followed in 1981 by the Toxteth Riot in Liverpool. Surprisingly, the Thatcher Government, despite being hardline Conservative, scrapped the laws in 1981.
Now (still) Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has announced the re-introduction of these laws in an attempt to combat terrorism. Now the police will be able to stop and search anyone even if they are just behaving normally. Up until now they had to be doing something illegal such as being clearly drunk or urinating in public or commiting a crime. Clearly this policy adds to the feeling that Blair wants an authoritarian regime as the people who have had these powers in the past have been forces such as the Gestapo (Nazi secret police), the Stasi (East German secret police), the KGB (Soviet secret police) and so on; not democratic police forces. In addition, the fear is now among Middle Eastern and South Asian people who made up 4% of the UK population in 2001. (If anyone says the UK is becoming 'overcrowded' with people of non-White races tell them Whites make up 92% of the population, so non-Whites are less than 1 in 10 of the population). Even Hispanic people are at risk from laws which open up opportunities for bigoted policing and the general difficulty the UK police have in identifying suspects. Jean Charles de Menezes, an unarmed, pale-skinned, Brazilian was shot 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder on 22nd July 2005 because he was thought to be a Middle Eastern terrorist. It is anticipated that young Asians and Hispanics going to work or going out for an evening will now be stopped and searched as 'terrorist suspects' in fact just simply to fulfill police officers' racist attitudes. It should be noted that despite having identified the men who would engineer the 7th July bombing in London in 2005, MI5 (the UK's secret police force) did not follow them or seek their arrest. They had the power to do that and yet they did not, so why do they think additional powers will help cover their inabilities?
Of course, it really has little to do with sufficient powers to stop terrorism. The UK has long had sufficient powers to do that, as was shown throughout the past 35 years in combating the threat from IRA terrorists. In the 1980s the UK Government even began assassinating Irish terrorists. No, this policy is about Blair (and his supporters) who feel Britain should move away from democracy to a 'moral' dictatorship, a kind of clerico-authoritarian regime as I have outline before. Blair has said that those who have raised questions about the re-introduction of the sus laws have made a 'misjudgement' about how important civil liberties are. Given that people have fought for centuries to try to secure these, surely he is misjudging what he is in such a hurry to scrap. The assumption is that these laws are to defend our democracy and we have to lose some freedom to protect it. However, I believe Blair has gone beyond that and is in fact seeking to curtail may freedoms, not because he wants to defend democracy, but because he would prefer an authoritarian state which he genuinely believes is what the UK needs.
It seems that the only hope is that Blair will leave before he can force through these new rules. People who love freedom and democracy and especially those drawn from the Asian population of the UK and putting their hopes in Blair successor, Gordon Brown and possible deputy prime ministers like Peter Hain (famous for campaigning against apartheid in South Africa in the 1970s). Once the Blair Party has yielded power, hopefully something more like the Labour Party will come to the fore and stand up for decency over dictatorship. We are holding our breaths and praying it will be so.
Friday, 25 May 2007
The Steampunk Genre
Anyone who has read my posts will know I am interested in 'what if?' history whether as a tool for testing history or as an entertainment. Related to that in my interests is what is called 'steampunk', which refers to novels, movies, artwork. For those unfamiliar with this, here is some background.
We have to go back to 1984 when the book 'Neuromancer' by William Gibson was published. Gibson is seen as the 'father of Cyberpunk', though others had already contributed to it, such as Philip K. Dick, publishing from 1950s onwards, who died in 1982 (many of whose books have become movies such as 'Blade Runner', 'Total Recall', 'Paycheck', 'Through A Mirror Darkly') and John Brunner a science fiction author publishing since the late 1960s. Gibson envisaged a dystopian world of the near future with two important characteristics. First that people could physically connect to the internet and send their consciousness into it in order to conduct business or hack. Second, that people would have cybernetic enhancements, such as blades coming from their fists or cameras in their eyes. This latter element Gibson did not invent but what he did was give it a 'sexier' edge. So you had the 'cyber' of cybernetics and the punk of very urban, dirty, sprawling cities. In particular, Gibson's portrayal of a high-tech world dominated by huge, amoral corporations called zaibatsu (the Japanese word for such corporations) seemed to really chime with 1980s 'greed is good' culture. Gibson continued writing with 'Count Zero' (1986), 'Mona Lisa Overdrive' (1988), 'Burning Chrome' (1986 - a short story collection) being the core of his cyberpunk work. I find Gibson's work good on ideas but rather clunky in construction.
Other good cyberpunk autors, if you are interested, include Walter Jon Williams, Lewis Shiner (a European angle on Cyberpunk with references to Michael Moorcock's work too), George Alec Effinger (whose Cyberpunk stories have an interesting Middle Eastern take on the genre) and Bruce Sterling. Sterling is an all round writer who includes historical as well as science fiction stories and I feel his writing is smoother than Gibson's. His 1980 'The Artificial Kid' predates Gibson's work, and whilst not set on Earth has many cyberpunk elements.
Right, you may ask what has all this cyberpunk got to do with steampunk? Well, in 1990, Gibson and Sterling jointly wrote a book called 'The Difference Engine' which envisaged a mid-Victorian Britain in which technology, notably Charles Babbage's computer (the Difference Engine) which in reality was experimented on in the 1840s, was a success and led to a computer age in the mid-19th century (so a kind of 'what if?' which as you know, appeals to me). [Difference engines had been proposed as early as 1786 and after Babbage, Per Georg Scheutz built a number in the 1850s including one he sold to the British Government.] The expansion of computing leads to other things like the streamlining of traction engines for racing and the British House of Lords becomes filled with inventors and explorers rather than simply noblemen who have inherited their titles. This is seen as the first steampunk book, like the cyberpunk books exploring a world where technology is key and creates turmoil in a society of conflicting pressures.
There are older roots to the genre. There was a US TV series 'Wild Wild West' which was a TV series which ran for 4 seasons 1965-9. It seems to have been set between the end of the American Civil War and 1875 and Grant is the President (1869-77) shown. The heroes' nemesis, Dr. Miguelito Quixote Loveless, is supposed to have died in 1880. The spark of the original series was rather overshadowed by a couple of really dull TV movies in the 1980s using original cast members who were pretty old by then, and the rather failed 'Wild Wild West' (1999) movie with Will Smith and Kevin Kline, though it gives you a flavour of the original with their private train and the technology that they had. The first three series were darker and shot in black and white, but matching trends in US television at the time by the end of the run it became more 'camp' as have been the subsequent movies. However, they all included various Steampunk equipment such as concealed guns and a stage coach with an ejector seat. The attempts to dismember the USA as featured in the movie plots are common 'what if?' history scenarios (see also 'The Mask of Zorro' (1998)). After this series there seems to have been little interest in Steampunk in the USA until the 1990s.
In novels you have to mention Ronald W. Clark's 1969 novel 'Queen Victoria's Bomb' which envisages an atomic bomb being developed in the 1830s, testing in India and almost used in the Crimean War. Michael Moorcock's books 'Warlord of the Air' (1971), 'The Land Leviathan' (1974) and 'The Steel Tsar' (1981) also featured what can be termed Steampunk elements. In addition, by having Oswald Bastable as the hero of these books, a character who appears as a child in E. Nesbitt's 'The Story of the Treasure Seekers', Moorcock established the Steampunk approach of having characters from other authors' stories featuring as genuine people (alongside historical people too, as Clark had done extensively), a trend taken further by Alan Moore's graphic Steampunk novel, 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' (starting 1999). The the thread goes back even beyond these novels of course.
It can be argued that the real originators of steampunk were Victorian authors themselves. Jules Verne and H.G. Wells with their stories set in contemporary times to them but featuring huge airships, large submarines, tanks, flying motorbikes, a tunnel under the English Channel (as well as more fantastical devices to travel in time or to the Moon or make people invisible) built on the rush of technology throughout the 19th century and took their envisaging further, usually to look at moral issues in such a context, and like the steampunk authors, looking at the dilemmas that such technologies bring. These stories directly influence steampunk authors today, though their morals questions tend to be more direct and simpler than their Victorian predecessors.
What appeals to readers of steampunk is that it is technology but with elegance. In contrast to the sleek chrome of the model day it is brass and iron cast into elaborate shapes. Just look at any movie version of 'The Time Machine', it depicts a machine of elegance, all spinning, with inlaid knobs and polished buttons. In addition, in contrast to the cyberpunk novels which tend to portray people as playthings of vast multinational corporations, the heroes of steampunk are often ordinary people who can invent, they turn out a flying machine in the shed in the garden. Whilst this can be seen as very British, it has appeal in the USA for readers looking back to Ford or the Wright Brothers and their developments. However, the greatest success has been in Japan and from there have come notable steampunk movies such as 'Steamboy' (2005 - set in the UK) and 'Howl's Moving Castle' (2005) based on British author Diana Wynne Jones's 1986 novel of the same name.
Cyberpunk and steampunk have faded from their positions on the bestseller lists that they held in the 1980s and 1990s, but they have now effectively entered the mainstream. Graphic novelists have taken them up, notably in 'The League of Extraordinary Gentleman' (Alan Moore's novel and a 2003 movie). Cyberpunk has informed how we view the internet (Gibson is credited with inventing the word 'cyberspace') and are likely to view cybernetic implants (especially the potential for dehumanisation from them) and the position of the individual in relation to corporations. Steampunk is likely to have less impact, but my affection for it probably reflects me being British and so an in-built nostalgia for past things. Its impact is most likely to be in the style of items in the future and you can already see examples of people 'steampimping' their computers, much in the same way that people in the 1970s put their televisions in ornate wooden cabinets and those of the 1980s put their video cassettes in fake leather book covers.
In the meantime, for anyone interested in 'what if?' and 'why not?' in history, I recommend steampunk stories. To blow my own trumpet I intend to put a short story in that genre on this blog in coming weeks.
P.P. 26/10/2009: Despite my efforts at the time of writing this posting I have realised that I had missed out a vital slice of the history of the development of the steampunk genre. This was the first use of the term steampunk, which was by author K.W. Jeter writing to the science fiction magazine, 'Locus' in April 1987, so preceding 'The Difference Engine' by four years. According to wikipedia, Jeter was looking for an umbrella term for novels of the time, 'The Anubis Gates' (1983) by Tim Powers, 'Homunculus' (1986) by James Blaylock and 'Morlock Night' (1979) and 'Infernal Devices' (1987) that he had written himself which were set in the 19th century and took on board elements of the speculative writing naturally in the style of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells and so included anachronistic technology. Thus, of course, steampunk even in its latest manifestation predated cyberpunk, but that term was so snappy you can see why Jeter thought it was a good one to mutate for the genre he was writing in and certainly better than the description of Powers, Blaylock and Jeter writing in the so-called 'gonzo-historical manner'! Michael Moorcock noted this year (2009) that there is actually little 'punk' in most steampunk writing and he favours 'steam opera'.
We have to go back to 1984 when the book 'Neuromancer' by William Gibson was published. Gibson is seen as the 'father of Cyberpunk', though others had already contributed to it, such as Philip K. Dick, publishing from 1950s onwards, who died in 1982 (many of whose books have become movies such as 'Blade Runner', 'Total Recall', 'Paycheck', 'Through A Mirror Darkly') and John Brunner a science fiction author publishing since the late 1960s. Gibson envisaged a dystopian world of the near future with two important characteristics. First that people could physically connect to the internet and send their consciousness into it in order to conduct business or hack. Second, that people would have cybernetic enhancements, such as blades coming from their fists or cameras in their eyes. This latter element Gibson did not invent but what he did was give it a 'sexier' edge. So you had the 'cyber' of cybernetics and the punk of very urban, dirty, sprawling cities. In particular, Gibson's portrayal of a high-tech world dominated by huge, amoral corporations called zaibatsu (the Japanese word for such corporations) seemed to really chime with 1980s 'greed is good' culture. Gibson continued writing with 'Count Zero' (1986), 'Mona Lisa Overdrive' (1988), 'Burning Chrome' (1986 - a short story collection) being the core of his cyberpunk work. I find Gibson's work good on ideas but rather clunky in construction.
Other good cyberpunk autors, if you are interested, include Walter Jon Williams, Lewis Shiner (a European angle on Cyberpunk with references to Michael Moorcock's work too), George Alec Effinger (whose Cyberpunk stories have an interesting Middle Eastern take on the genre) and Bruce Sterling. Sterling is an all round writer who includes historical as well as science fiction stories and I feel his writing is smoother than Gibson's. His 1980 'The Artificial Kid' predates Gibson's work, and whilst not set on Earth has many cyberpunk elements.
Right, you may ask what has all this cyberpunk got to do with steampunk? Well, in 1990, Gibson and Sterling jointly wrote a book called 'The Difference Engine' which envisaged a mid-Victorian Britain in which technology, notably Charles Babbage's computer (the Difference Engine) which in reality was experimented on in the 1840s, was a success and led to a computer age in the mid-19th century (so a kind of 'what if?' which as you know, appeals to me). [Difference engines had been proposed as early as 1786 and after Babbage, Per Georg Scheutz built a number in the 1850s including one he sold to the British Government.] The expansion of computing leads to other things like the streamlining of traction engines for racing and the British House of Lords becomes filled with inventors and explorers rather than simply noblemen who have inherited their titles. This is seen as the first steampunk book, like the cyberpunk books exploring a world where technology is key and creates turmoil in a society of conflicting pressures.
There are older roots to the genre. There was a US TV series 'Wild Wild West' which was a TV series which ran for 4 seasons 1965-9. It seems to have been set between the end of the American Civil War and 1875 and Grant is the President (1869-77) shown. The heroes' nemesis, Dr. Miguelito Quixote Loveless, is supposed to have died in 1880. The spark of the original series was rather overshadowed by a couple of really dull TV movies in the 1980s using original cast members who were pretty old by then, and the rather failed 'Wild Wild West' (1999) movie with Will Smith and Kevin Kline, though it gives you a flavour of the original with their private train and the technology that they had. The first three series were darker and shot in black and white, but matching trends in US television at the time by the end of the run it became more 'camp' as have been the subsequent movies. However, they all included various Steampunk equipment such as concealed guns and a stage coach with an ejector seat. The attempts to dismember the USA as featured in the movie plots are common 'what if?' history scenarios (see also 'The Mask of Zorro' (1998)). After this series there seems to have been little interest in Steampunk in the USA until the 1990s.
In novels you have to mention Ronald W. Clark's 1969 novel 'Queen Victoria's Bomb' which envisages an atomic bomb being developed in the 1830s, testing in India and almost used in the Crimean War. Michael Moorcock's books 'Warlord of the Air' (1971), 'The Land Leviathan' (1974) and 'The Steel Tsar' (1981) also featured what can be termed Steampunk elements. In addition, by having Oswald Bastable as the hero of these books, a character who appears as a child in E. Nesbitt's 'The Story of the Treasure Seekers', Moorcock established the Steampunk approach of having characters from other authors' stories featuring as genuine people (alongside historical people too, as Clark had done extensively), a trend taken further by Alan Moore's graphic Steampunk novel, 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' (starting 1999). The the thread goes back even beyond these novels of course.
It can be argued that the real originators of steampunk were Victorian authors themselves. Jules Verne and H.G. Wells with their stories set in contemporary times to them but featuring huge airships, large submarines, tanks, flying motorbikes, a tunnel under the English Channel (as well as more fantastical devices to travel in time or to the Moon or make people invisible) built on the rush of technology throughout the 19th century and took their envisaging further, usually to look at moral issues in such a context, and like the steampunk authors, looking at the dilemmas that such technologies bring. These stories directly influence steampunk authors today, though their morals questions tend to be more direct and simpler than their Victorian predecessors.
What appeals to readers of steampunk is that it is technology but with elegance. In contrast to the sleek chrome of the model day it is brass and iron cast into elaborate shapes. Just look at any movie version of 'The Time Machine', it depicts a machine of elegance, all spinning, with inlaid knobs and polished buttons. In addition, in contrast to the cyberpunk novels which tend to portray people as playthings of vast multinational corporations, the heroes of steampunk are often ordinary people who can invent, they turn out a flying machine in the shed in the garden. Whilst this can be seen as very British, it has appeal in the USA for readers looking back to Ford or the Wright Brothers and their developments. However, the greatest success has been in Japan and from there have come notable steampunk movies such as 'Steamboy' (2005 - set in the UK) and 'Howl's Moving Castle' (2005) based on British author Diana Wynne Jones's 1986 novel of the same name.
Cyberpunk and steampunk have faded from their positions on the bestseller lists that they held in the 1980s and 1990s, but they have now effectively entered the mainstream. Graphic novelists have taken them up, notably in 'The League of Extraordinary Gentleman' (Alan Moore's novel and a 2003 movie). Cyberpunk has informed how we view the internet (Gibson is credited with inventing the word 'cyberspace') and are likely to view cybernetic implants (especially the potential for dehumanisation from them) and the position of the individual in relation to corporations. Steampunk is likely to have less impact, but my affection for it probably reflects me being British and so an in-built nostalgia for past things. Its impact is most likely to be in the style of items in the future and you can already see examples of people 'steampimping' their computers, much in the same way that people in the 1970s put their televisions in ornate wooden cabinets and those of the 1980s put their video cassettes in fake leather book covers.
In the meantime, for anyone interested in 'what if?' and 'why not?' in history, I recommend steampunk stories. To blow my own trumpet I intend to put a short story in that genre on this blog in coming weeks.
P.P. 26/10/2009: Despite my efforts at the time of writing this posting I have realised that I had missed out a vital slice of the history of the development of the steampunk genre. This was the first use of the term steampunk, which was by author K.W. Jeter writing to the science fiction magazine, 'Locus' in April 1987, so preceding 'The Difference Engine' by four years. According to wikipedia, Jeter was looking for an umbrella term for novels of the time, 'The Anubis Gates' (1983) by Tim Powers, 'Homunculus' (1986) by James Blaylock and 'Morlock Night' (1979) and 'Infernal Devices' (1987) that he had written himself which were set in the 19th century and took on board elements of the speculative writing naturally in the style of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells and so included anachronistic technology. Thus, of course, steampunk even in its latest manifestation predated cyberpunk, but that term was so snappy you can see why Jeter thought it was a good one to mutate for the genre he was writing in and certainly better than the description of Powers, Blaylock and Jeter writing in the so-called 'gonzo-historical manner'! Michael Moorcock noted this year (2009) that there is actually little 'punk' in most steampunk writing and he favours 'steam opera'.
Thursday, 24 May 2007
Back to the Medieval Village
A few years ago I put forward the 'what if?' history scenario, 'what if cheap public transport had never developed?' As I will outline in a moment it is an issue which seems to be coming on to the political agenda in the UK, but first I will outline by what I meant by this scenario.
The 19th century saw a rapid change from the fastest form of transport being a horse or the wind in your sails to machinery that did not tire and was less influence by the weather. Canals cannot go up hill except using locks which are time consuming, trains can tackle very varied environments. The span of Queen Victoria's reign (1837-1901) saw steam trains and ships become commonplace. Not only was this important for opening up North America and Russia, but it brought great changes to much smaller countries such as the UK. The age of the commuter was born and suburbs grew rapidly around large cities, particularly London. No longer did you have to live within a few miles of your job. Seaside resorts which had been the reserve of the wealthy now became accessible for daytrips. The way people moved around the country and what they could access became very different. The railways were a vital element of the industrial revolution, not simply because of the cargo they could move but also because of the workers. In the Middle Ages and beyond, even to the late 18th century, the bulk of the population never moved farther than a 2-mile (3.2 Km) radius of their homes now they would often travel many times that just to get to work. There were people who lived near their work, many factory, mine and farmworkers did, but even they could travel to the market town or the big city. Importantly, it enabled political movements to take speakers and pamphlets to the people and for those people to travel to towns to hear speakers and take part in political rallies and in riots. The spread of the railways also came alongside the development of the telegraph system (the first one was invented in 1837) and Tom Standage has argued that this was the first internet age, because you could telegraph orders and have them despatched to you by train in the way that we order stuff from Amazon or eBay online and a van brings it to us.
Right, so that was the way things developed: a railway system with fares that ordinary people could afford, so unlike their ancestors they could move around for work or leisure in a matter of hours rather than days that had been the case before. My 'what if?' scenario was what would have happened if railways had developed in a different way. In the UK many canals were built on the orders of nobles and wealthy landowners who used them for own purposes and certainly not for mass transit. Could railways have developed the same? Was there ever any need for passengers? What if heavy, slow trains only capable of shifting loads of coal or other raw materials had been the only ones on the railways. What if rather than cheap fares, the companies decided to focus on exclusive, luxury, high cost travel. Well, likely, as happened to some extent anyway in the 18th century, people would have moved to the factories on foot and then stayed in their vicinity. Communication across country would have been a lot slower and democracy may not have developed as quickly as it did with the widening of who could vote through the 19th century. As in the Middle Ages, there would have been people who travelled even in the 11th century some went on Crusade and others traded, but the bulk of the population would have not had access to things that were created far from where they lived and certainly would not have got to travel to the seaside or London or wherever. Potentially similar trends could have happened across Europe and the East coast of the USA.
So what relevance does this brief history of trains and telegraph and a 'what if?' of a different pattern of transport development have to issues now? Well, in previous posts I have already noted how increasingly expensive it is to travel on trains in the UK now. This is combined with the fragmentation of the service which has taken it back to a system that had not been seen in the UK since the early 1920s. This means getting connections is difficult and lengthens journey times. The complexity of different ticket systems and the lack of reliable information about services and tickets means you run the risk of incurring heavy fines, not for fare dodging, but from getting on the 'wrong' train at the 'wrong' time of the 'wrong' company with the 'wrong' ticket; some services now even have different parts of the same train run by different companies. Unsurprisingly, many people like myself, now drive, as it is cheaper and generally more reliable, though adding more to pollution and meaning you face the problems of congestion.
These issues of congestion and pollution have prompted the government to move towards 'road pricing', announced this week (in the face of a 1.8 million person petition against it). Effectively by means of electronic devices all main roads will become toll roads, with the price varying depending on when you are travelling. I accept that this will reduce congestion and contribute revenue, which, hopefully, will be directed to reducing pollution. However, with no reliable public transport system to fall back on what options are there for us to travel in the UK. What happens to visitors to our country? Other countries have toll roads, but the charges are not excessive. The UK is very densely packed. London has 10 million people in it, with another 15 million living in commuting distance of it. This is more than the number of people who live in the Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) countries all put together but in a smaller area; it is 50% more than the total population of Australia, and a little less than 1/10th of the population of the USA (the UK as a whole has over 60 million people now, so about 1/4 of the USA's population living in a space, half the size of the state of Alabama). The tolls will drive people even more on to backroads and in many cases simply stop people going outside their home towns. I drive 60 miles (96Km) per day so my bills are going to rise sharply, on top of all the utility ones I am suffering under.
I accept pollution needs to fall, but in the UK, without a good public transport system, you are effectively deeming the freedom to travel to be based on the status of individuals. The rich will be able to take trains or drive, us in the middle (I earn £8000 more per year than the national average salary) or poorer will be denied access to other areas. I have not had a holiday for 2 years simply because I cannot afford it. In my youth, in the 1970s, my parents (my father was a technician for a television company, my mother a nurse) could take me and my brother abroad each year, so we were exposed to other cultures and languages, I am effectively wealthier than they were then, but cannot afford to take my wife and step-son anywhere (going on holiday in the UK is far more expensive than going to a country like Spain or Greece because hotel, house rental, food and entertainment prices are so high).
When I lived in East London in the late 1990s, I was a rich man in my street. I earned £9500 per year (€13800; US$19000) and many of my neighbours were on unemployment or sickness benefit. The radius in which they moved was about 2 miles of their homes. I would talk about taking the 25-minute underground train ride to Covent Garden in Central London and to them it was as if I was talking about flying to Paris for the weekend. As most were dependent on council or housing association housing, when their children left home they tended to stay close so that they came under the same housing provider (and because of the population density of London, each borough is often only a few miles end-to-end), and so that they could draw on family to provide child care, etc. These people, effectively were living in a similar structure to ancestors 600+ years ago. 60% of the people of the UK die within 5 miles (8Km) of where they were born. Of course some people manage to get out, but so did some people go on Crusade from their medieval village.
This problem which affected the bottom rung of society is now going to rise higher and higher so that even me in the middle will be limited in where I can go. The problem with that is it closes down minds. If people of my age and standing and our children do not encounter other people and other ways we become closed in our attitudes and very parochial in outlook. Do not tell me, 'well, the internet solves that, you can be in contact with people across the world', because in the UK, the lag in connection speeds, the poor service broadband providers give, the technical difficulties and above all, the rising costs, are denying access to such provision to more and more people, rather than increasing coverage.
The UK needs an integrated transport policy which tackles pollution and congestion but allows people to travel around. UK governments complain the British are unwilling to relocate to find work and yet all their policies in terms of transport and housing make it so hard for anyone to afford to move even if they want to. A whole new approach is needed now, because as most people know, the attitudes and behaviour of the medieval village are not what we need in 21st century society.
The 19th century saw a rapid change from the fastest form of transport being a horse or the wind in your sails to machinery that did not tire and was less influence by the weather. Canals cannot go up hill except using locks which are time consuming, trains can tackle very varied environments. The span of Queen Victoria's reign (1837-1901) saw steam trains and ships become commonplace. Not only was this important for opening up North America and Russia, but it brought great changes to much smaller countries such as the UK. The age of the commuter was born and suburbs grew rapidly around large cities, particularly London. No longer did you have to live within a few miles of your job. Seaside resorts which had been the reserve of the wealthy now became accessible for daytrips. The way people moved around the country and what they could access became very different. The railways were a vital element of the industrial revolution, not simply because of the cargo they could move but also because of the workers. In the Middle Ages and beyond, even to the late 18th century, the bulk of the population never moved farther than a 2-mile (3.2 Km) radius of their homes now they would often travel many times that just to get to work. There were people who lived near their work, many factory, mine and farmworkers did, but even they could travel to the market town or the big city. Importantly, it enabled political movements to take speakers and pamphlets to the people and for those people to travel to towns to hear speakers and take part in political rallies and in riots. The spread of the railways also came alongside the development of the telegraph system (the first one was invented in 1837) and Tom Standage has argued that this was the first internet age, because you could telegraph orders and have them despatched to you by train in the way that we order stuff from Amazon or eBay online and a van brings it to us.
Right, so that was the way things developed: a railway system with fares that ordinary people could afford, so unlike their ancestors they could move around for work or leisure in a matter of hours rather than days that had been the case before. My 'what if?' scenario was what would have happened if railways had developed in a different way. In the UK many canals were built on the orders of nobles and wealthy landowners who used them for own purposes and certainly not for mass transit. Could railways have developed the same? Was there ever any need for passengers? What if heavy, slow trains only capable of shifting loads of coal or other raw materials had been the only ones on the railways. What if rather than cheap fares, the companies decided to focus on exclusive, luxury, high cost travel. Well, likely, as happened to some extent anyway in the 18th century, people would have moved to the factories on foot and then stayed in their vicinity. Communication across country would have been a lot slower and democracy may not have developed as quickly as it did with the widening of who could vote through the 19th century. As in the Middle Ages, there would have been people who travelled even in the 11th century some went on Crusade and others traded, but the bulk of the population would have not had access to things that were created far from where they lived and certainly would not have got to travel to the seaside or London or wherever. Potentially similar trends could have happened across Europe and the East coast of the USA.
So what relevance does this brief history of trains and telegraph and a 'what if?' of a different pattern of transport development have to issues now? Well, in previous posts I have already noted how increasingly expensive it is to travel on trains in the UK now. This is combined with the fragmentation of the service which has taken it back to a system that had not been seen in the UK since the early 1920s. This means getting connections is difficult and lengthens journey times. The complexity of different ticket systems and the lack of reliable information about services and tickets means you run the risk of incurring heavy fines, not for fare dodging, but from getting on the 'wrong' train at the 'wrong' time of the 'wrong' company with the 'wrong' ticket; some services now even have different parts of the same train run by different companies. Unsurprisingly, many people like myself, now drive, as it is cheaper and generally more reliable, though adding more to pollution and meaning you face the problems of congestion.
These issues of congestion and pollution have prompted the government to move towards 'road pricing', announced this week (in the face of a 1.8 million person petition against it). Effectively by means of electronic devices all main roads will become toll roads, with the price varying depending on when you are travelling. I accept that this will reduce congestion and contribute revenue, which, hopefully, will be directed to reducing pollution. However, with no reliable public transport system to fall back on what options are there for us to travel in the UK. What happens to visitors to our country? Other countries have toll roads, but the charges are not excessive. The UK is very densely packed. London has 10 million people in it, with another 15 million living in commuting distance of it. This is more than the number of people who live in the Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) countries all put together but in a smaller area; it is 50% more than the total population of Australia, and a little less than 1/10th of the population of the USA (the UK as a whole has over 60 million people now, so about 1/4 of the USA's population living in a space, half the size of the state of Alabama). The tolls will drive people even more on to backroads and in many cases simply stop people going outside their home towns. I drive 60 miles (96Km) per day so my bills are going to rise sharply, on top of all the utility ones I am suffering under.
I accept pollution needs to fall, but in the UK, without a good public transport system, you are effectively deeming the freedom to travel to be based on the status of individuals. The rich will be able to take trains or drive, us in the middle (I earn £8000 more per year than the national average salary) or poorer will be denied access to other areas. I have not had a holiday for 2 years simply because I cannot afford it. In my youth, in the 1970s, my parents (my father was a technician for a television company, my mother a nurse) could take me and my brother abroad each year, so we were exposed to other cultures and languages, I am effectively wealthier than they were then, but cannot afford to take my wife and step-son anywhere (going on holiday in the UK is far more expensive than going to a country like Spain or Greece because hotel, house rental, food and entertainment prices are so high).
When I lived in East London in the late 1990s, I was a rich man in my street. I earned £9500 per year (€13800; US$19000) and many of my neighbours were on unemployment or sickness benefit. The radius in which they moved was about 2 miles of their homes. I would talk about taking the 25-minute underground train ride to Covent Garden in Central London and to them it was as if I was talking about flying to Paris for the weekend. As most were dependent on council or housing association housing, when their children left home they tended to stay close so that they came under the same housing provider (and because of the population density of London, each borough is often only a few miles end-to-end), and so that they could draw on family to provide child care, etc. These people, effectively were living in a similar structure to ancestors 600+ years ago. 60% of the people of the UK die within 5 miles (8Km) of where they were born. Of course some people manage to get out, but so did some people go on Crusade from their medieval village.
This problem which affected the bottom rung of society is now going to rise higher and higher so that even me in the middle will be limited in where I can go. The problem with that is it closes down minds. If people of my age and standing and our children do not encounter other people and other ways we become closed in our attitudes and very parochial in outlook. Do not tell me, 'well, the internet solves that, you can be in contact with people across the world', because in the UK, the lag in connection speeds, the poor service broadband providers give, the technical difficulties and above all, the rising costs, are denying access to such provision to more and more people, rather than increasing coverage.
The UK needs an integrated transport policy which tackles pollution and congestion but allows people to travel around. UK governments complain the British are unwilling to relocate to find work and yet all their policies in terms of transport and housing make it so hard for anyone to afford to move even if they want to. A whole new approach is needed now, because as most people know, the attitudes and behaviour of the medieval village are not what we need in 21st century society.
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
Men: our narrow window of opportunity with women
This blog was initially intended to be about me throwing my concerns out of my mind into the pool that is the internet. However, it has gone off in a rather different direction, and tempted by the fact that I note journalists now look for blogged responses to developments in current affairs I have moved from my own life to broader concerns. This has been beneficial as it has got many things that had been milling around in my mind, out of it. Yet, now I feel that as I encounter more crises in my life I should return (briefly) to the more personal function of the blog.
As you will know I have felt under siege recently. The combination of rising utility bills, poor service when trying to get things sorted for my house, the £14,000 bill from Newham Council, the ongoing bullying of three of my work colleagues, all have been weighing heavily on me. There is now an additional factor, though in fact probably one which has been around for a while but I have neglected, so it is time to turn to it.
Some background. I am 39 and until I was 37 I had never lived with anyone. I had had housemates but I had never shared a house just with a 'partner' (in the UK people have tried to get this term to cover anyone you live with on an intimate basis and are not married to, though it retains connotations of a homosexual partner, even though now gays can marry too; in my case, she is a woman). I had been terribly shy throughout school and college made worse by scarring on my body which I feared would put off any potential girlfriends. At university I always seem to be chasing after a woman just after she (unbeknown to me) had just found a boyfriend. So I reached my early 20s with lots of female friends but absolutely no experience of anything; this is not all that uncommon, despite the media hype, 40% of UK students leave universities as virgins. Clearly it was something that made me unhappy, but at the time I did not realise the extent to which I had missed the window of opportunity for good.
Throughout my 20s and 30s I sought relationships with women and especially living in London had quite a few dates and relationships lasting a few months, but nothing too substantial. My opinion of myself was low, so when a rival appeared on the scene I would always bow out leaving the woman to him. Now, too late, I have read all this stuff about how you should be cocky and confident, but I thought I should just be myself and be 'nice'. That was a huge mistake, women do not like or want men like that at all. (I realise now that for the woman I had brief relationships with I was the 'rebound' man, ideal for restoring their confidence after a divorce or some other incident, but once back on their feet they no longer needed or wanted me.) My self-esteem was further dented by women demanding I apologise for asking them out for a drink, as they were so offended that I even considered myself in their league. I did keep bouncing back and kept asking, but with minimal success compared to the number of knock-backs. I assumed that my life would be better if I could only find the right woman and then live with her, I was deluded.
So, with lack of success of finding Ms. Right, I continued living with flatmates or on my own. I thought wrongly that that was a plus because I could keep house, unlike many other men. In the meantime encountered the problem that most men living alone in the UK experience, you are now considered the modern day witches, and a single man in a house in many people's minds simply means a child molestor; particularly an attitude in Milton Keynes which has a birth rate much higher than the UK average and is painfully family orientated.
As I aged, I found that my lack of experience angered women. They assume that by the time you turn 30 you will have lived in a domestic situation with a woman and know exactly what they (not women in general, but that specific woman) want. They also expect you to be very sexually knowledgeable and get angry if you are not. So, my advice to any men aged 16+ is get out there and have sex. Have it with the drunken woman you pick up at closing time in the pub; have it with a long-term female friend even if it means the end of your friendship; have it with any women you can, but make sure you get at least 5-6 partners under your belt before focusing in on the woman you want to live with. Have safe sex, use condoms, but make sure you have sex, certainly before you turn 21, otherwise you will basically have ruled yourself out of having any sex for the rest of your life. Any sexual partner who finds out you have minimal experience will be angry and is liable to dump you instantly (this happened with my first sexual partner). You can lie to her, but she will know and that is it.
The other thing which plagued me was not having lived with a woman. This is almost a lose/lose situation. If you live alone and do as I do, build up experience ironing, doing laundry, cooking reasonable meals, keeping a house clean and tidy, then you are considered either to be gay or simply pathetic. You gain nothing from this expertise. You must live like a slob until the woman in question comes and 'rescues' you. Then when you move in with her, and only then, will you be expected to do all of these chores expertly. Even if, as a single man, you keep your house clean, married couples will assume 'you know nothing about these things' (an actual quote from a married man to me) and no matter how much you protest they will believe you live in a pile of pizza boxes anyway. So, do not bother to be clean and tidy or do chores until the woman you want to impress comes along.
Now, how does all this background impinge on my current situation? Well, back in 2005 via the internet, I met a fellow Goth and we hit it off very quickly, so that within six months of meeting we were living together. She was 32 and I was 37; she had a son of 3 whose father had run off when he was conceived; I had no fear of children having trained as a teacher and worked as a volunteer in a primary school. Now, two years on I realise how I had missed that window of opportunity and made a mistake in still trying to have a relationship. I lack the experience in terms of sexual partners, I lack the experience in how to share a house with a woman and it is too late to gain those skills, the window closed 15-18 years ago.
Relationships do not break down the way they show on television programmes, with lots of screaming, shouting and things being thrown. They rot. The breakdown is made up of silences and small irritations, the increasing inability to resolve anything, the growing resentment, the fact that you no longer do things like wake, eat, go to bed on the same schedule as each other. People ask why do marriages break down so much these days compared to the past. The real answer is because women now will not put up with the rubbish their grandmothers tolerated. It is no better or worse in a modern marriage, it is just there are more options, especially for some, though not all women.
The key problem is what binds us. It is not marriage vows. My partner and I have lacked the money to afford to get marry and all the tax burdens it brings, but like many couples we are locked together by money. Neither of us can afford to pay the rent and the utility bills alone. The financial bonds are far tighter than those that any ceremony could impose. So things will break apart at a time designated by the letting agency rather than ourselves. It is not that we no longer love each other (well I do not think that is the case) it is just that the weariness, the frustration, the anger of struggling through the rubbish that every day throws at you smothers any affection. If I had had the experience in living with someone I could tackle this. If I had the sexual experience I could at least alleviate the gloom at times, but having missed the window of opportunity I lack these things and so cannot retrieve the relationship. I am part of a national trend anyway. At a school I knew, in one class only 2 out of 30 of the children had parents still living together and one of those 2 asked his father why he still lived with his mother. Ironically within the space of the year the man had left his wife and soon emigrated and re-married. Thirty years ago children of divorcees were often ostracised in the playground, now it is the children of married parents who suffer that way.
Anyway, in a round about way, I come to my conclusion. Basically as a man if you have not had multiple sexual partners by the time you are 21 and have not lived with a woman by the time you are 25, you stand no chance whatsoever of doing this successfully in subsequent years. You might think that finding the perfect woman will be the answer you are looking for, but you are wrong. Once you have missed that window of opportunity in which you can learn and in which women are tolerant, there is no chance of recapturing it.
Of course, if you have gained the necessary experiences by the correct age you have no worries then about trying to find a woman right throughout your life, these days even if you are elderly there are available women out there who want to start a relationship in their 70s or 80s. For the rest of us who missed the chance to get the necessary skills, the door is closed for ever more. If you are beyond the age of 25 and have failed to live with a woman yet, give up on the dating websites, give up on the speed dating, you have no hope of success and even if you do succeed it will be brief and even more painful than if you had not bothered. Men who are over 25 and have not co-habited: stick to your beer, your football, your Playstation, women are now a lost world to you. I know I have been there and suffered the consequences and expense - emotional, personal and financial.
As you will know I have felt under siege recently. The combination of rising utility bills, poor service when trying to get things sorted for my house, the £14,000 bill from Newham Council, the ongoing bullying of three of my work colleagues, all have been weighing heavily on me. There is now an additional factor, though in fact probably one which has been around for a while but I have neglected, so it is time to turn to it.
Some background. I am 39 and until I was 37 I had never lived with anyone. I had had housemates but I had never shared a house just with a 'partner' (in the UK people have tried to get this term to cover anyone you live with on an intimate basis and are not married to, though it retains connotations of a homosexual partner, even though now gays can marry too; in my case, she is a woman). I had been terribly shy throughout school and college made worse by scarring on my body which I feared would put off any potential girlfriends. At university I always seem to be chasing after a woman just after she (unbeknown to me) had just found a boyfriend. So I reached my early 20s with lots of female friends but absolutely no experience of anything; this is not all that uncommon, despite the media hype, 40% of UK students leave universities as virgins. Clearly it was something that made me unhappy, but at the time I did not realise the extent to which I had missed the window of opportunity for good.
Throughout my 20s and 30s I sought relationships with women and especially living in London had quite a few dates and relationships lasting a few months, but nothing too substantial. My opinion of myself was low, so when a rival appeared on the scene I would always bow out leaving the woman to him. Now, too late, I have read all this stuff about how you should be cocky and confident, but I thought I should just be myself and be 'nice'. That was a huge mistake, women do not like or want men like that at all. (I realise now that for the woman I had brief relationships with I was the 'rebound' man, ideal for restoring their confidence after a divorce or some other incident, but once back on their feet they no longer needed or wanted me.) My self-esteem was further dented by women demanding I apologise for asking them out for a drink, as they were so offended that I even considered myself in their league. I did keep bouncing back and kept asking, but with minimal success compared to the number of knock-backs. I assumed that my life would be better if I could only find the right woman and then live with her, I was deluded.
So, with lack of success of finding Ms. Right, I continued living with flatmates or on my own. I thought wrongly that that was a plus because I could keep house, unlike many other men. In the meantime encountered the problem that most men living alone in the UK experience, you are now considered the modern day witches, and a single man in a house in many people's minds simply means a child molestor; particularly an attitude in Milton Keynes which has a birth rate much higher than the UK average and is painfully family orientated.
As I aged, I found that my lack of experience angered women. They assume that by the time you turn 30 you will have lived in a domestic situation with a woman and know exactly what they (not women in general, but that specific woman) want. They also expect you to be very sexually knowledgeable and get angry if you are not. So, my advice to any men aged 16+ is get out there and have sex. Have it with the drunken woman you pick up at closing time in the pub; have it with a long-term female friend even if it means the end of your friendship; have it with any women you can, but make sure you get at least 5-6 partners under your belt before focusing in on the woman you want to live with. Have safe sex, use condoms, but make sure you have sex, certainly before you turn 21, otherwise you will basically have ruled yourself out of having any sex for the rest of your life. Any sexual partner who finds out you have minimal experience will be angry and is liable to dump you instantly (this happened with my first sexual partner). You can lie to her, but she will know and that is it.
The other thing which plagued me was not having lived with a woman. This is almost a lose/lose situation. If you live alone and do as I do, build up experience ironing, doing laundry, cooking reasonable meals, keeping a house clean and tidy, then you are considered either to be gay or simply pathetic. You gain nothing from this expertise. You must live like a slob until the woman in question comes and 'rescues' you. Then when you move in with her, and only then, will you be expected to do all of these chores expertly. Even if, as a single man, you keep your house clean, married couples will assume 'you know nothing about these things' (an actual quote from a married man to me) and no matter how much you protest they will believe you live in a pile of pizza boxes anyway. So, do not bother to be clean and tidy or do chores until the woman you want to impress comes along.
Now, how does all this background impinge on my current situation? Well, back in 2005 via the internet, I met a fellow Goth and we hit it off very quickly, so that within six months of meeting we were living together. She was 32 and I was 37; she had a son of 3 whose father had run off when he was conceived; I had no fear of children having trained as a teacher and worked as a volunteer in a primary school. Now, two years on I realise how I had missed that window of opportunity and made a mistake in still trying to have a relationship. I lack the experience in terms of sexual partners, I lack the experience in how to share a house with a woman and it is too late to gain those skills, the window closed 15-18 years ago.
Relationships do not break down the way they show on television programmes, with lots of screaming, shouting and things being thrown. They rot. The breakdown is made up of silences and small irritations, the increasing inability to resolve anything, the growing resentment, the fact that you no longer do things like wake, eat, go to bed on the same schedule as each other. People ask why do marriages break down so much these days compared to the past. The real answer is because women now will not put up with the rubbish their grandmothers tolerated. It is no better or worse in a modern marriage, it is just there are more options, especially for some, though not all women.
The key problem is what binds us. It is not marriage vows. My partner and I have lacked the money to afford to get marry and all the tax burdens it brings, but like many couples we are locked together by money. Neither of us can afford to pay the rent and the utility bills alone. The financial bonds are far tighter than those that any ceremony could impose. So things will break apart at a time designated by the letting agency rather than ourselves. It is not that we no longer love each other (well I do not think that is the case) it is just that the weariness, the frustration, the anger of struggling through the rubbish that every day throws at you smothers any affection. If I had had the experience in living with someone I could tackle this. If I had the sexual experience I could at least alleviate the gloom at times, but having missed the window of opportunity I lack these things and so cannot retrieve the relationship. I am part of a national trend anyway. At a school I knew, in one class only 2 out of 30 of the children had parents still living together and one of those 2 asked his father why he still lived with his mother. Ironically within the space of the year the man had left his wife and soon emigrated and re-married. Thirty years ago children of divorcees were often ostracised in the playground, now it is the children of married parents who suffer that way.
Anyway, in a round about way, I come to my conclusion. Basically as a man if you have not had multiple sexual partners by the time you are 21 and have not lived with a woman by the time you are 25, you stand no chance whatsoever of doing this successfully in subsequent years. You might think that finding the perfect woman will be the answer you are looking for, but you are wrong. Once you have missed that window of opportunity in which you can learn and in which women are tolerant, there is no chance of recapturing it.
Of course, if you have gained the necessary experiences by the correct age you have no worries then about trying to find a woman right throughout your life, these days even if you are elderly there are available women out there who want to start a relationship in their 70s or 80s. For the rest of us who missed the chance to get the necessary skills, the door is closed for ever more. If you are beyond the age of 25 and have failed to live with a woman yet, give up on the dating websites, give up on the speed dating, you have no hope of success and even if you do succeed it will be brief and even more painful than if you had not bothered. Men who are over 25 and have not co-habited: stick to your beer, your football, your Playstation, women are now a lost world to you. I know I have been there and suffered the consequences and expense - emotional, personal and financial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
