This punch up, between priests of rival orthodoxies within the same religion, beautifully sums up the idiocies of religious divides, and the hypocrisy of the Church(es). I have no idea what they're fighting about - it could be some minor detail in their respective theologies, or who gets the best pews, but these men are priests, showing themselves up as all too human. This is no better or worse than drunk blokes getting shitfaced and having a set-to on a Saturday night - the difference is that said drunkards rarely offer themselves up as representatives of God, guardians of morality and guiding lights for us fallen.
I know I should be laughing at it - certainly if it were shown by Monty Python or something, sped up slightly or shown to the background of Benny Hill's theme music, it would be partnered perfectly. But it's real, so I find it irritating. Some tiny difference in the way a holy text is interpreted (by people, of course) or how the ceremonies should be undertaken, or some other seemingly trifling difference can lead to this, or worse, to perpetual conflict, escalating even to war. You need only see how Shia and Sunni Muslims have fought with each other (over what's essentially a difference of political opinion on who should have taken over their prophet's position as leader of the Muslim 'nation' on his death hundreds of years ago) to take my point.
To an atheist, this conflict over what's basically a matter of historic opinion is utterly bewildering, but to a Muslim, it's a fundamental article of faith, one that a very few of them are prepared to fight, kill and die over. I can understand wars fought over oil, territory, subjugation of people - understand them happening at least - but not this. Those priests fighting are merely an unedifying example of exactly the same sort of pointless schism between people who should be showing compassion and understanding to each other, given the inherent similarities of their beliefs in particular.
I know it's a ludicrously extreme example, but to me, this is like the septuaganarians of the Aylesbury and District WI hurling chairs at each other across the church hall in a dispute over whether their cakes should be covered in Royal Icing or rolled fondant - it's that stupid. The difference of course is that the good ladies of the WI would do no such thing because they'd realise that, though they may want the cake decorated differently, fundamentally it's still a bloody cake. Those priests would be better off sitting down with a cuppa and a slice of said delicacy and discussing their differences like men. That is all.
Thursday, 29 December 2011
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
First Warsi, now Cameron not recognising the facts
David Cameron's recent assertion that Britain is '...a Christian country, and we shouldn't be afraid to say that...' is irritating to those of us whose secularism is important to us, but more importantly, it's not backed up by the facts.
It's true that in the 2001 census, some 73% of the population described themselves as 'Christian'. But that is a hugely broad, poorly defined and easily misinterpreted figure, especially when you take into account the actual practices of a lot of those people. Indeed, the PM himself said he was a 'committed but only vaguely practising' Christian, whatever that means.
Much more recently, the National Centre for Social Research conducted its 28th survey into British Social Attitudes, covering pretty much everything from politics, through transport, the environment and religion. This does not just ask people to define themselves as Christian, other, non-religious etc. It actually asks people about their religious beliefs and practices. Its findings bear little resemblance to the picture of Britain that the PM, and recently Baroness Warsi, would paint. The NCSR found that 50% of British people characterise themselves as having 'no religion', while 20% see themselves as CofE, 15% 'other Christian', 9% Roman Catholic and 6% 'non Christian', presumably other faiths. Full results can be found here. Of those who do count themselves religious, more than half never actually attend a service of any kind. Most tellingly, only 14% of the population actually attend services weekly, and the numbers are falling - affiliation to the Church of England has halved since 1983.
This doesn't look like a Christian country to me. It looks like a largely secular, but at the same time multi-faith country that should not be being governed by, or in the interests of, any one of those religions. It's another example of those in power conveniently ignoring the facts in favour of their own world view, and it's particularly frustrating to people like me who think that government should be secular, with the Church (of any faith) having absolutely no role in policy making when those policies affect everybody.
Cameron did, at least, leaven his comments slightly - more on what he said here. But his central assertion that the 'Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today' rings pretty hollow to the millions of us who, like me, have somehow managed to piece together our own moral code without ever having read the thing.
It's true that in the 2001 census, some 73% of the population described themselves as 'Christian'. But that is a hugely broad, poorly defined and easily misinterpreted figure, especially when you take into account the actual practices of a lot of those people. Indeed, the PM himself said he was a 'committed but only vaguely practising' Christian, whatever that means.
Much more recently, the National Centre for Social Research conducted its 28th survey into British Social Attitudes, covering pretty much everything from politics, through transport, the environment and religion. This does not just ask people to define themselves as Christian, other, non-religious etc. It actually asks people about their religious beliefs and practices. Its findings bear little resemblance to the picture of Britain that the PM, and recently Baroness Warsi, would paint. The NCSR found that 50% of British people characterise themselves as having 'no religion', while 20% see themselves as CofE, 15% 'other Christian', 9% Roman Catholic and 6% 'non Christian', presumably other faiths. Full results can be found here. Of those who do count themselves religious, more than half never actually attend a service of any kind. Most tellingly, only 14% of the population actually attend services weekly, and the numbers are falling - affiliation to the Church of England has halved since 1983.
This doesn't look like a Christian country to me. It looks like a largely secular, but at the same time multi-faith country that should not be being governed by, or in the interests of, any one of those religions. It's another example of those in power conveniently ignoring the facts in favour of their own world view, and it's particularly frustrating to people like me who think that government should be secular, with the Church (of any faith) having absolutely no role in policy making when those policies affect everybody.
Cameron did, at least, leaven his comments slightly - more on what he said here. But his central assertion that the 'Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today' rings pretty hollow to the millions of us who, like me, have somehow managed to piece together our own moral code without ever having read the thing.
Monday, 19 December 2011
To live in the hearts of those we love
Saturday was the 25th anniversary of the passing of my best mate's mum. I spent Saturday with said mate, driving to Brighton, going to the game, the usual Saturday stuff. He, as he has done ever since I've known him apart from fleeting moments, kept any thoughts he may have been having about her to himself.
I never met her, not becoming close to him until after she passed on, but would like nonetheless to pay tribute to her here. At his wedding in May, remembering her in his speech, he quoted one of his favourite sayings. 'To live on in the hearts of those we love is not to die.' A beautiful sentiment and one he lives by, remembering her the way he does. Indeed, I'd go further. He is nothing less than a living embodiment of his late mum's qualities, as well as those of his dad of course, and a lasting legacy to her life that shows that she is still, through him and his sister, having a positive impact on the world. She would have been, rightly, hugely proud of both of them, as they are of her.
If everybody's life were led the way hers was, such that its lasting impression is one of a pure goodness continuing to be done even after they were gone, of the human qualities we should all hope we have within ourselves being passed on unmistakeably, the world would be a much, much better place. I don't know what sort of bloke he'd have been were she not taken from her family when she was, but I do know that he, and his sister, would certainly have been no less than they are now – the absolute finest, the most human, the most empathetic and selfless people you could ever hope to know.
I hope he'll forgive me for making this most personal of entries but, when I've spoken to him about her in the past, I've felt that I've never really been able to do justice to what she's left the world. The highest possible tribute I can pay her is that she, and all her qualities, indeed live on in their hearts.
I never met her, not becoming close to him until after she passed on, but would like nonetheless to pay tribute to her here. At his wedding in May, remembering her in his speech, he quoted one of his favourite sayings. 'To live on in the hearts of those we love is not to die.' A beautiful sentiment and one he lives by, remembering her the way he does. Indeed, I'd go further. He is nothing less than a living embodiment of his late mum's qualities, as well as those of his dad of course, and a lasting legacy to her life that shows that she is still, through him and his sister, having a positive impact on the world. She would have been, rightly, hugely proud of both of them, as they are of her.
If everybody's life were led the way hers was, such that its lasting impression is one of a pure goodness continuing to be done even after they were gone, of the human qualities we should all hope we have within ourselves being passed on unmistakeably, the world would be a much, much better place. I don't know what sort of bloke he'd have been were she not taken from her family when she was, but I do know that he, and his sister, would certainly have been no less than they are now – the absolute finest, the most human, the most empathetic and selfless people you could ever hope to know.
I hope he'll forgive me for making this most personal of entries but, when I've spoken to him about her in the past, I've felt that I've never really been able to do justice to what she's left the world. The highest possible tribute I can pay her is that she, and all her qualities, indeed live on in their hearts.
Hans Blix has the last laugh
So North Korea's 'great leader' departs, fairly prosaically as it turns out, handing the reins over to one of his sons in the bizarrely paradoxical way of Marxist hereditism which characterises the leadership of the place. I shall be re-watching Team America in his 'honour', and urge you to do the same. As a piece of satire, reducing a man whose cult of personality deifies him in his own land to a figure of mockery, it's matchless. But the real world will be watching to find out if the next in line is a moderniser or merely a clone of his father politically, ripe for further attention from Messrs Parker, Stone and Brady.
Team America had Hans Blix's meddling in Kim Jong-Il's affairs punished by his being fed to sharks, of course. In reality the Swede lives on to see, like the rest of us, his puppet nemesis no doubt turned into a god by his cowed people just as his father was. There's an extremely interesting 15-minute piece on the Beeb website at the moment about the country, giving a glimpse into this oddest of nations.
Given the highly militaristic nature of the place (a country of about 22 million people in which the armed forces number over a million!), the outside world is a bit concerned that North Korea is developing (or could develop) a nuclear ICBM capability, so the choice of successor and his likely direction are of considerable interest to other governments.
I've said before that our politicians may be grasping, corrupt, careerist dogmatists, but at least we are free to say as much, and don't have to go and bow before statues of them. We are fortunate indeed to live in a place not governed by people like that loon - I may think little of our current PM, but at least he isn't feeding UN Weapons Inspectors to his pets. Oh, hang on, that was the film, wasn't it? Anyway, you take my point..
Team America had Hans Blix's meddling in Kim Jong-Il's affairs punished by his being fed to sharks, of course. In reality the Swede lives on to see, like the rest of us, his puppet nemesis no doubt turned into a god by his cowed people just as his father was. There's an extremely interesting 15-minute piece on the Beeb website at the moment about the country, giving a glimpse into this oddest of nations.
Given the highly militaristic nature of the place (a country of about 22 million people in which the armed forces number over a million!), the outside world is a bit concerned that North Korea is developing (or could develop) a nuclear ICBM capability, so the choice of successor and his likely direction are of considerable interest to other governments.
I've said before that our politicians may be grasping, corrupt, careerist dogmatists, but at least we are free to say as much, and don't have to go and bow before statues of them. We are fortunate indeed to live in a place not governed by people like that loon - I may think little of our current PM, but at least he isn't feeding UN Weapons Inspectors to his pets. Oh, hang on, that was the film, wasn't it? Anyway, you take my point..
Monday, 12 December 2011
The duality of man
Last weekend was one passed in extreme good cheer, spent with 14 friends at an enormous house in Oxfordshire we'd rented for the weekend. We 'Orphans' organise our own Christmas each year, going away for a couple of days to do things our own way before we head to our families. Drink is taken, much food is eaten, music and singing done well and done terribly, real fireplace, the lot. Jolly bally good times had by all. My love, respect and thanks to all who were there, and to absent friends who couldn't make it this time round.
Drama on the way home, though. We'd not been on the road fifteen minutes when we saw, right in front of us, a cyclist sprawled in the road, flat on his back alongside his wrecked bike. The car who'd hit him was just pulling over, as did we and a car behind. We ran to him to find him unconscious and bleeding heavily but breathing. I won't go into too much detail, but while we waited for an ambulance and stopped traffic from ploughing into him (and us), the minutes felt like they stretched into hours.
One of our number was particularly superb in her response. (You know who you are!) I salute her calmness, caring nature and willingness to literally get blood on her hands to help this man. Anyway, the ambulance turned up after what was probably around 10-15 minutes, but felt like years, closely followed by an Air Ambulance, a helicopter which deposited more paramedics in a field adjacent to the road before taking off again immediately.
While the paramedics were tending to the man - 'serious head injuries', 'life threatening', 'not stable, non-responsive' - the farmer whose field the chopper had landed in mooched over for a chat. "Whose idea was it to land a helicopter in my field?" We pointed out that there was a man lying seriously injured in the road and that they put down as close to him as possible. Clearly this didn't satisfy our landowning friend. "I've got animals. They get spooked." I'm not entirely sure why he was directing this at witnesses - perhaps he felt we'd demanded that the thing land right on his field, dropping smoke flares to better assist the pilot in getting exactly the right spot to scare the horses to maximum effect. Obviously, you know those waggish pilots, they did what we asked rather than worry about what was best for the injured bloke. "Who do I take this up with?", mister farmer asked one of the police officers.
The dichotomy of response between my friends, other witnesses there, the medical crew and police, and this totally solipsistic git with not the slightest care for the well-being of somebody badly hurt basically on his doorstep, was startling to me. I assume the bloke will, in the event he ever needs emergency medical treatment, insist on road transport to get help to him, lest his livestock be bothered again. Merry bloody Christmas, mate.
Drama on the way home, though. We'd not been on the road fifteen minutes when we saw, right in front of us, a cyclist sprawled in the road, flat on his back alongside his wrecked bike. The car who'd hit him was just pulling over, as did we and a car behind. We ran to him to find him unconscious and bleeding heavily but breathing. I won't go into too much detail, but while we waited for an ambulance and stopped traffic from ploughing into him (and us), the minutes felt like they stretched into hours.
One of our number was particularly superb in her response. (You know who you are!) I salute her calmness, caring nature and willingness to literally get blood on her hands to help this man. Anyway, the ambulance turned up after what was probably around 10-15 minutes, but felt like years, closely followed by an Air Ambulance, a helicopter which deposited more paramedics in a field adjacent to the road before taking off again immediately.
While the paramedics were tending to the man - 'serious head injuries', 'life threatening', 'not stable, non-responsive' - the farmer whose field the chopper had landed in mooched over for a chat. "Whose idea was it to land a helicopter in my field?" We pointed out that there was a man lying seriously injured in the road and that they put down as close to him as possible. Clearly this didn't satisfy our landowning friend. "I've got animals. They get spooked." I'm not entirely sure why he was directing this at witnesses - perhaps he felt we'd demanded that the thing land right on his field, dropping smoke flares to better assist the pilot in getting exactly the right spot to scare the horses to maximum effect. Obviously, you know those waggish pilots, they did what we asked rather than worry about what was best for the injured bloke. "Who do I take this up with?", mister farmer asked one of the police officers.
The dichotomy of response between my friends, other witnesses there, the medical crew and police, and this totally solipsistic git with not the slightest care for the well-being of somebody badly hurt basically on his doorstep, was startling to me. I assume the bloke will, in the event he ever needs emergency medical treatment, insist on road transport to get help to him, lest his livestock be bothered again. Merry bloody Christmas, mate.
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
The joys of Parliamentary privilege
The freedom to say pretty much what you want (while staying within the arcane Parliamentary restrictions, of course) at Westminster can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand it allows people to speak freely, bring to light goings-on which may otherwise remain hidden from public scrutiny, and can be quite entertaining. But the politicians must be careful what they say, even when they're in a position to speak freely. Tory Health Minister Simon Burns provided a splendid example today of why politicians, in the main, obfuscate, duck direct questions, waffle – all without saying anything of any great substance or answering whatever question they've actually been asked.
This startling piece of frankness, a completely fatuous comment made about members of 38 Degrees (a group of people from all walks of life who have come together online with the intention of letting the voices of the electorate be heard, thereby applying pressure on politicians to listen to them or at least be accountable for not doing so), betrays what some politicians evidently feel about the people they're supposed to represent. The other side of that blade I mentioned, the one which betrays an MP's real thoughts when (s)he temporarily forgets that the cameras are never off, can really cut quite nastily.
I'm a member of 38 Degrees, a group which has had some success in applying, for example, pressure on the government over the proposed National Forest sell-off, mainly through huge numbers of people signing petitions or writing to MPs. Far from being zombies, members are consulted on which issues they'd like the group to focus, and how we feel about the layers within those issues. What's important to us, what isn't, where we think government is right or wrong, or has no choice. Only when there's a clear mandate from such consultations is any specific campaign launched. It's another example of the force for democracy that the internet is rapidly becoming – giving people the means to voice their opinion, and the strength to make that opinion count for something.
Evidently the Minister thinks us plebs are not capable of deciding if government policy is wrong, even if they're broadly backed up, as in this example, by the medical profession which the proposed changes will affect. The people who pay for and use the NHS having a say in how the representatives they elected to manage it do so? That just won't do. Clearly we're just a mindless mob, doing what we're told by pesky, annoying, big mouthed, interfering busy-bodies who just won't let the government get on with it unquestioningly. Tut tut.
Well, Mr Burns (how appropriate – "Smithers, release the hounds..."), get used to it. You're there to represent us, not merely to resent us, and as previous administrations have found out to their cost, if you don't like the electorate having their voices heard, and are happy to dismiss us so casually, you'll find the bill for your arrogance waiting for you at the next general election.
This startling piece of frankness, a completely fatuous comment made about members of 38 Degrees (a group of people from all walks of life who have come together online with the intention of letting the voices of the electorate be heard, thereby applying pressure on politicians to listen to them or at least be accountable for not doing so), betrays what some politicians evidently feel about the people they're supposed to represent. The other side of that blade I mentioned, the one which betrays an MP's real thoughts when (s)he temporarily forgets that the cameras are never off, can really cut quite nastily.
I'm a member of 38 Degrees, a group which has had some success in applying, for example, pressure on the government over the proposed National Forest sell-off, mainly through huge numbers of people signing petitions or writing to MPs. Far from being zombies, members are consulted on which issues they'd like the group to focus, and how we feel about the layers within those issues. What's important to us, what isn't, where we think government is right or wrong, or has no choice. Only when there's a clear mandate from such consultations is any specific campaign launched. It's another example of the force for democracy that the internet is rapidly becoming – giving people the means to voice their opinion, and the strength to make that opinion count for something.
Evidently the Minister thinks us plebs are not capable of deciding if government policy is wrong, even if they're broadly backed up, as in this example, by the medical profession which the proposed changes will affect. The people who pay for and use the NHS having a say in how the representatives they elected to manage it do so? That just won't do. Clearly we're just a mindless mob, doing what we're told by pesky, annoying, big mouthed, interfering busy-bodies who just won't let the government get on with it unquestioningly. Tut tut.
Well, Mr Burns (how appropriate – "Smithers, release the hounds..."), get used to it. You're there to represent us, not merely to resent us, and as previous administrations have found out to their cost, if you don't like the electorate having their voices heard, and are happy to dismiss us so casually, you'll find the bill for your arrogance waiting for you at the next general election.
Coogan et al are holding a mirror up to all of us
Steve Coogan's evidence, given at the Leveson Inquiry yesterday, was compelling and damning in equal measure. Compelling because it was, to be fair to him (after he presented himself as a man merely doing his job, saying that fame is a side-effect of what he does, that he'd never promoted himself as a personality per se), an unusual experience to hear him speak as himself. His argument does indeed hold water – how little we hear him speak with the voice of anyone other than Alan Partridge or one of his other characters. It's not Steve Coogan he's selling. So we got a short glimpse into how he sees both himself and the industry he's in.
And damning because, though most people who find themselves well-known through working in 'showbiz' must understand that there will be unwanted attention, he revealed some of the very worst excesses of tabloid journalists in their hunt for 'news' on celebrities. Now it could of course be argued that, at the time the invasions of privacy he spoke of were happening, he'd brought it on himself by having an affair. Personally I reject that view because he's never set himself up as some guardian of, or commentator on, moral standards or behavioural mores, so certainly cannot be accused of hypocrisy. I also personally believe that what happens within (and outside of) a couple's own marriage is a private matter for them, unless they're actively opening it to public scrutiny, as many 'celebs' do, or telling everybody else how to conduct theirs.
That's why it's so important that this whole tawdry mess be unravelled and the perpetrators of what are, frankly, crimes, are brought to justice. Regardless of whether you think he deserved to have his bins rifled through, his phone tapped and to be duped by tabloid reporters into confirming what they already thought, there can be no argument that his then wife was an entirely innocent victim of the whole thing. Bad enough that her husband had cheated on her, she then had to find out, as Coogan put it, 'all the lurid details'.
I wrote on these pages that the News of the World's activities and closure would doubtless not be the full story, but exactly how commonplace it seems to have been, how entrenched in the tabloid press as an accepted means of getting dirt on famous people, is truly astonishing, to me at least. It now seems that the figure quoted early on in this whole affair by Milly Dowler's parents' lawyer of around 7,000 people having had their phones hacked, for example, was startlingly accurate, with the police's own figure coming out at around 6,700. Coogan called the day the NotW closed 'a great day for the press', and railed against the people who came after him, naming some of them publicly in his evidence.
So it is, to those of us who don't like that kind of 'journalism' and don't consume it, extremely gratifying to see the harshest possible spotlight turned on those responsible for producing it. But I can't help thinking about something else I've said on here too. Given how many millions of people do read the celeb gossip mags, do watch TV on the same stuff, did read the News of the World, should we really be surprised that this goes on to feed that appetite? I was shocked at the scale and depth of it, but not that it happens in the first place.
And how ironic that the inquiry into those activities is itself now being lapped up by the public, with the focus of the media of course on the famous people lining up to give evidence. Like opposing mirrors in a corridor, this whole thing reflects itself back to infinity, with us standing right in the middle, watching ourselves get smaller and smaller and smaller. With any luck, Leveson will shatter one of them, and our society will end up with a much clearer view of itself.
And damning because, though most people who find themselves well-known through working in 'showbiz' must understand that there will be unwanted attention, he revealed some of the very worst excesses of tabloid journalists in their hunt for 'news' on celebrities. Now it could of course be argued that, at the time the invasions of privacy he spoke of were happening, he'd brought it on himself by having an affair. Personally I reject that view because he's never set himself up as some guardian of, or commentator on, moral standards or behavioural mores, so certainly cannot be accused of hypocrisy. I also personally believe that what happens within (and outside of) a couple's own marriage is a private matter for them, unless they're actively opening it to public scrutiny, as many 'celebs' do, or telling everybody else how to conduct theirs.
That's why it's so important that this whole tawdry mess be unravelled and the perpetrators of what are, frankly, crimes, are brought to justice. Regardless of whether you think he deserved to have his bins rifled through, his phone tapped and to be duped by tabloid reporters into confirming what they already thought, there can be no argument that his then wife was an entirely innocent victim of the whole thing. Bad enough that her husband had cheated on her, she then had to find out, as Coogan put it, 'all the lurid details'.
I wrote on these pages that the News of the World's activities and closure would doubtless not be the full story, but exactly how commonplace it seems to have been, how entrenched in the tabloid press as an accepted means of getting dirt on famous people, is truly astonishing, to me at least. It now seems that the figure quoted early on in this whole affair by Milly Dowler's parents' lawyer of around 7,000 people having had their phones hacked, for example, was startlingly accurate, with the police's own figure coming out at around 6,700. Coogan called the day the NotW closed 'a great day for the press', and railed against the people who came after him, naming some of them publicly in his evidence.
So it is, to those of us who don't like that kind of 'journalism' and don't consume it, extremely gratifying to see the harshest possible spotlight turned on those responsible for producing it. But I can't help thinking about something else I've said on here too. Given how many millions of people do read the celeb gossip mags, do watch TV on the same stuff, did read the News of the World, should we really be surprised that this goes on to feed that appetite? I was shocked at the scale and depth of it, but not that it happens in the first place.
And how ironic that the inquiry into those activities is itself now being lapped up by the public, with the focus of the media of course on the famous people lining up to give evidence. Like opposing mirrors in a corridor, this whole thing reflects itself back to infinity, with us standing right in the middle, watching ourselves get smaller and smaller and smaller. With any luck, Leveson will shatter one of them, and our society will end up with a much clearer view of itself.
Monday, 14 November 2011
I'm an ordinary TV viewer... get me out of here
I can just about see it with X Factor for example, providing you put to one side the preposterous notion that it's a talent show and accept it merely as 'entertainment'. Strictly Come Dancing too, OK, I can see why people like that. But this is both depressingly inevitable and at the same time utterly incomprehensible to me. What the bloody hell do people get out of watching this bilge?
I had the misfortune, for the first time, to catch most of an episode this week. It will be the last time I do. I simply cannot see what's entertaining about watching Z-list celebs, predictably a mélange of on-the-career-down-slopers, people who were famous 30 years ago and people I've never heard of in the first place, subjecting themselves to the ignoble tasks demanded of them by this show. What is anybody, anybody getting out of watching some poor, desperate, overweight, too-many-facelifts luvvie sod dunk their face into a writhing box of cockroaches? I simply can't understand it.
And there's always one person on it who disappoints you by going on there. What the hell does Willie Carson need to demean himself on this for, given the career he had and the esteem in which he's still held by the horseracing community? He can do himself no good on there - he's betting his dignity and it's not a bet he can win on this vehicle.
I also thought that the days of using live animals to create entertainment were largely behind us, so why is it acceptable to watch them eaten alive, crushed, smacked aside, whatever, simply because they're invertebrates? Are the same people who watch this also campaigning against fox hunting? Or telling the Spaniards they can't fight bulls? Morally, what's the difference? Do the producers of TV programmes now get to decide which animals can be disposed of for sport and which cannot?
Throw in those insufferable, smug gits Ant and Dec, and you've got a show which pretty much ticks all the boxes that dictate which TV I avoid. It need only feature contestants sporting Palace shirts as some kind of unspeakable, ersatz uniform, and be sponsored by the latest off-shoot of a mobile phone company (probably some ghastly all-mushroom ready-meal outfit), and you'd have the full bloody set.
But over 11 million people can't be wrong. Can they?
I had the misfortune, for the first time, to catch most of an episode this week. It will be the last time I do. I simply cannot see what's entertaining about watching Z-list celebs, predictably a mélange of on-the-career-down-slopers, people who were famous 30 years ago and people I've never heard of in the first place, subjecting themselves to the ignoble tasks demanded of them by this show. What is anybody, anybody getting out of watching some poor, desperate, overweight, too-many-facelifts luvvie sod dunk their face into a writhing box of cockroaches? I simply can't understand it.
And there's always one person on it who disappoints you by going on there. What the hell does Willie Carson need to demean himself on this for, given the career he had and the esteem in which he's still held by the horseracing community? He can do himself no good on there - he's betting his dignity and it's not a bet he can win on this vehicle.
I also thought that the days of using live animals to create entertainment were largely behind us, so why is it acceptable to watch them eaten alive, crushed, smacked aside, whatever, simply because they're invertebrates? Are the same people who watch this also campaigning against fox hunting? Or telling the Spaniards they can't fight bulls? Morally, what's the difference? Do the producers of TV programmes now get to decide which animals can be disposed of for sport and which cannot?
Throw in those insufferable, smug gits Ant and Dec, and you've got a show which pretty much ticks all the boxes that dictate which TV I avoid. It need only feature contestants sporting Palace shirts as some kind of unspeakable, ersatz uniform, and be sponsored by the latest off-shoot of a mobile phone company (probably some ghastly all-mushroom ready-meal outfit), and you'd have the full bloody set.
But over 11 million people can't be wrong. Can they?
Monday, 7 November 2011
Warsi - what is she good for?
An interesting piece in the Telegraph from Tory chairman Baroness Warsi recently which has prompted some fairly vociferous comment from the British Humanist Association. It's here if you particularly care. What bothers me most about this is not her florid and I'm sure quite admirable sentiments on inter-faith communication. No worries there. Remembering though that she is a Cabinet minister, and while in opposition held the post of Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action, she should really know better than to exclude people without faith quite so completely. A cohesive society should surely, after all, include everybody.
Thing is, she does know better, but she's got form in this area. She's not forgetting us, she's basically leaving us out deliberately because we're apparently not worthy of consideration. Consider her comments at the Conservative conference in 2009 when she called secular people 'intolerant and illiberal', or her speech to Church of England bishops in Oxford in 2010, in which she claimed that a “vocabulary of secularist intolerance” exists. She also said that, “those who are religiously observant are more likely to volunteer and give than their non-believing or non-practicing counterparts.” This is, of course, bunkum, by why let an irritating thing like the facts get in the way of telling your audience what they want to hear?
A person in such a position of authority, and part of an elected government, albeit one elected by a minority, should not be so quick to not only alienate but actively dismiss a significant percentage of the electorate. She would certainly do well to remember that the Big Society her party's PM is so keen on looks quite a lot smaller if you strip people out of it who have no religion. She's evidently only worrying about what religious people of one stripe are saying to those of another. Though she may perhaps wish it were otherwise, we atheists are still at least allowed to vote. I hope she thinks about that before she demeans us again so readily in future.
Thing is, she does know better, but she's got form in this area. She's not forgetting us, she's basically leaving us out deliberately because we're apparently not worthy of consideration. Consider her comments at the Conservative conference in 2009 when she called secular people 'intolerant and illiberal', or her speech to Church of England bishops in Oxford in 2010, in which she claimed that a “vocabulary of secularist intolerance” exists. She also said that, “those who are religiously observant are more likely to volunteer and give than their non-believing or non-practicing counterparts.” This is, of course, bunkum, by why let an irritating thing like the facts get in the way of telling your audience what they want to hear?
A person in such a position of authority, and part of an elected government, albeit one elected by a minority, should not be so quick to not only alienate but actively dismiss a significant percentage of the electorate. She would certainly do well to remember that the Big Society her party's PM is so keen on looks quite a lot smaller if you strip people out of it who have no religion. She's evidently only worrying about what religious people of one stripe are saying to those of another. Though she may perhaps wish it were otherwise, we atheists are still at least allowed to vote. I hope she thinks about that before she demeans us again so readily in future.
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Jim fixed it for him
My friend Mike, a better writer in his sleep, I suspect, than I ever will be even in my better efforts, has placed what I assume will be a one-off entry prompted by the recent passing of Sir Jimmy Saville.
It can be found here, and I strongly urge anybody who enjoys good writing and a bit of nostalgia to give it a read.
It can be found here, and I strongly urge anybody who enjoys good writing and a bit of nostalgia to give it a read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)