Modern Life is Rubbish
Most Recent Blog Posts
Katie Piper: The Strength to Change Attitudes to Difference
Most of the time the mainstream British television channels are dominated by bland, uninspiring fair, less than worthy of thought or emotion. Katie Piper: My Beautiful Friends, on Channel 4, is completely different.
In 2008 Katie Piper was attacked when Sulphuric Acid was thrown into her face. Since then she has had numerous operations and treatments, and which are still ongoing, in order to recover from the attack. The programme follows her as she continues her recovery, meets other people coping with scarring or disfigurement and launches her charity, The Katie Piper Foundation.
If the programme provokes any kind of emotion or thoughts, it is to put our everyday problems into perspective, as our pity transfers from ourselves to those less fortunate than us. But, then again, I’m not sure Katie would like our pity, that in itself being a negative when she is so positive. Not that Katie was always that confident after the attack, having talked of never leaving the house in the year after as she struggled to come to terms with what had been done to her.
Now I know that Katie would not want pity but help and support, financial or otherwise, to assist others going through what she went through (and is still going through); she would want it so that they can better cope with their disfigurement and scarring, and that anything that can be done is done, whether surgically, therapeutically or cosmetically, to make their lives even that little bit more bearable.
Perhaps it is too much to ask, and maybe it is right to concentrate on the here and now, to help individuals to deal with what life has dealt them, such as to pay for treatments that can make their lives better, but perhaps Katie should be more ambitious; for those people with disfigurement or scarring suffer not just from those, but the way people view them as a result of that.
Disfigurement and scarring is a problem for society, not just those suffering from it.
One of the aims of The Katie Piper Foundation is to work to normalise disfigurement in society. But, perhaps, it should go further than that, aiming to teach society that difference is nothing but that and does not mean worse, or strange, or scary.
Although her television programme may go some way to promoting its aim, perhaps Katie should be campaigning for every school to be teaching and embracing difference. Every child should be made to look in a mirror and recognise that they have never seen a person who looks exactly like themselves, let alone met anyone who is identical to them, just to prove that we are all different, be it physically, mentally, or emotionally. As always, education is the answer and, if society is educated to understand difference, it will grow to accept it, in whatever forms, whether disfigurement, scarring, or simply anything different.
Perhaps, in time, Katie will take on this mantle. No, I have no doubt that in time she will; she has bravery and courage and a fighting spirit that most of us can only hope we would ever be able to muster; and strength.
Whenever times get tough in life, that old saying ‘what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger’ comes into my head. Although it isn’t possible to know Katie’s strength before she was brutally attacked, no doubt nothing before that requiring the strength she needed after, it is certainly the case with her now. And right now I cannot see anyone in the world who is stronger than her and that she will achieve anything she sets her mind on achieving, perhaps including changing attitudes to difference.
If you wish to find out more about Katie’s story see:
If you wish to find out more about Katie's charity see:
How To Make Banks And Bankers Listen?
If there is anything about the whole bank profits, bankers' bonuses and public sector cuts issue that really annoys people, it is the hopeless inevitability of it all, that things are just the way they are and there is nothing we can do about it:
Yes, recklessness caused the banking crisis, which caused the recession, which caused the government, and therefore us the taxpayer, to bail them out; yes, the whole banking system, and therefore every bank was seemingly saved by the bailout; yes, as a result we have an unimaginably sized deficit in the public finances; yes, we are all suffering the cuts to the public sector; but the banks are seemingly back to normal, with giant profits and astounding bonuses.
The government clearly believes banks making huge profits and bankers given large bonuses are a good thing, irrespective of whether or not they are lining the coffers of the Conservative Party; and whether or not there is a moral obligation on banks and bankers to pay for the mess they started, not the most vulnerable in society, who it is said are going to feel the brunt of the public sector cuts.
And so, the fate of the banks and bankers, and ours, is just accepted; that it is just the way of the world, that they have their place and we have ours and there is nothing we can do about it or any of the associated issues.
Or, is there really nothing we can do? Maybe, just maybe, all it will take is one penny.
For many years I had an HSBC bank account by default, it being the remains of a childhood savings account that I had neither the will nor inclination to change. As such, it was almost inevitable that I would remain with the bank forever, not being bothered with the simple fuss involved of moving banks. Until, one day, I asked them to arrange a standing order for a particular day; that day came and went without the payment being made and, as a result, I incurred a fee of £30 and interest of 1p.
After much argument with the customer service representative, I was credited with the £30 but not the 1p. So HSBC made 1p by making a mistake, not much I know, but a principle nonetheless. Soon after I switched banks, which for the record was surprisingly easy, and I have been very happy with my new bank since (which has never made any mistakes let alone charge me for them, and has a UK call centre that puts me through to my local branch in London rather than, somehow, Glasgow).
I know you’re wondering ‘how does this relate to bank profits and bankers bonuses?’
Well, imagine if everyone who was unhappy with their bank for the profits that they are making, or the bonuses that they are paying to their staff, removed their money from their account, or simply moved their bank account to a bank that wasn’t making extortionate sums and didn’t pay such ridiculous bonuses.
Or, in what would perhaps be more effective, what if a movement was formed in which people signed up to guarantee that, if nothing is done to curb the banks or their bonuses, on a particular day they will either withdraw all their money from particular banks or transfer their money to a bank that does not ct in such a manner.
Some might say that it would be reckless to consider such an option, that it could lead to the kind of run on banks seen during Northern Rock’s problems. But, is that any more reckless than gambling billions of pounds that economic circumstance will not change? And some might say that it would be blackmail. But, everyone is entitled to have the money in a bank of their choice. And is it blackmail anymore than banks and bankers telling the media and government that if they tax them too much they and the banks will leave the country? In any case, if HSBC had let me look after that penny, maybe their pounds would look after themselves…
How To Make Banks And Bankers Listen?
If there is anything about the whole bank profits, bankers' bonuses and public sector cuts issue that really annoys people, it is the hopeless inevitability of it all, that things are just the way they are and there is nothing we can do about it:
Yes, recklessness caused the banking crisis, which caused the recession, which caused the government, and therefore us the taxpayer, to bail them out; yes, the whole banking system, and therefore every bank was seemingly saved by the bailout; yes, as a result we have an unimaginably sized deficit in the public finances; yes, we are all suffering the cuts to the public sector; but the banks are seemingly back to normal, with giant profits and astounding bonuses.
The government clearly believes banks making huge profits and bankers given large bonuses are a good thing, irrespective of whether or not they are lining the coffers of the Conservative Party; and whether or not there is a moral obligation on banks and bankers to pay for the mess they started, not the most vulnerable in society, who it is said are going to feel the brunt of the public sector cuts.
And so, the fate of the banks and bankers, and ours, is just accepted; that it is just the way of the world, that they have their place and we have ours and there is nothing we can do about it or any of the associated issues.
Or, is there really nothing we can do? Maybe, just maybe, all it will take is one penny.
For many years I had an HSBC bank account by default, it being the remains of a childhood savings account that I had neither the will nor inclination to change. As such, it was almost inevitable that I would remain with the bank forever, not being bothered with the simple fuss involved of moving banks. Until, one day, I asked them to arrange a standing order for a particular day; that day came and went without the payment being made and, as a result, I incurred a fee of £30 and interest of 1p.
After much argument with the customer service representative, I was credited with the £30 but not the 1p. So HSBC made 1p by making a mistake, not much I know, but a principle nonetheless. Soon after I switched banks, which for the record was surprisingly easy, and I have been very happy with my new bank since (which has never made any mistakes let alone charge me for them, and has a UK call centre that puts me through to my local branch in London rather than, somehow, Glasgow).
I know you’re wondering ‘how does this relate to bank profits and bankers bonuses?’
Well, imagine if everyone who was unhappy with their bank for the profits that they are making, or the bonuses that they are paying to their staff, removed their money from their account, or simply moved their bank account to a bank that wasn’t making extortionate sums and didn’t pay such ridiculous bonuses.
Or, in what would perhaps be more effective, what if a movement was formed in which people signed up to guarantee that, if nothing is done to curb the banks or their bonuses, on a particular day they will either withdraw all their money from particular banks or transfer their money to a bank that does not ct in such a manner.
Some might say that it would be reckless to consider such an option, that it could lead to the kind of run on banks seen during Northern Rock’s problems. But, is that any more reckless than gambling billions of pounds that economic circumstance will not change? And some might say that it would be blackmail. But, everyone is entitled to have the money in a bank of their choice. And is it blackmail anymore than banks and bankers telling the media and government that if they tax them too much they and the banks will leave the country? In any case, if HSBC had let me look after that penny, maybe their pounds would look after themselves…
The Coalition Government Plan Return of Slavery?
As the economy stalls and the cuts begin to bite, the coalition government’s plans seem to go from bad to worse: the sale of the Forestry Commission; NHS reforms rushed through; university, and in particular an Oxbridge education, made so expensive it is inevitably more elitist (if that is possible); banks and bankers’ bonuses hardly touched by the government’s policies; the Big Society seeming to stand for the Being Ignorant in Government Society. All of this led me to wonder: how far could the coalition government go with their agenda?
Cue blurry screen and music like that from Tales of the Unexpected…
Coalition Government sources have today disclosed that the government is actively considering: abolishing state schooling, the NHS and the police; reintroducing slavery to the UK, more than two hundreds after it was outlawed; introducing euthanasia (and not just for those who are terminally ill).
According to the sources, later on this year the government is planning on introducing a law through parliament in which state schooling will be abolished. The thinking behind the move is that state schooling does not provide ‘value for money’, that ‘as state school pupils do not go on to achieve anything of note in their lives, what is the point of educating them? Better they contribute to the real economy and provide their labour to those who need the labour and do contribute: the rich.
The government believes that the money saved from the abolition of state schooling will be used to improve the facilities, and therefore the education, of public schools and the Oxbridge universities, as our source commented:
‘People pay a lot of money to go to these educational establishments and it is important that they receive value for money. What kind of country do we live in where a child is only provided with stabling space for one pony?’
According to papers seen by us, as soon as children are able to walk they will be put to work, the government believing that even the smallest of children can make a substantial impact in the workplace, as our source again commented:
‘Little fingers are perfect for cleaning the smallest of places, such as chimney sweeping. I have seven chimneys in my house and I’ll tell you they are a devil for a grown man to clean. A toddler would fit perfectly.’
The thinking behind the return of slavery is similar to that on the abolition of state schooling: that as people from the lower classes contribute less to the economy better that they contribute to the riches of a master; and a master would greatly improve their prospects, as it is not as if they make anything of themselves anyway. The government also believes that ‘the lower and lower middle classes are unable to make decisions for themselves as if they were they wouldn’t be in that position’.
The government also considers that slavery will see the return of ‘much needed family values’: they envisage whole families enslaved and the repeal of laws not only outlawing slavery but also those providing that a master cannot be found guilty of assaulting a slave. Our source again commented on the matter, stating that it is ’imperative for the scheme to work that a master has control and is able exert a moral code and, in any case, a good beating never hurt any man’.
As a result of the change to the law, it is also anticipated that only masters will have the vote, that ‘with the dominance of the public school and Oxbridge educated in politics and media, there is little choice anyway for the masses, and the result is kind of decided by the elite anyway, so we might as well choose between ourselves.’
It is also anticipated that the Police will effectively be abolished too, or at the least privatised, with masters taking control of individual forces.
The government’s plans for the return of slavery are to be supplemented by euthanasia: that the sick, infirm or elderly will be given the option to either find a way to be able to work, and make their employment pay for their master, or face death, being immediately entered onto a euthanasia waiting list called the Automatic Register for Savings and Efficiencies (‘ARSE’).
Following concerns expressed by Conservative backbenchers, that the plans may prove too costly for the government and, more importantly masters, the proposals have been watered down: if people choose their own method of death, charges will apply; the state will confiscate all assets and pay all costs and taxes involved before distributing the money to the deceased’s master.
It is also understood that under the plans the NHS will be abolished, on the basis that those worthy of medical attention can afford it, with our source commenting that the money saved will help to reduce the ‘grossly unfair’ tax regime in which those who done the most with their lives, and earn the most, are forced to pay higher taxes.
Following enquiry by us, a source close to the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
‘We inherited a deficit from Labour and hard decisions need to be made. People need to realise bankers contribute to the economy. The sick, the unemployed, pensioners and the poor, or even the middle class, do not. But, I must stress, we are all in this together. People need to realise we are all suffering. Look at bankers bonuses; they are at the same level as last year. I have only been able to claim for one of my three houses and my trust funds have only made modest gains this year’.
A source close to Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, said:
‘Of course we don’t agree with the changes, and don’t believe in them. But, as part of a coalition, and if we are to retain any power, ever, we must go along with them’.
The source at first refused to comment when asked ‘What was the point in having power if you are doing things against your beliefs?’ before stating:
‘Well, we enjoy it, you know, looking, feeling important, and having a chauffeur, a nice office, and a grace and favour place for weekends. It’s not all about the country’.
Cue blurry screen and exit music, as if to a film.
It couldn’t happen, could it?
How To Make Banks And Bankers Listen?
If there is anything about the whole bank profits, bankers' bonuses and public sector cuts issue that really annoys people, it is the hopeless inevitability of it all, that things are just the way they are and there is nothing we can do about it:
Yes, recklessness caused the banking crisis, which caused the recession, which caused the government, and therefore us the taxpayer, to bail them out; yes, the whole banking system, and therefore every bank was seemingly saved by the bailout; yes, as a result we have an unimaginably sized deficit in the public finances; yes, we are all suffering the cuts to the public sector; but the banks are seemingly back to normal, with giant profits and astounding bonuses.
The government clearly believes banks making huge profits and bankers given large bonuses are a good thing, irrespective of whether or not they are lining the coffers of the Conservative Party; and whether or not there is a moral obligation on banks and bankers to pay for the mess they started, not the most vulnerable in society, who it is said are going to feel the brunt of the public sector cuts.
And so, the fate of the banks and bankers, and ours, is just accepted; that it is just the way of the world, that they have their place and we have ours and there is nothing we can do about it or any of the associated issues.
Or, is there really nothing we can do? Maybe, just maybe, all it will take is one penny.
For many years I had an HSBC bank account by default, it being the remains of a childhood savings account that I had neither the will nor inclination to change. As such, it was almost inevitable that I would remain with the bank forever, not being bothered with the simple fuss involved of moving banks. Until, one day, I asked them to arrange a standing order for a particular day; that day came and went without the payment being made and, as a result, I incurred a fee of £30 and interest of 1p.
After much argument with the customer service representative, I was credited with the £30 but not the 1p. So HSBC made 1p by making a mistake, not much I know, but a principle nonetheless. Soon after I switched banks, which for the record was surprisingly easy, and I have been very happy with my new bank since (which has never made any mistakes let alone charge me for them, and has a UK call centre that puts me through to my local branch in London rather than, somehow, Glasgow).
I know you’re wondering ‘how does this relate to bank profits and bankers bonuses?’
Well, imagine if everyone who was unhappy with their bank for the profits that they are making, or the bonuses that they are paying to their staff, removed their money from their account, or simply moved their bank account to a bank that wasn’t making extortionate sums and didn’t pay such ridiculous bonuses.
Or, in what would perhaps be more effective, what if a movement was formed in which people signed up to guarantee that, if nothing is done to curb the banks or their bonuses, on a particular day they will either withdraw all their money from particular banks or transfer their money to a bank that does not ct in such a manner.
Some might say that it would be reckless to consider such an option, that it could lead to the kind of run on banks seen during Northern Rock’s problems. But, is that any more reckless than gambling billions of pounds that economic circumstance will not change? And some might say that it would be blackmail. But, everyone is entitled to have the money in a bank of their choice. And is it blackmail anymore than banks and bankers telling the media and government that if they tax them too much they and the banks will leave the country? In any case, if HSBC had let me look after that penny, maybe their pounds would look after themselves…
Andy Gray and Richard Keys: The Core of a Rotten Culture.
Upon hearing some of the opinions expressed by some media commentators you would think that Andy Gray and Richard Keys had done more than make remarks that in reality cause no harm to anyone but themselves. For an overreaction there has been, bringing a situation where great importance is made of the opinions of two people who are mere football pundits, two of many nowadays, paid to comment no more eruditely than on explaining what is happening in a simple game of a ball and eleven against eleven. And even football fans had learnt to ignore much of the drivel they meted out in the name of entertainment, and the hyperbole now surrounding the game, which Sky heavily encouraged and the average football fan had come to tolerate rather than enjoy or encourage.
It is with some irony that the hyperbole encouraged by Sky and News International, in the form of Sky News, Sky Sports News, The Sun and the News of the World, has led to the kind of headlines that has resulted in the sacking of Gray and the resignation of Keys. In such a world of twenty-four hour media, perspective can soon be lost and it takes courage and loyalty to remain loyal to a strategy, or people, when the media world is calling for about turns or heads to roll.
Richard Keys’ ‘defence’ on Talksport radio beggared belief, being part apology, part confession, part justification it would have been better had he said, which in part he did, that he was commenting ironically only, a mere jest or ‘banter’ that had got out of hand and was never meant for broadcast. But perhaps that is the point: whether ‘banter’ or serious, the views were aired in a workplace and times have moved on from when such views could be aired there and accepted or, at the least, tolerated. Gone are the days when such comments can be made, thus allowing women to work in an atmosphere that is acceptable to them and break down any barriers that may have existed.
Given evidence provided by some of the female employees of Sky Sports News, it is apparent that such an outdated, sexist culture still remained (although, would their views carry more wait if the reasons for their appointment were not questionable: when was the last time you saw a less than pretty female SSN anchor?)
Some media commentators have suggested that Gray and Keys’ comments about Sian Massey were worse than Gray’s comment and action to Charlotte Jackson, one questioning professional competence behind her back and showing prejudice towards a whole sex (though if Richard Keys is to be believed it was in jest), the other a lewd act to her face and which she chose to clearly ignore.
However, what comment or action had more weight of causing embarrassment or discomfort? A comment behind the back, never meant to be aired, an almost private conversation, or a near direct act of sexual harassment, and in the workplace too? Is there anything worse than problems and, in particular, discrimination in the workplace, where, often, people have no option but to suffer in silence or face the consequences on their career if they make an issue of it?
Perhaps that is the most damning evidence against Gray: Charlotte Jackson and Richard Keys’ lack of reaction to his comments; no surprise, no dismissal, no word requiring apology or redress, just acceptance. Further, the additional footage of Andy Gray and Andy Burton discussing Sian Massey as a sex object highlighted the culture around their workplace, one where it was apparently acceptable to view women within their workplace, football, as sex objects, and refer to them as such.
The behaviour shows it to be the norm, and, therefore, the culture; and that is why it was unacceptable; and it appears that Gray and Keys had become so sure of their place in the corporation that they considered themselves above the law, beyond redress, and so that culture continued; at least until someone in that workplace found the opportunity to expose their offensive comments for being just that.
The fact that tapes of the pair’s original offending comments were aired and publicised, and other examples quickly found and aired, shows the apparent contempt in which the two were held by their former colleagues. If they had not behaved as such there may have been loyalty, an acceptance that the original comments were a one-off, with lessons learnt and never to be repeated. But loyalty has to be earned, and they clearly had not earned that, there being a rotten culture with them at its core. And so, when the media world called for their heads to roll, no loyalty was to be found.
In his comments on Talksport, Richard Keys commented on dark forces being at work and that he had been told not to publicise his apology to Sian Massey.
Maybe it is possible that with a new managing director Sky Sports, Barney Francis, Sky wanted a new, younger, possibly cheaper direction for their football coverage, which would have been hard to do when Gray and Keys had become, for better or worse, synonymous with their coverage. But, if they hadn’t have made those comments, or acted as they did, or taken part in an outdated culture, the opportunity to replace them would not have presented itself. And what better way to change a culture than to curtail the careers of the biggest beasts in that workplace: can you estimate how many sexist jokes have been made by Sky employees this week? Think of a number and times it by nought and that will be the answer. And I bet it was a better place to work for all of its employees.
Christina Aguilera: America Take Pride, Don't Criticise
When Christine Aguilera messed up the lyrics of America’s National Anthem, ‘The Star Spangled Banner’, at the Super Bowl the world seemed to go crazy, with a whole number of media outlets airing and publishing comments by Americans critical of the singer; and laughter from the UK at how sensitive Americans are about the issue.
But, the question is, how would such a situation pan out in the UK
Firstly, it wouldn’t have happened. Our equivalent of the Super Bowl, the FA Cup Final, would never involve such razzmatazz, the Football Association preferring a sober opera singer to a mere pop artist and, in any case, they would no doubt not pay enough for Ms Cole to perform (and what if Ashley was playing in the match?).
If Ms Cole did decide to turn up, she would probably state that she would only perform her anthem, ‘Fight For This Love’, probably questioning why she had to sing a song that she had never heard: ‘God Save The Queen’ (‘is that, like, by Queen Latifah, like?’ she would be heard to say).
If Cheryl did decide to sing, she did she wouldn’t perform live, performing the anthem ‘live’ before anyone turned up and then miming to that when her big moment arrives, putting everyone off the scent with some crazy dance routines. Then, halfway through, Will.i.am (or What.the.f***?), wearing glasses shaped like Buckingham Palace
So, what would happen if Cheryl messed up the lyrics to our National Anthem?
I am not sure she would say, as Christina has done, that the occasion just got to her and that no one can doubt her love for her country; for if she did, Cheryl would be crucified. Yes, some newspapers (yes, you Daily Mail and Daily Express), would criticise her and question the state of the nation as a result, but on the whole she would most likely be criticised by the liberal media for expressing love for her country; for that is not encouraged, no way.
We do not take pride in our nation; at least we do not anymore. Wearing the flag is partial, almost considered as racist and, perhaps worst of all, ‘chavy’. And yet we look to other nationalities within our nation and we accept and almost encourage them to have their own culture. And we enjoy it too.
Yet, when we look across to America
But it is their culture, so why criticise them? It is a double standard and does nothing towards tolerance; in fact, it is the exact opposite.
It is the same kind of ill-conceived and/or ill thought through left-wing ideology that pushes through an anti-sexist agenda whilst at the same time accepting Islamic views towards women. Tolerance cannot be picked and mixed, but nether can it be absolute, for it is a good thing but not if it leads to a wrong prevailing. And what is wrong about American nationalism? It provides greater national purpose than we have with our multi-culturalism; Americans have a greater national purpose and identity than us now, ours having been eroded, almost merely historical and dominated by multi-culturalism. Ask yourself, how many radical Muslims have been born and bred in America compared to the UK
So, Americans, take pride and don’t criticise Christina; yes, she messed up some lyrics but, at least, on the whole, she knows her national anthem, loves her country and is able to say it. As for us, don’t criticise America
The Coalition Government Plan Return of Slavery?
As the economy stalls and the cuts begin to bite, the coalition government’s plans seem to go from bad to worse: the sale of the Forestry Commission; NHS reforms rushed through; university, and in particular an Oxbridge education, made so expensive it is inevitably more elitist (if that is possible); banks and bankers’ bonuses hardly touched by the government’s policies; the Big Society seeming to stand for the Being Ignorant in Government Society. All of this led me to wonder: how far could the coalition government go with their agenda?
Cue blurry screen and music like that from Tales of the Unexpected…
Coalition Government sources have today disclosed that the government is actively considering: abolishing state schooling, the NHS and the police; reintroducing slavery to the UK, more than two hundreds after it was outlawed; introducing euthanasia (and not just for those who are terminally ill).
According to the sources, later on this year the government is planning on introducing a law through parliament in which state schooling will be abolished. The thinking behind the move is that state schooling does not provide ‘value for money’, that ‘as state school pupils do not go on to achieve anything of note in their lives, what is the point of educating them? Better they contribute to the real economy and provide their labour to those who need the labour and do contribute: the rich.
The government believes that the money saved from the abolition of state schooling will be used to improve the facilities, and therefore the education, of public schools and the Oxbridge universities, as our source commented:
‘People pay a lot of money to go to these educational establishments and it is important that they receive value for money. What kind of country do we live in where a child is only provided with stabling space for one pony?’
According to papers seen by us, as soon as children are able to walk they will be put to work, the government believing that even the smallest of children can make a substantial impact in the workplace, as our source again commented:
‘Little fingers are perfect for cleaning the smallest of places, such as chimney sweeping. I have seven chimneys in my house and I’ll tell you they are a devil for a grown man to clean. A toddler would fit perfectly.’
The thinking behind the return of slavery is similar to that on the abolition of state schooling: that as people from the lower classes contribute less to the economy better that they contribute to the riches of a master; and a master would greatly improve their prospects, as it is not as if they make anything of themselves anyway. The government also believes that ‘the lower and lower middle classes are unable to make decisions for themselves as if they were they wouldn’t be in that position’.
The government also considers that slavery will see the return of ‘much needed family values’: they envisage whole families enslaved and the repeal of laws not only outlawing slavery but also those providing that a master cannot be found guilty of assaulting a slave. Our source again commented on the matter, stating that it is ’imperative for the scheme to work that a master has control and is able exert a moral code and, in any case, a good beating never hurt any man’.
As a result of the change to the law, it is also anticipated that only masters will have the vote, that ‘with the dominance of the public school and Oxbridge educated in politics and media, there is little choice anyway for the masses, and the result is kind of decided by the elite anyway, so we might as well choose between ourselves.’
It is also anticipated that the Police will effectively be abolished too, or at the least privatised, with masters taking control of individual forces.
The government’s plans for the return of slavery are to be supplemented by euthanasia: that the sick, infirm or elderly will be given the option to either find a way to be able to work, and make their employment pay for their master, or face death, being immediately entered onto a euthanasia waiting list called the Automatic Register for Savings and Efficiencies (‘ARSE’).
Following concerns expressed by Conservative backbenchers, that the plans may prove too costly for the government and, more importantly masters, the proposals have been watered down: if people choose their own method of death, charges will apply; the state will confiscate all assets and pay all costs and taxes involved before distributing the money to the deceased’s master.
It is also understood that under the plans the NHS will be abolished, on the basis that those worthy of medical attention can afford it, with our source commenting that the money saved will help to reduce the ‘grossly unfair’ tax regime in which those who done the most with their lives, and earn the most, are forced to pay higher taxes.
Following enquiry by us, a source close to the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
‘We inherited a deficit from Labour and hard decisions need to be made. People need to realise bankers contribute to the economy. The sick, the unemployed, pensioners and the poor, or even the middle class, do not. But, I must stress, we are all in this together. People need to realise we are all suffering. Look at bankers bonuses; they are at the same level as last year. I have only been able to claim for one of my three houses and my trust funds have only made modest gains this year’.
A source close to Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, said:
‘Of course we don’t agree with the changes, and don’t believe in them. But, as part of a coalition, and if we are to retain any power, ever, we must go along with them’.
The source at first refused to comment when asked ‘What was the point in having power if you are doing things against your beliefs?’ before stating:
‘Well, we enjoy it, you know, looking, feeling important, and having a chauffeur, a nice office, and a grace and favour place for weekends. It’s not all about the country’.
Cue blurry screen and exit music, as if to a film.
It couldn’t happen, could it?
How To Make Banks And Bankers Listen?
If there is anything about the whole bank profits, bankers' bonuses and public sector cuts issue that really annoys people, it is the hopeless inevitability of it all, that things are just the way they are and there is nothing we can do about it:
Yes, recklessness caused the banking crisis, which caused the recession, which caused the government, and therefore us the taxpayer, to bail them out; yes, the whole banking system, and therefore every bank was seemingly saved by the bailout; yes, as a result we have an unimaginably sized deficit in the public finances; yes, we are all suffering the cuts to the public sector; but the banks are seemingly back to normal, with giant profits and astounding bonuses.
The government clearly believes banks making huge profits and bankers given large bonuses are a good thing, irrespective of whether or not they are lining the coffers of the Conservative Party; and whether or not there is a moral obligation on banks and bankers to pay for the mess they started, not the most vulnerable in society, who it is said are going to feel the brunt of the public sector cuts.
And so, the fate of the banks and bankers, and ours, is just accepted; that it is just the way of the world, that they have their place and we have ours and there is nothing we can do about it or any of the associated issues.
Or, is there really nothing we can do? Maybe, just maybe, all it will take is one penny.
For many years I had an HSBC bank account by default, it being the remains of a childhood savings account that I had neither the will nor inclination to change. As such, it was almost inevitable that I would remain with the bank forever, not being bothered with the simple fuss involved of moving banks. Until, one day, I asked them to arrange a standing order for a particular day; that day came and went without the payment being made and, as a result, I incurred a fee of £30 and interest of 1p.
After much argument with the customer service representative, I was credited with the £30 but not the 1p. So HSBC made 1p by making a mistake, not much I know, but a principle nonetheless. Soon after I switched banks, which for the record was surprisingly easy, and I have been very happy with my new bank since (which has never made any mistakes let alone charge me for them, and has a UK call centre that puts me through to my local branch in London rather than, somehow, Glasgow).
I know you’re wondering ‘how does this relate to bank profits and bankers bonuses?’
Well, imagine if everyone who was unhappy with their bank for the profits that they are making, or the bonuses that they are paying to their staff, removed their money from their account, or simply moved their bank account to a bank that wasn’t making extortionate sums and didn’t pay such ridiculous bonuses.
Or, in what would perhaps be more effective, what if a movement was formed in which people signed up to guarantee that, if nothing is done to curb the banks or their bonuses, on a particular day they will either withdraw all their money from particular banks or transfer their money to a bank that does not ct in such a manner.
Some might say that it would be reckless to consider such an option, that it could lead to the kind of run on banks seen during Northern Rock’s problems. But, is that any more reckless than gambling billions of pounds that economic circumstance will not change? And some might say that it would be blackmail. But, everyone is entitled to have the money in a bank of their choice. And is it blackmail anymore than banks and bankers telling the media and government that if they tax them too much they and the banks will leave the country? In any case, if HSBC had let me look after that penny, maybe their pounds would look after themselves…
The Andy Coulson Affair and News International: A Nuclear Power
It was the ultimate irony of ironies: Andy Coulson apparently quit as David Cameron’s Director of Communications because he had become the story and he, the former editor of the News of the World, had become concerned of the pressure on his family caused by the media spotlight.
And it would seem that with the resignation the pressure is now off the government, and in particular David Cameron, over Mr Coulson’s position as his Director of Communications when it appeared that he still had questions to answer concerning his role in the News of the World phone tapping affair.
In an interview following the resignation, David Cameron said that Mr Coulson shouldn’t be punished twice for his role in the scandal (of which he denies any knowledge or wrongdoing, stating that he was unaware of what was going on) and that he had already resigned as editor of the News of the World over the issue.
It is difficult to believe the naivety of Mr Cameron’s statement: that if Mr Coulson really was guilty of any wrongdoing, even implicitly or incompetently, is it right that he be paid by the taxpayer to an estimated £140,000 per year?
News International are trying to take the moral high ground on the issue, suspending a senior executive over the issue and making allegations that they were not the only newspaper undertaking such activities. Further, many journalists have criticised Mr Coulson for his apparent double standard, rather than standing up for journalists and stating that, at times and in pursuit of articles that are definitively in the public interest, they may act in a way that blurs the boundaries of what is legal, he has denied all knowledge of such activities and, therefore, implicitly criticised them. Perhaps the reason for this position is the manner in which the phone tapping was undertaken at the News of the World.
A brief scan of the list of the those suspected as having their phones tapped hardly reveals names great and good, being dominated by those famed for a level of mild infamy rather than for their grandeur: Sienna Miller, Gordon Taylor, John Prescott, David Davies and Brian Paddick to name a few.
And reading those various names, it can only be concluded that the tapping was apparently used as a mere fishing expedition, phones tapped as a matter of course in an attempt to gather any information that may be newsworthy, of interest to the public rather than in the public interest, a different thing entirely, with no level set of what should be the public interest; why else would they have been subject to such tapping?
Perhaps it is too much to ask of newspaper editors, at least those of the tabloids, whether a matter is of sufficient public interest to warrant such a blurring of the lines between legality and illegality. Perhaps it is too much to expect them to think about more than selling papers. Perhaps I am naïve to think other than that the bottom line counts everywhere nowadays, so why not in the newspaper industry too?
At the News of the World it appears as if phone tapping was going on as a matter of course, routine, policy almost, which leads to questions of those at the top of the tree; if they did not know about it, why not?
Kelvin McKenzie, former editor of The Sun, has stated that editors do not routinely ask their journalists for sources. Perhaps the key word there is ‘routinely’ and, therefore, perhaps that is the key issue too: if Mr Coulson was not asking any of his journalists for their sources, surely that raises questions as to his own competency; and, if so, should he have been placed into a position of being paid for by the taxpayer (which in turn raises questions as to David Cameron’s decision making, for putting him into that position…)?
Perhaps the arguments over the details of the phone tapping just muddy the waters of the greater issue: the power wielded by Rupert Murdoch/News International.
For analysis of the whole scandal raises questions as to that end: note Gordon Brown’s call to Andy Coulson following his resignation from the News of the World; note David Cameron’s appointment of him as his Director of Communications; note Vince Cable’s swift removal from being the decision-maker of whether News International can take over Sky. Gordon Brown and David Cameron, like any political leader in this country, know that they must pander to Murdoch/News International or face the consequences, negative publicity throughout his publications. Was there any other reason for the actions above, other than an attempt to tame the nuclear power that is Murdoch/News International?
For a nuclear power is what it is, as last year’s manhunt for Raoul Moat so clearly demonstrated the powerful almost gleeful synergy with which it operates: twenty-four coverage on Sky News and online; in-depth coverage in The Times; titillating headlines and exclusive interviews in The Sun and the News of the World.
And so we are stuck in the ultimate political Catch 22: politicians need the power and the backing of the media to win elections, including those of News International, with its uniquely dominant position in the media; it would take a government to change the rules as to the ownership of newspapers and television stations to tame Rupert Murdoch/News International; the government knows that any suggestion of such a policy would lead to the whole Nuclear International, sorry News International (Freudian slip, honest…) machine being launched in its direction (note its reaction to Vince Cable’s comments that he was aiming for them…); and, whilst such a decision is not taken, power is out of the hands of the politicians and the electorate and in the hands of Rupert Murdoch/News International…
Perhaps only cross-party policy-making can tame Murdoch/News International but whether any MP’s have the guts to do so, in the face of its nuclear threat, is another matter entirely. And if you never hear from me again, you know what has happened…
