Category Archives: society

A different angle of Wonder Wheel

The content of Woody Allen’s latest film isn’t being talked about as much issues around the writer-director himself. In towns I know, the film is being shown little, even though it’s just been released in Britain; it’s been skipped from some film magazines.

I know people who won’t see it, because of what’s being said about Woody. But that means that the four main actors and all the others involved in making Wonder Wheel don’t get their work seen, and if it’s not in cinemas, we can’t make our own decisions. The film also feels quite separate from the 25 year old allegations about Woody.

I felt the ones against Blue is the Warmest Colour were more apt, for they were concurrent with and about the movie.

I am not sure what I believe about Woody Allen, or feel about these hash tagged campaigns.

I hate all injustice, abuse, inequality.

But I also hate witch hunts, public career destruction, and false accusation.

Much of these campaigns seem to come from angry and imbalanced sources; there is much hate fuelled behaviour.

They conflate various allegations in Hollywood between quite different situations.

I haven’t warmed to the interviews of Woody’s children, and their statements that if you work with Woody and don’t denounce him that you are wrong – even that you are hurting them, and aiding an abuse allowing culture.

The vehemence of this has turned some actors, it seems, from remaining neutral or even kind of defending decisions to work with Woody into making statements that seem to upend that. I have noted some very carefully phrased speeches about this, encouraging empowerment and listening to those who speak out – which I applaud. But I’m worried that the reverse of the wildfire spreading against abuse is that if you want to keep your career, you’ll denigrate and distance from those several people who have been recently accused.

Of course we should want abuse to stop, and for people to be free to speak out against it.

I also see forgiveness and healing as key, for all involved. Rehabilitation not retribution.

But these often get omitted, if not refused. And it means that the accused – especially those wrongly so – are destroyed without hope.

I have noted female inappropriate behaviour in Hollywood – such as public unsolicited gropes, which press and perpetrator laughed over. Is it different or better because a woman’s doing it?! NO!

There is a big debate to be had about our laws and attitudes, and to unpick the contradictions around sexuality in our culture, which is both promoted and prohibited. We need a healthier one based on respect and permission, not fear and commodity, and which rebalances male and female.

——–

As for the film: Woody’s films do have much in common with each other, and what felt enjoyable and powerful to me several years ago has much less appeal. But Woody is often wise, and his films have been helpful on a personal level.

I saw Wonder Wheel because of Kate Winslet. I saw her previous roles in this. Revolutionary Road is also about a 1950s American former actress who is now living an unwanted domestic dull life. Mildred Pierce, set just 20 years earlier, is also a restless poor waitress – another red haired role – with a difficult relationship with her estranged daughter.

With both her “failed” actress roles, I felt quite an irony. Kate is widely well considered at her job: in the Picturehouses Recommends booklet, Woody is quoted as saying: “I try to cast actresses who have enormous range and depth and intensity. There are only a limited number of actresses in the English language that are that deep and that great. Kate Winslet is one of them.”

We don’t see Ginny act to know if it is quality or discovery which is lacking. Kate says that Ginny pretends her life is a role, but that the sadness is it really is her life. But can’t we live in layers, and who says what is truly real? I note that Ginny found solace in the memory of her acting – it’s what she goes to when unhappy. Talk of theatre with Mickey starts to bring her alive. Like April in Revolutionary Road, Ginny – wife of Humpty! (do you have that egg nursery rhyme in America?) has a travel bug, urged by her lover. She believes that going to a new place will free her – but none of these three stories ends well for Kate’s character. Usually, Woody is wise and positive; although the end is ambiguous, I didn’t leave the cinema how his films normally make me feel.

When Mickey speaks of tragedies that crush, we suspect we’re in one. No, our protagonists will not be able to squeeze out from the wreckage, stronger, to try again. They’re earmarked for the crusher; the past will repeat, and they cannot learn from nor expiate their mistakes.

————–

I’ve written several pieces before on whether Kate’s roles are about women who go mad or die; Wonder Wheel fits this. And when she’s doing that strong but challenged vulnerable person in a drama, she is at her best. This is the film of hers that I’ve enjoyed her in most in some years.

I don’t see the climatic act of her character as being as shocking as the film wants you to see it. Ginny’s act is not what Tiny’s is. She tries to do something, and doesn’t. Who knows if she would have been successful if she had? I also thought that the other possibility of the film’s ending meant that her deed would have no affect on the outcome. The choices of the person concerned had already been made before Ginny; and ultimately what happens, if that is truly the conclusion, is due to those choices and entirely other persons.

Wonder Wheel makes me wonder about the line between theatrical and cinematic. Indoor scenes were too much like a play – the sort I don’t like. It’s not the long scenes of dialogue, or that one of the characters turns to the audience to tell us their thoughts: I like that. I did feel that Mickey ought to bookend and stay consistent by giving us a monologue at the end, but his talk to camera narration switches off. I didn’t like that staid, false, very egged intensity; the one room melodrama. Wonder Wheel, penned recently by Woody, seems to be like the theatre of fifty of more years ago. The staple plays I don’t go and see.

I’m left not only wondering about the wheel of denigration turning in the media, but also that sad turn of you’ll die in the doldrums, or trying to escape them. It’s not a message that I choose to believe or purport.

Leave a comment

Filed under cinema, society

Snow in Britain: what our response really says about us

cleareI soon left a website that called those who comment about our inability to cope with snow ‘pub bores’, and editors who publish on the subject ‘lazy’. It wasn’t alone in claiming that we can’t afford nor warrant the preparations necessary, that other countries struggle with snow too, and the ones which we perceive as doing better with worse weather are not to be compared with us. I think these articles are designed to make a point, and are themselves lazy and boring.

Why do we accept these cancellations and inefficiencies – especially those that put us in jeopardy?

Fed up of the scaremongering and negativity, I want to present a different view, one which thinks about deeper aspects than how many inches of cold white stuff has fallen.

British winter is a time of disappointment and uncertainty because we can’t cope with the weather that is actually a normal part of our annual pattern. Got a birthday, a wedding, a special holiday or event about now? Do you dread it not happening, or being spoiled? I saw a major venue shut last night for “heath and safety” – and it hadn’t even snowed properly yet, nor would it til some hours after they closed. One long distance train network is running a “good service” while another isn’t running any local trains – is any alternative being provided?! When we had early snow in 2010, one church cancelled its evensongs for 4 months. The snow was gone within days.

So this makes a climate of fear: beyond how we feel about snow itself, that not only  equates snow with hazards, but that third parties will make a decision that forces you to relinquish your plans. You may be prepared to go to work, honour your social agreement, holiday, or event: but someone else will cancel the transport, close the venue, start refunding, or pull out.

Disappointment is hard to quantify.

I note the following though: we just had Valentine’s day. If this weather had arrived two weeks earlier, would the Romance industry have cancelled at this lucrative time? I suspect the restaurants would have stayed open as usual, and expected their manipulative bookings to be honoured.

If there was a football match, or another big sporting event, we’d carry on.

“Carry on” is of course a famous slogan that we’ve rediscovered and over use, from the last world war. So how can we continue functioning as a country when we’re being subjected to air raids, and not when actually relatively moderate snow falls?

The answer may be that continuing whilst being attacked during the last war shows our enemies our resilience; it says your bombarding campaign to destroy our spirit and our infrastructure hasn’t and won’t work. (Meanwhile, we’ll carry on doing the same to you). Yet the same people are huddling at home in cold weather, showing that our calm and resilience is selective.

Those who cite money as a reason why winter can’t be managed properly are also being selective. These closures cost. If you’re a business, not having enough customers or staff affects you. When a city can’t really function because its services are taking the day off, it matters. If students are getting behind because of the amount of tuition lost to snow days; if parents have to take unpaid leave to look after their children when schools send them home; if communications like the postal service break down…

Even from the point of view of those basing their arguments on the economy, the counter argument is stronger. Make things run, and we all get paid, get our needs met.

But it isn’t just down to money. This is so often where we go wrong.

Snow can be not only a time of poverty, but loneliness. These months can seem very dull and isolating, as well as being time of fear about affording our bills when we’re made to be at home more. Some fear not being able to get supplies as well as companionship.

But there’s no need for that.

We seem very disorganised. For instance: grit bins are not evenly distributed. There should be more of them and smaller, in rural areas as well as urban. Often no-one’s making the effort to go round their neighbourhood with grit, all assuming someone else will. The councils claim  that their ever decreasing budgets preclude doing so, or taking other measures.

But how much is safety worth? It’s not just trunk roads cleared, or trains to the big cities we need. People are afraid to get out of those cars and trains onto icy pavements, even a short distance. It’s why the assumption that those who live in walking distance of the workplace are expected to go in is cruel.

In some places in Britain, different councils are responsible for pavements and roads. So one will come round with gritting lorries,  but the pavements are too icy to walk on. And then pedestrians use the road…

We shouldn’t ground our older folk, or make people of any age feel that they’re risking a strain by venturing out. Some idiots have even encouraged the notion that you’re liable for litigation if you do the neighbourly thing and clear the snow, because if you don’t do it right, and someone gets hurt…. I’d countersue and make that litigant ashamed. We need to look out for each other. We shouldn’t need official organisation or to just do what is right.

But councils do have a responsibility, and they, like central government, are selective as to what they spend on. They find large amounts for unneeded and controversial big roads; high top end salaries; enforcement and military.

And as for other countries: yes they do laugh at our feebleness. I know because I know people in them. They do carry on, with greater snow fall.

Snow scaring is an example of selective values, of fear mongering, of control, of lack of coordination and real priority. Safe and happy citizens are far more important.

I had a lovely walk today. It was meant to be the coldest for some years, but I wasn’t feeling it. The deep snow made walking easier. The world was peaceful, slower, and rather nice to look at. I thanked supermarket staff for making it in to help us ensure we could have our supplies and keep going. And yes, I put out some grit down where I could see ice forming. And I’ll be going out as usual, seeing the best in all aspects of the natural cycle of our year.

Leave a comment

Filed under society

Why Valentine’s day is wrong

I am fed up of the 3 days we have where commerce makes us feel we must dine out and buy cards and gifts to show our love: to our romantic partners and each of our parents. In Britain, there was a short lived attempt to introduce a nicely spaced Grandparents’ day. (Note the other three are in February, March, June; this was intended for September).

It makes those without those feel a great sense of lack and loss.

It makes other kinds of meet ups quite difficult at those times.

This year in England and Wales, Valentine’s day coincides with the school half term holiday; the saint’s day falls in the centre of the week. That means that expensive booked up meals reign for up to 10 days, and two weekends. Just in case you should try to sneak your partner out for a meal on a different day, with a normal menu. No discount vouchers are accepted at this time. Despite creating demand, they expect we’ll pay more. And then there’s all the treats and activities aimed at lovers. And it can feel awkward to go out not in a romantic couple; you can worry how you’re seen at the cinema with a person you’re not dating.

Part of me is angry at the idea that the world is about being – like the animals in the ark – in a two. Couples are normal, families are normal. People existing outside of the romantic mating pairs and their offspring and wider circle – involving more pairs – are odd.

But there are many of us who don’t fit the two by two model. We might be single – for now, or a long time. We may not have children. Many families have repartnering which means that you’ve more than two parents and more than two families who join at weddings. Some of us believe that you can partner with more than two. Not everyone partners with the opposite sex.

And all that is fine. But sometimes it can feel hard, or something to have to justify.

Some of us question that whole why two people for life paradigm anyway.

Having just been to a wedding, I’m very aware of the love industry. Some of it’s about keeping the tradition of marriage fashionable, for cohabitation doesn’t involve much for business to benefit from: no dressing up, venues to hire, catering, flowers, photography or planners. It’s also work for priests and registrars, and for lawyers.

Although traditionally religious people are often those in favour of marriage, marriage as an institution is not in the Bible. The Old Testament/Jewish part is all about affairs and polyamory. Jesus and the most prolific New Testament writer appear to be single.

St Valentine might well be canonised by the church for he encouraged people to enter the sort of relationship they endorse, even though it was counter culture to do so, like resisting his festival is today.

Marriage has historically much been about a business transaction as any kind of real partnership. Today, the legal part is emphasised in the service – I’ve even seen a bride given the certificate as her property to stop her husband selling her. No, I didn’t time travel and I was still in Britain.

And Valentine’s day is about finding someone that you can marry and then showing the person you married…well, the love isn’t so important as the trappings. The actual relationship we have, including the physical one, is something harder to sell, so we invent ways that can be translated into trade. A ring. A meal. A ticket. Something comestible.

I love that there’s also Quirkyalone day today. That doesn’t mean that you are alone, in any sense, or always will be. But can’t today be about ‘celebrating love, wherever it is found’? I pinched that sermon title from Trevor Dennis, dean of vice at Chester Cathedral, and I use it about my novel.

I’d like to broaden that remit to all love, in any relationship, including for God and ourselves.

Today isn’t a day to book out your restaurant and for your museum (Saffron Walden!) to have kinky adult craft classes, and create a sense of longing and misfit, guilt and exclusion.

Fill the cinemas and cafes with your non heterosexual exclusive romantic couple units.

That can include units of one.

Your love nor your worth is nor shown by the stationery and floristry you received today.

Nor whether you’ve had an ivory dress/special suit and a ring and a piece of paper to show that state and perhaps church (or another religion) sanction the relationship you’ve entered.

(Go and watch Michael Winterbottom’s Jude if you need convincing re the ‘bit of paper to tell me I’ve got to love you’).

Today is simply the middle of February; it’s also Ash Wednesday – don’t start me on that! – so whether you’re eating yesterday’s pancakes to defy the Church, having ash imposed on your forehead, having a special meal or meet up, or a day much as usual for you, as SARK says:

You are seen, you are known, you are loved.

Leave a comment

Filed under society

Why I’m selling my Borgen DVDs

I was excited to finally catch up with this TV drama on Danish politics, because I’d enjoyed its lead Sidse Babett Knudsen previously and am interested in how countries run.

Unlike comparable shows, I looked forward to seeing a person of principle in leadership. Sidse’s character’s surname Nyborg means ‘new castle’. And Castle is the nickname of Danish government, from where the show gets its title. So is it saying that the fictional first woman prime minster (what took you so long!) is a new kind of leader and government?

But it didn’t take many of the 30 episodes to make me angry enough to start calculating my DVDs’ second hand worth. In one tenth of the show, Birgitte Nyborg has abandoned what made her endearing, and is very much of the old stronghold. Most of her acts are against the principles I’d expect of her. Yes, she’s meant to be roundedly human with mistakes and struggles. It made the show more appealing than those which just focus on political drama. I liked the early, sometimes naïve and unsure Birgitte. I rallied for her. But she got eaten by the end of episode 3 and from thereon, we only see flashes of her.

I realise the kindredness of Birgitte Nyborg to Wonder Woman – who I often write about on here. Perhaps the looks of Lynda Carter and Sidse are similar. They are women doing unusual jobs for their gender and fighting for democracy and high principles. But the charm faded through their trio of seasons as the lead got harder and tougher, focussing on being slinky, steely and bossy.

And worryingly, according to some comments I’ve heard, slinky and steely does it for the audience. Not for nothing does Borgen often open with a quote from Machiavelli. I thought these were ironic, but Sidse the Statsminister comes uncomfortably close to him. And yet she’s seen as still the heroine.

“You’re the best prime minister that Denmark’s ever had,” she’s told. Well, if true, the Danes have had a bad run and should aim higher.

Here’s just some of the things which made me angry about Birgitte in Borgen:

– she gives another small and kindred party a made up ministry to fob them off

– she sacks two friends in 1st season, another in series 3, and many others, without notice

– she orders and rarely thanks. “I need you to come over. I know it’s late,” to her staff at 3am! “I need you to…This is not up for discussion,” she tells her husband, who ‘misses his wife’! – And not just because she’s not at home much. We do too, Phillip!

– she leads in the hard headmistress manner, as if it’s weak to ask and consult

I see a lot of Sidse’s role as dominatrix Cynthia in The Duke of Burgundy in Birgitte

– After Amir leaves, she seeks him out at home for a job she needs, but doesn’t apologise

– she lets serious gay persecution pass for the sake a precarious peace deal

– she thinks in terms of strategy and victory

– she’s prepared to use an old misdemeanour to discredit a rival. It’s not her who stops it

– she tells long suffering Phillip he’s weak for leaving her too soon. I’d have gone already!

– she gives in to the medical system twice without questioning (interesting role reversal)

– she medical queue jumps thrice – for Laura, and twice for herself

– In series 3, she says: this is a room of dreams, but now we need to consolidate. Ie, which of you are with my dream? Or else, you’re leaving

– she never consults or mingles with the public she claims to support and who chose her

– she publicly provokes her old colleague deliberately and pulls holes in his arguments

– she says no to Jorgen the Viking’s financial support because of his strings, but then is back asking for it later

– she is obsessed with the cult of her, her leadership, her ideas, her party. When Unpop Culture blogger calls the New Democrats the Birgitte Party, he’s right.

– she and the show quickly drop the hot potatoes of war, spies, and prisoner cruelty

– she and the show suggest that leaders must be ruthless and put feelings second, and often their principles too. Professionalism means: even my bereavement won’t stop this election

 

Borgen sometimes is able to bring in many voices to a complex situation; sometimes it clearly comes down with a view, and feels like public information broadcasting rather than drama. Most real media challenges come from the muckraking gutter press; otherwise, the news says what its told it’s allowed to.

Borgen appears to be self reflexive: The show seems to say: news is hot, politics are hot, make sure you tune in and vote and appreciate your official quality broadcasting company (probably by paying hefty taxes to it). Compromise is necessary, idealism not possible. Work before play and personal relationships – be grateful for the sacrifices our leaders make for you, and if you are one or work with one, be prepared to make the same. Note that it’s made by Radio Denmark and over here, it was shown by the BBC. I am avoiding the BBC due to the reasons in my last post.

The fast fire news format is no better than Alex’s gameshows ultimately, for no-one gets to talk properly – it’s all about provocation and spectacle.

Here’s some hard news:

Many of us don’t follow parliamentary politics. Katrine’s angry at a friend for not watching her on the news, but he’s resisting the package they present as what’s happening. Borgen suggests that media and media advisors run the country, and that parliamentary politics is far removed from most of our lives and what matters.

We need something and someone much more different than Birgitte and her party, and a show which goes further in its courage to portray life as it really is, and as it could and should be, and to not assume that the latter is impossible.

For much of this show, Birgitte’s got her bra and knickers on the wrong way round: her priorities and values are all askew. She’s not ultimately a Wonder Woman; more a Twisted Sister.

But I’m not taking offers on my DVD set just yet.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under society, television

Why TV licences need to end

I note that many countries still have these – but that many have ceased them. In Britain, our license is decades behind what is on offer and how people view.

 

My issue is firstly that a compulsory legally backed fee was ever levied from the public. Although the British Broadcasting Corporation was created as independent, the fact that its licence was equated in law to tax – and thus has the same punishments of fees and ultimately imprisonment for non payment – shows that it is not independent from the establishment, and thus neither is the BBC. This shows how law and crimes are often relative and privately self serving, not public safe keeping.

 

That the decision for change has to come from parliament is also telling.

 

It is often commented on that the BBC is biased. Its news is very negative and feels created to gain a particular response. During the credit crunch and since Brexit, it repeats doomful ideas. Watching it alongside other news – and in the early evening, you can chain watch about 4 different channels – you see the particular tone of the BBC. In a couple of weeks, everyone appearing on BBC TV will wear a red poppy, which has connotations for beliefs about war. The BBC skips over other matters – such as the unpopularity of its licence and the widespread historic abuse in it uncovered around children’s presenter Jimmy Saville.

 

Although some proponents claim that the BBC is standard bearer in both television and radio, it is not to everyone’s tastes. Its programming is repetitive (thus across more channels we do not gain more content than before BBC 3 and 4 were created), and that its drama is outweighed by the reality and non narrative programmes. Peeking at the BBC’s website, I see that programmes about food, dancing, antiques and nature are high profile. We should not be paying for that website – one I don’t even really rate or find user friendly.

 

I personally now don’t see BBC as appealing or good quality, in any of its media.

 

There’s also a certain kind of Britishness associated with the BBC. The BBC creates and maintains a status quo. Many of the BBC’s popular programmes are older ones. I’ve not yet seen it be ahead of the curve, and truly radical.

 

It’s also pointed out that BBC does have many adverts – for itself – and thus isn’t really better than a commercial channel.

 

The BBC hasn’t been the nation’s only provider of television or radio for some decades. By the early 1980s, there were four TV channels and three providers; the other two – Independent television (ITV) and Channel 4 – having to fund themselves via advertising, thus introducing the commercial break that is so familiar in other countries. There were other radio stations, locally and nationally, and further, if you could find the frequency. At that time, home video had arrived, and we covered the cost of what we watched in the purchase or hire fee.

 

And many videos – now in a different format – are of films, and I wonder if there’s a trend that non TV owners are regular cinema goers. Or perhaps they prefer theatre, or music, or sport, or lectures, or they’re involved in churches or politics.

 

So my point is that yes there are still people who don’t have a television and aren’t interested, and find other ways to find out about the world and have culture in their lives.

 

But these non viewers can be disbelieved and harassed. No, we’re not all glued to the box.

 

But it’s not easy to prove that we’ve no such box and that other devices which can pick up pictures are not being used for the purposes that require licensing.

 

I have seen some websites put out incorrect facts regarding when you need a licence: owning a DVD/video player and TV do not require one, it’s watching new programmes, live or recorded, on any device. It has been the case for some time that viewing prerecorded media only does not require a licence – and rightly so.

 

And if we’re watching DVDs of cinema films, then why should the BBC expect to gain a share by enforcing a licence that almost solely benefits itself? Or what of television shows that don’t come to Britain, or aren’t British made, or are made by another channel? The BBC doesn’t have to prove its share or gain an audience to elicit its fees, unlike anyone else.

 

This is the point that many people have made, and it’s been valid since the introduction of the 3rd channel, but especially from the 1980s, which is now over 30 years ago. By 2000, satellite and cable had arrived for many, as had the net. Now of course we have much greater choice and diverse habits and the BBC is an ever smaller offering of our media diet.

 

The BBC makes most of us pay them a tax (or be prepared to prove why we are exempt) but it itself does not pay corporation tax, as it’s non-profit making. This is huge: that it takes tax but doesn’t expect to have to run like other companies. It has also been accused of avoiding other kinds of tax on a large scale, by using a not long closed loophole.

 

And then, the most pertinent point: the TV license funds bullying.

 

I read huge numbers of prosecutions, many of which are thrown out of court. I’ve heard above 180,000 a year, and that 1 in 10 UK prosecutions are to do with TV licensing.

 

The licensing company has a whole collections arm, which are thus paid for publicly. They employ bully boy tactics, including their fear inducing adverts, with vans cruising about watching for signals from unpaid watchers, and then swooping on whoever answers the door, often exaggerating their powers (which is an offense of both kinds). They say that non payment is unfair on those who do pay, and call non payers “evaders”, which is an emotive and negative word.

 

But fee abolition website SpiderBomb shows that the BBC’s revenue from licensing creates a huge budget and it’s much more than it needs. Large salaries are pointed out – why should we have to pay for those? SpiderBomb suggests a much more modest fee is viable.

 

Yes I’ve heard the Beeb themselves argue that the radio part of the licence is pence, that it’s like a pint of beer each week, but what if we don’t drink Beeb beer? The price of beer argument’s a weak one, for some people still struggle with the £147 annual license and certainly the £1000 fine. There’s been much about the economic imbalance that the fee is a flat tax, unrelated to income (or usage), and that the poor are disproportionately harassed and even end up in prison because of this matter.

 

This sounds so familiar in inequitable governing around the world and history. I believe that the BBC and its overseas branches often argued for are part of empire retention, and that the real issue is about the use of public broadcasting.

 

And what if we resent funding a salaried collections company who are paid bonuses and given quotas, such as Capita are?

 

Many of us would be keen to not fund organisations of abuse and oppression, but we’re being forced to do so directly, via British law and our own so called Aunt.

 

Auntie Beeb is not seen as our caring trustworthy source of news and stories, but a not so subtle controlling matriarch who seems exempt from critique and change.

 

The BBC is one of a large family now, and a relation we may not ever spend time with, especially due to her brutish behaviour – that she requires gifts for visiting not only herself but other aunts, and sends in her henchmen for those who don’t. Is this someone you want to have a relationship with, and feel should go unchecked?

 

Today, a debate is happening in Westminster about the TV tax. Let us ensure our views are listened to and that it’s not replaced (which it needs to be) with more draconian rules.

 

– We need a new system which doesn’t involve further watching the public, as I fear subscription and online based scenarios lend themselves to, and we know that digital television sets assist with

 

– Fines and especially prison and door to door bullying is an abuse and needs to stop

 

– TV licensing needs to come off people’s criminal records; it makes a mockery of what law and crime really is

 

– Look to New Zealand as an example of a country who stopped the licence through peaceful people power

 

– Find a solution which reflects people’s habits and what there is now

 

We’ve put off this conversation too many times: we need to listen to the public to create a decision, and make something for them, not against them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under society, television

Parking Pains

I took what was supposed to be a nice walk today, to think about my next novel.

 

I got plenty of thinking done – but not the sort I’d planned. And it wasn’t the pleasant, relaxing invigorating joy that a walk should be.

 

Because every few steps I saw another of those bloody signs.

 

The private car park ones, from people such as Parking Eye and National Parking Enforcement and similar names, all with something aggressive in their title.

 

So why have these notices popped up so much in the last 10 or even 5 years?

 

Companies who employ these firms claim that their parking is being abused; that people are overstaying or that non customers (or residents or workers) are using their facilities. So they contract private parking enforcement firms to ‘manage’ the parking spaces, sometimes on wasteland, to threaten motorists into not using their space, or staying too long, or parking outside of the sometimes too small and vague markings.

 

Even if there are issues with visitors being unable to park, this is not the right way to deal with them. By all means, get in touch and ask people to move on, but I cannot see how these henchman are needed.

 

Having the intrusion of being photographed each time you come in and leave which is then used to harass you for a disproportionate charge for going 1 mintue over an arbitary limit is a far truer example of abuse.

 

The truth is that these firms hope of course that drivers will commit what they consider a misdemeanour and garner them some revenue, to top up the fees from the landowner.

 

I don’t see that these companies run a legitimate business, for they exist from someone’s else’s faults. There is often no real harm done by the drivers and the companies create some with threats of bullying.

 

Much of the time they are guarding free parking where other custom is being given.

 

I think there needs to be a debate about paid parking and how motorists are over charged on many matters. Many of us can’t park even at our homes, even when we’ve paid permits, and parking charges are high. Many parking rules, private or otherwise, are more arbitrary than for safety – which is the only fair reason to penalise on parking.

 

We want to cut down on cars, but we also want drivers so we can make money from them. I especially note this contradictory call from councils.

 

These parking firms don’t give us much choice – for as we hove into the only parking place available for us to visit our friend, pop to the shop, have a drink, attend a business meeting, collect someone off the train, even go to church, we are greeted by a notice. Yes, usually not at the car park entrance – where the salient point will be that it’s free, or otherwise – but at the place we park. And we’ve already gone through a barrier, and can’t easily get out.

Perhaps we don’t see those horrid signs. Now I’ve noticed them I see the signs everywhere, but I didn’t for a long time. If it’s a free carpark and one that is for visitors, why would I imagine that I can be charged?

 

Their notices are ugly. ‘Private property’ is one of the first and most common things they say – so this is definitely capitalist. Not – ‘visitors only please’, or even, ruder, ‘private carpark’. I disdain anyone who puts up private property signs, it doesn’t speak well of them.

 

Then the signs say – if you don’t do this arbitrary thing, you ‘agree’ to being clamped – but clamping in Wales and England has been illegal on private ground for 5 years – and charged £60 to £250. But for what? And that removing these signs is a criminal offence.

 

I see a criminal offence here. I certainly see a moral one.

 

The removal of the signs being illegal is questionable; it would mean that the fees – note, it’s not a real fine – can’t be pursued. Those signs are vital to their having any credibility and success. They masquerade as real fines, which can only come from councils and the police. They use county courts to enforce these, but that is an abuse too. Parking Eye – Britain’s worst and most aggressive – is making a loss in legal fees to recover their invoices. That says a lot about them, and also the legal system.

 

They pay solicitors to send out letters which threaten credit rating harm – which is only possible, and much further down the line. (The credit system is something I want to question too.) This practice speaks ill of the solicitors.

 

There is, I understand, no legal basis for these fees. (It’s supposed to be under contract law but this is contentious).

 

I also challenge the legality of de facto one sided contracts.

 

These companies are buying driver’s data from the DVLA (Britain’s vehicle licensing authority), but this is effectively bribery and abuse of government information.

 

I query the underlying basis of the companies, rather than whether you were unaware or unfairly caught out.

 

I encourage businesses and land owners not to use them and for anyone who receives a notice from them to fight it. Let your favourite cafe and shop know how you feel about their use of these companies. Avoid custom.

 

Find another way to manage your parking – differently worded signs and without threats and privacy invasion.

 

There are many sites about how to fight these parking people and also petitions for greater regulation, and for the banning of these companies.

https://www.change.org/p/campaign-against-illegal-practices-by-private-car-park-companies-and-debt-collectors This site has many good points and a sound legal basis.

I’ll encourage others to do their own research. These firms are often acting unlawfully, and are living from harassment dressed as a service to landowners.

Instead, I refer you to a Suffolk village who says “no claims, no fines” and asks us to donate when we park towards the village upkeep. It works, and we lingered rather than moved on without spending like we did the Parking Eye run retail park.

Leave a comment

Filed under society

What would Wonder Woman do?

About the terror attacks this week and what happened next

 

I’d like to emphasise that’s Kabul, Baghdad and Coptic Christians as well as Manchester.

 

I predicted and worried about this – that more attacks bred more attacks and more armed police and less freedom; that the death penalty has got in though a side door and that the trial by jury at the heart of democracy is being eroded. It’s not just Canterbury and London now – they’re in all the county towns, at stations, zoos, outside libraries.

 

I don’t feel safer – I feel more wary. It puts me off doing things. I feel relieved if I’ve not seen armed police or been somewhere that expects me to be searched – a world sadly familiar to those in the Middle East and to Black and Asian men respectively.

 

Fighting suicide bombers with guns doesn’t make sense – they are planning to die and will detonate rather than let you kill them. Shooting them in the torso is just where their bomb is. So what are the guns really for?

 

Guns are bullying, cowardly weapons that give you power over others, often from a distance. They easily get misfired and when we live in a panicked environment, we can make paranoid mistakes.

 

Officers in Britain – who’ve been largely unarmed till now, like the population – were wary of stepping up to the arming call, afraid of investigations if they misuse the gun.

Good – but why only just investigations? If I carry a gun on the street, let alone use it, let alone kill someone, I’ll be in prison both sides of the trial; I may stay there.

So why should police expect to be above the law that they are (ugly word coming up) enforcing?

 

Now that children have been targeted, police are more willing it seems. “It’s the best way I can protect myself and the public,” one policewoman said. Note the order of that.

 

Many words have been poured out in sympathy already, and take mine as a given, but I will focus this post on something less said, which needs to be.

 

Before I say it, I’d like to return to an old friend of mine, one who featured early in this blog 6 years ago, and who’s getting her first big screen outing released today – yes I’m going! (‘Twas brilliant).

Yes I am wearing long boots with a heel in her honour, and guess which 3 colours?

Let us contrast her way of dealing with problems with the police:

(Note these are general WW principles and change between comic/screenwriters)

 

1) Wonder Woman doesn’t fire bullets, she deflects them

-significant morally as well as operationally

Wonder Woman is only armed with her truth lasso

(Ms Gadot has a sword but she thought guns dishonourable fighting)

Her plane is purely for transport – it doesn’t drop bombs

She befriends animals, she doesn’t use them as weapons

 

2) Wonder Woman works with the authorities and is respected by them, but she is independent and she is not part of a huge force

Unless you count the Justice League, but they tend to be outnumbered rather than outnumber their opponents. Unlike police who overkill, literally; a whole squad after one person (even not dangerous ones) which wastes resources – and police claim they don’t have enough

(Don’t start me on police using foodbanks on ‘only’ £20k… try £30 a week!)

 

3) Wonder Woman is approachable Unlike po faced armed officers who we’re afraid to say anything to, even good morning. Wonder Woman retains her humour. She doesn’t yell, especially not at the general public.

 

4) Wonder Woman is compassionate A quality not in the police and army much; it’s why their personalities and training mean that they’re not the right people to handle many situations entrusted to them. Wonder Woman’s someone you’d cry on. Not most PCs.

And she knows the difference between being tough and strong

 

5) Wonder Woman is not dressed to kill or intimidate

Her face isn’t covered; no mirror glasses, no bully boy armour

 

6) Wonder Woman has a global view, inside (since she’s living among us) but outside (since she’s alien). She can point out our follies and since she’s so old, she has great wisdom, watching nations repeat mistakes for millennia

She’d also see what’s really happening, the even more despicable terror.

 

7) Wonder Woman doesn’t kill or use unnecessary force

She does her own undercover work; she doesn’t use assets

 

8) Wonder Woman knows when to talk instead of fight and can transform would-be crime doers. Wonder Woman believes in redemption and forgiveness

 

9) Wonder Woman thinks for herself. Hannah Arendt would approve – for she knows the peril of taking and giving orders without question

 

10) Wonder Woman

makes a hawk a dove

stops the war with love

changes minds (and hearts)

and changes the world.

 

It’s the far more effective way – not retribution, not meeting violence and fear with more.

Not weak, fluffy, unreal.

 

No wonder Ms magazine cover emblazoned: “Wonder Woman for president”.

I’d like to her preside over a lot more.

 

Finally, to what I didn’t yet say….

I was reminded this week of James Alison’s book On Being Liked and his first essay in it Contemplation of a World of Violence, written in autumn 2001. He points out that such acts are given sacred meaning and that we are sucked in collectively, policed as to what we can say (a new heresy) and given specific behaviours in response.

He encourages us to not be drawn into that, but to One who can show us a new way to see, one who subverted violence by seemingly giving into it and then overcoming it to say I’m nothing to do with this system; there is another way to live.

The One is not Wonder Woman this time.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under cinema, society

Challenge 25 policy – grave concerns

Gone are the days of 18 and 21 being celebrated as the birthdays when you get the keys to adulthood. Adulthood has been deferred; minatory has been extended, and that murky inbetween now a longer limbo.

This ‘Challenge 25’ policy isn’t just about drink.

It is used to challenge a 20 odd old buying a 12 DVD, when they are twice that age.

I have always maintained that age isn’t the factor – for we are not all automatically willing and able to cope with things because of our age, protecting young people but not older ones.

The more you forbid, the more you’ll provoke.

And once over 25 – people can buy what they want, and it harms just as much.

It has made retailers our guardians, and the ridiculous fines if they guess an age wrong means that their paranoia leads to arguments at the till. It’s not flattering to be thought younger than you are. Why do we privilege youth?!  So don’t make it sound like it’s kind of compliment: “if you are lucky enough to look under 25…” because it isn’t. It’s causing embarrassment and offence, on both sides, and also inconvenience.

We are proud in the UK not to be an ID carrying country. This policy enforces that on young people, using the frightening technologies of biometrics to learn and retain information about people. The abuse (and even its supposed proper use) is appalling, continuing the control and tracking of citizens.

It makes me wonder if it is a way of starting ID carrying through the back door and influencing the youngest generation.

The adverts about peer pressure and drinking were much better, for they were for any age, and should put the responsibility on the consumer not just the retailer.

Meanwhile, you’ve created an industry around ID, useful for secret services and any who would abuse the system.

This isn’t liberty, this isn’t taking care of citizens, it’s another mixed message such as “we like the income that smoking gives us, but we’ll put health warnings on cigarette packets.”

So I don’t agree with First Minster Nicola Sturgeon that this is a step to be proud of. Scotland has been great in many ways at making sensible laws first in the UK, which then trickle down. This is not one of them.

Challenge 25 website doesn’t even have a contact – my email bounced, so we don’t know who to hold to account.

Leave a comment

Filed under cinema, society

Why the Beauty film is Beastly

Yes I mean that one – the new Disney remake of its own cartoon, where more than the cursed prince is hideous.

This is not a story about beauty being within. This is a story which perpetuates harmful and false ideas about youth, beauty and love. It says – you can be too late to find love and be forever inhumanly frozen. And this deadline is in your youth.

It says that you must find love in return to stop the curse. It hasn’t grasped that the telos of love is to love – end. Even if you are rejected or scorned, you and your love are not diminished. You can also find reciprocity in non romantic love.

Crazy Eyes in Orange Is The New Black had a better speech to give on this subject than anything said or implied by the Beastie.

It’s the implication which I particularly am concerned by.

Belle of course is beautiful and young. Cartoon Belle was a disturbing mix of juvenile and ridiculous woman’s figure. She is the heroine who is the darling of her father and the Beast and his entourage. She gets the guy – but he reverts to being handsome and human.

Does anyone else see issues with a creature of at least 3 types having relations with a girl?

But Belle (and we) learn to love Beast in his large and furry form (the cartoon was a bison crossed with Honey Monster) so it’s not surprising that the audience is disappointed when he goes back to being a man – in the cinema I saw the live action film, there was laughter.

The catalyst is the usual trope – the old ugly hag. But she – the sorceress, showing magic is dangerous and spiteful – is young and beautiful really.

I wondered how different ridiculously caricatured Gaston is to Beast, at least as he was. Why didn’t the sorceress pay a visit to Garston?

And of course the Beast has to be aristocrat with a huge home and an estate; he is served by a retinue far greater than his household (ie just him) requires. Is he going to give anything to the community he shuns now the spell has ended? Or will they all carry on with foppish selfish debauchery as before?

The lovers are young – wasn’t Belle 21 in one version? Those Disneyfied folk tales often have such wenchlike heroines, and there’s ageism in Snow White and the Dwarfs too. Why wasn’t an older couple at the centre? And why wasn’t excellent Ray Fearon, the priest, used more? 57 year old Emma Thompson is the mature widow, when at the time of the cartoon original she was the star wench. Why is she less worthy now of being a romantic lead?

And romance is of course dinners and dances and being silly together. Are we at all convinced this is the meeting of souls and the basis for a life together?

And as for his rejoining the human world : I liked the ending of Shrek better.

Read my cinema reviews here

2 Comments

Filed under cinema, society

Canterbury Cathedral – a place for martyrs, medieval architecture…and guns

I sent this to the Dean shortly after learning about the new regime which began last Sept.

I left time for a reply, but didn’t get one.

 

Dear Dean Robert

I was shocked to learn that armed police patrol the Precinct, and the city.

I’ve long been unhappy at your entry fee, but this is even more offputting; I won’t visit whilst this guards policy is in place. It clashes with Christian welcome and values, and either puts the symbolic mother of the established church under the civic and military control, or willingly colludes with them.

Have you read James Alison’s On Being Liked, and his first triptych about the Twin Towers? He writes that God has nothing to do with the ways of violence, but subverts them to overcome them. Yet here, it seems that we fight evil with evil, fear by escalating fear, and begin steps towards a police state.

Using weapons isn’t accountable, it’s an immediate execution that doesn’t require a court, and it’s feared that a new Becket will occur.

Promoting fear and allowing the costly rise of armed police is not the way to handle attacks and threats – although public statements claim that there have been none. Greater defence and shows of strength gives rise to more reason to make us an object of attack with continued wars, along with erosion of civil liberties. It promotes resentment of other – Muslims and Middle Eastern/Indian people, and I fear, this is strong in Kent where you have so many refugees entering. I am already alarmed by what people’s responses have been to the news about your guards – notions that Trump supporters would be proud of.

It also makes greater public resentment of law enforcers and government, and makes us more like the gun slinging US police that we have so many appalling news reports about.

Christians are called to be different. It is a less evolved, less Christ centred society that allows an increase in weapons, an eye taken before an eye has been even lost.

I am frightened at the thought of yet more repeating history (ie another Becket) where curtailment and suspicion become accepted.

I do not believe this to be the kingdom God called us to build.

I am calling for the removal of police in the cathedral and the city.

I will also be publishing my call, but I wanted to give you a chance to respond first.

Yours sincerely

 

Elspeth

My Day Out With Elspeth can be read here. You can read my review of Canterbury’s arts cinema

 

2 Comments

Filed under heritage, society