Wednesday, November 01, 2006

In the pursuit of liberty ... !

The following appeared in an article by Mick Hume, editor of Spiked:

“Behind the grim warnings of global destruction (in the Stern Review published this week), there was a discernible sense of relish in the way that government ministers seized the opportunity to propose green taxes and similar measures to police our personal habits.

“This seemed to have less to do with their shaky grasp of the science of climate change than their firm belief in what has been labelled ‘the new politics of behaviour’.

"The job of government today is seen not as formulating any grand vision of how to run society and shape the future, but telling people how to run their lives. Usually this is done in the name of promoting personal and public health. Now it can also be done under the banner of saving the planet.”

These items also appeared in the media at some stage this week:

A committee of MPs found that the presence of speed cameras on our roads has resulted in a fall in the number of road traffic police, meaning that drunk and dangerous drivers etc. stand more chance than ever of getting away with it.

BUT, they still demand that more cameras should be installed! Why?

Ministers plan to force everyone in the country – through the national census to take place in 2011 – to declare their income. Why? What possible business is it of theirs? What’s more, if you fail to fill in the form, you can be fined more than £1,000.

Also, plans are in train to recruit an army of inspectors who will have unprecedented access to our homes to judge how much council tax we have to pay.

They are looking at taking into account the area you live in, the view from your house, how well-off your neighbours are and lifestyle to assess the level you have to pay. Why? Again, if you refuse access to these people, another £1,000 please. Tear down those conservatories and bathroom extensions now!

And I am not going to even mention ID cards …

What can we do then to turn the tide of this increasingly oppressive and worrying Government intervention in our lives?

Well, a small step is to sign up to the basis tenets of libertarianism!

A libertarian is really an old-fashioned liberal. In the nineteenth century, and especially in revolutionary America, a liberal was someone who mistrusted government and wanted as little government intervention as possible.

Libertarianism is a philosophy based on the principle that individuals should be allowed complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the same freedom of others.

Libertarians support a limited government that engages in the minimum amount of initiatory force (such as levying taxes to provide some public goods such as defence and roads, as well as some minimal regulation), because they believe it to be necessary to ensure maximum individual freedom.

Doesn’t sound so bad, does it … think about it. You never know it might catch on!

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

My name is Richard and I am a soapaholic ...

... there I’ve said it.

Now that’s out of the way, I want to have a moan about the quality of writing ( and, more importantly, plotting ) currently being displayed on BBC’s ‘Eastenders’.

I have to set out my allegiance first. I have been watching ‘Coronation Street’ since I was a kid and, in my opinion, it remains top of the soap heap in terms of acting, writing, comedy, tragedy –and plain enjoyment.

But, I do also follow ‘Eastenders’ – not as avidly, it must be said. And over the years it has had its peaks and troughs. Now, it’s not so much going through a trough – more the slough of despond.

For instance, yesterday we had the news that Martin – who runs a greengrocer’s stall on the market – had been asked to give a talk on healthy eating to pupils at his daughter’s primary school. (This is the person, of course, who can be seen regularly chomping his way through a massive fried breakfast in Cath’s Café!)

What conversation do you think took place between teacher and head for this to happen?

Head: “I think we really need to be telling the kids about healthy eating.”
Teacher: “What about Betty Smith’s mother, Dr Smith? She’s a nutritionist and would be ideal.”
Head: “No. I’ve got a better idea. We can ask Rebecca Fowler’s father. He works on a market stall selling fruit and veg – he can tell the kids all they need to know.”
Teacher: “Great idea. I’ll give him a call.”

The second mad storyline of the week is that Patrick – or one of the Five Hectors (don’t ask) – could be Denise’s long-lost father after she heard that they had once visited Montserrat where she was born. And, guess what, they just happen to live a few doors away from each other on Albert Square.
What are the odds, eh? They are up there with the chances of Crystal Palace winning the Premiership, FA Cup and the Champions League, twice, in successive years!

I could go on. For instance, the depiction of the health visitor who told Honey that she should have got rid of her downs syndrome baby must have set the cause of health visitors back decades.

Anyway, the upshot of this rant is that ‘Eastenders’ writers have lost the plot. Perhaps, they would be better off running a market stall.

Friday, September 29, 2006

This is a piece of creative writing reflecting the takeover of our local by Mitchell & Butler (with a hint of sarcasm)
By Carol

Signs of the Times

They chose a time when the pub would normally be very quiet, but it backfired.
The two red-faced representatives looked small in front of the hundred-strong crowd. With not one of the audience on their side, their upbeat presentation quickly flopped. Deflated, they jostled their way to the door under a barrage of angry insults. Tempers had been frayed since the village’s residents heard rumours of a takeover. The fourteenth century pub had belonged to the locals since the year dot and they were feeling seriously under threat by the proposed refurbishment, and prepared for a fight.
The pub to date had been a tapestry of local characters. Regular congregating over a beer seemed, for many, essential to one’s sanity, providing an anchor in difficult times. Bert, Jim and George had been regular customers for over fifty years. Jim and Bert would frequently reminisce over their days in the Royal Air Force, recalling the night they bombed Berlin. George was a desert rat and had several bouts of malaria. Each of them had their own personal tragedy and their ‘local’ offered them a degree of comfort.
No wonder the intermediaries were greeted with hostility as they paraded their samples of synthetic furnishings; a small carrot to dangle, in exchange for ripping the heart out of a local community.
Many locals worked tirelessly to find any shred of evidence suggesting that Mitchell & Butler should withdraw their application for planning permission. Then, at last the goose laid the golden egg. Tireless research uncovered that parts of the building were protected under English Heritage. The locals were about to lock horns with the opposition once again. The discovery led to the fat cats having to return to the drawing board, withdrawing their application.
The pub was bulging at the seams with revellers high on victory. The atmosphere was one of elation instead of defeat. No longer held down under the giant paw of capitalism, they drank to the people, to each other and ghosts past. Lovers sat in the inglenook finding privacy to share their deepest thoughts. Loners quietly rejoiced behind the daily tabloids. Staff scurried up and down behind the bar to keep pace with the celebrations. The headline on the front of the local paper read ‘Cheers! We’ve saved our pub’.
It was not over yet. The next lot of plans reared their ugly heads. The intermediaries knew now that they would have to negotiate and compromise with the customers. Now there were two-way discussions, with the hope of a win-win situation.

Piped music, with pop classics is force-fed in every bar, regardless of demand. ‘House’ and ‘Garage’ blast out in the Inglenook. Frank Sinatra plays where the bar is full of kids who have shown ‘ID’, ‘Trance’ in the original bar where even the youngest person took the eleven plus. The D.J. is sitting in an office three hundred miles away and piping the same music all around the South of England. The consensus being, he should be shot. However, the pub already harbours the shame of having been watering hole to one murderer (that’s a different story) so instead, one by one, the wires are surreptitiously pulled from the speakers. The refurbishment for some obscure reason seems to bring with it drugs and violence. A new sign appears ‘The wearing of hats is forbidden, any one wearing a hat will have it confiscated’.
Seventy two year old, Bert is sitting in the old bar with drinking pals, Jim and George, when a barmaid, barely sixteen, wearing her ‘in training’ badge says,
‘Sorry but you can’t wear that hat in ’ere’.
‘I beg your pardon; do you know how long I have been coming in this pub?’
‘He was in the RAF you know’ piped up George.
‘You’re not allowed, it’s the rules. You ’ave to take it off’, she said with a mouth full of braces.
No surprise then, that one of my female friends, in her forties had to remove her matching houndtooth cap. I mean, she looked every bit a crackhead.
As if Bert, Jim and George hadn’t had enough after being asked to remove their hats, they were also forced to sit in a draught. It was late October and there was a chill in the air, hence the hats, but another sign read ‘Do not shut the door’. With the clientele’s comfort at the forefront of their minds Mitchell & Butler’s policy was that the door should remain open at all times to attract customers. So you were either blasted out with ‘Trance’ or frozen out by the draught. Was this ever going to be a ‘win-win’ situation?
On the positive side ashtrays had to be cleared after one use and glasses had to be collected every few minutes, but for how long? Home cooking was now strictly forbidden in this beautiful fourteenth century public house. Instead the food might have been piped in much like the music, all pre-packed and frozen. Jim bit the bullet and ordered haddock, chips and peas, only to find that the haddock was still frozen in the middle. Considering all the policies in place to protect the consumer from food poisoning, dishing up frozen fish did not seem a good plan. Moving on to sign number three then; ‘Do not move any of the furniture.’ Moving furniture we learned was grounds for being barred. By this time we had decided that Mitchell & Butler were the new Gestapo. There was nothing left to do apart from revolt. Drinking at the local became a game of cat and mouse. They opened the door, we closed it. They turned the music up, we pulled it out the wall. We shook our heads from left to right and tutted at anyone that even looked at a menu; we were doing them a favour. Eventually the staff lost the will to live. Who wouldn’t be demoralised on five pounds an hour and constant abuse from disgruntled customers. Gradually the locals began to win back their territory. The speakers remain off of the wall. Furniture is moved around to suit. The drug problem seems to be dormant for the time being, following police raids. Bert wears his hat and the original bar has been retained. The new bar however, is a hideous contrast. Orange, paintwashed walls are home to meaningless cheaply framed prints. Hollow ornaments and artificial plants break up Ikea style shelving. Spot lit ashtrays sit full to the brim with dog ends. Teenage boys, dressed uniformly in baseball caps, huddle around the all singing and all dancing fruit machine. Bert has to drink his ‘Jamesons’ out of a tumbler. He misses the days when his drink would appear on the bar as he walked through the heavy oak door. Warm greetings had been traded in for teenage ‘whatever’ attitudes with staff not knowing a whisky from a brandy. They wear branded t-shirts by night and school blazer and tie by day.
The locals did succeed in influencing the brewery and kept the original bar area. The brewery failed to make the new area in-keeping with the old but everyone did get a bit of what they wanted. In the words of one of the locals
‘I feel what I did made a difference’
However, one can’t help feel a sense of loss.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Manners maketh man ...



I have just finished reading a book by crime writer, Ken Bruen ( do check him out: http://www.kenbruen.com/ – he’s brilliant! ) in which the main ‘villain’ is someone who trawls the streets of south London and kills people because they lack manners and are generally unpleasant people.

And while it is rather an extreme way of trying to introduce a bit of courtesy back into life, I couldn’t wholly condemn his actions. Indeed, Mr Bruen obviously couldn’t either because the killer escapes to carry on his work in America!

I know I can sound like a broken record, but there is a coarseness about life at the moment which, I’m sure, does us no good at all.

So – without going around killing everyone who doesn’t say please or thank you – why don’t we all try and do our bit and lead by example?

  • Remain polite and cheerful in the face of surliness
  • Open doors for old ladies, even if they look at you as if you’re something they’ve just trodden in
  • Use lots of these phrases:
    - I’m sorry, I didn’t quite catch that …
    - I’m sorry, do you mind …
    - I would really appreciate if you could …
    - Please
    - Thank you
    - Pardon me
    - Excuse me …

    Just have in the back of your mind that if none of this works, there is always the ultimate solution ...

Friday, September 01, 2006

Welcome back ... to terror!

After what seems a long sojourn, and severe lack of inspiration, here is the first entry in the Huntsofwarlingham blog for some time.

It is back to the dependable Spiked Online for an article which expresses a lot of what I feel about the current 'spectre' of fundamentalist terrorism hanging over us. See what you think.


"Terror: keeping the outrage in perspective Islamic terrorism is real. But the notion of an Islamic terrorist threat to society is the product of our own insecure imaginations"

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1485/



Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Some transactional tenets ...

I was researching the pyschology theory of transactional analysis ( see http://tajnet.org/ta/index.htm ) for my college course the other day when I came across the following quotes which help illustrate in some way what this type of therapy can achieve.

They are also not bad tenets to live your life by either … !

"Instead of making others right or wrong, or bottling up right and wrong in ourselves, there's a middle way, a very powerful middle way...... Could we have no agenda when we walk into a room with another person, not know what to say, not make that person wrong or right? Could we see, hear, feel other people as they really are? It is powerful to practice this way..... true communication can happen only in that open space."








Pema Chodron, Buddhist nun who runs Gammpo Abbey retreat in Nova Scotia.


"I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry-rot. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a slee
py and permanent planet. The function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days trying to prolong them. I shall use my time."










Jack London, author, 1876-1916.

"Each friend represents a world in us, a world not born until they arrive, and it is only by this meeting that a new world is born."












Anais Nin, French-born American writer, 1903-1977.

"Fantastic things happen - to the way we feel, to the way we make other people feel. All this simply by using positive words."









Professor Leo F Buscaglia, teacher, writer and humanitarian, 1924-1998.

"Ninety per-cent of what we worry about never happens, yet we worry and worry. What a horrible way to go through life! What a horrible thing to do to your colon!"


By the same bloke.


Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Brendan O'Neill ...

... is a London-based writer and deputy editor of Spiked ( see other link ).

I have added a link to his website as it is well worth a read. There is a very thought-provoking article on the new film, 'United 93', about the plane that crashed on 9/11 before it reached its target. A very refreshing take on the whole 9/11 mythology ...


Rooftops and smoke

There were a couple of interesting items in today’s news which reflects a number of themes I have expounded on at various points in this blog. I thought I would draw your attention to them:

Item One:

A man being chased by police in a stolen car somehow finds himself on the roof of a house in Gloucestershire whereupon he proceeds to rain bricks and roof tiles down on to the people below, damaging a number of cars unfortunately parked in throwing distance.

And the police response? They send him up a bargain bucket of KFC, a coke and some fags! “Even though he is on the roof, making a nuisance, we still have to look after his well-being and human rights,” said a spokesman, presumably with a straight face.

What about the well-being and human rights of the people who live in the house whose roof was slowly being dismantled, and the drivers who will return to their cars to see brick-shaped dents all over them!

He was up there for 10 hours. Wouldn’t it have just been easier to get fire brigade to aim their jet hoses at him until he either jumped or was washed away!

Item Two:

A report by the increasingly rebellious – and sane – House of Lords states that the dangers of passive smoking were exaggerated by the Government to push through a blanket ban on smoking in public places.

As I have said before, I will be personally delighted when I can sit in my local and breathe fresh air rather than noxious cigaretter and cigar fumes. But my libertarian instincts rail against such a ban because I regard it as the thin end of the wedge. What I call the ‘what next?’ factor.

The report states that the Public Health Minister Caroline Flint, no less, admitted that 95 per cent of smoking-related deaths are linked to lighting up in the home – rather than the workplace. It goes on: “Given the evidence about the impact of passive smoking, we are concerned that the decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern."

Lord Wakeham added: “We are concerned that the Government does not pay enough attention to the cumulative impact of legislation on personal freedom and choice.”

Ah, the voice of reason at last!