Shock! Former British Prime Minister photograped with now Dead Dictator

Think back, to the year 2009, before the Arab Spring, before Cleggmania and the ConDems, before Downton Abbey and Call the Midwife, Sherlock and before Avatar proved that 3D cinema was never going to catch on properly. It's not really that long ago, fewer than four years in fact, but it already feels like a lifetime. An awful lot has happened since and the world is a very different place. iPads were a thing of the future and the Liberal Democrats were still floating in relative political insignificance, with only a dedicated few aware that they even existed.Think back, I wonder if you remember this picture:

                                     
It was taken when the man convicted of blowing up Pam Am Flight 103 (also known as the Lockerbie Bombing)  Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, had been released back to Libya as he'd been diagnosed with terminal cancer and had been allowed to return to his country of birth to die (something which didn't happen until May 2012, but that's another matter). At the point when this happened, the struggling Labour Government managed to infuriate many people by deeming that a man should have the right to return to his homeland. Still though, that's not really the crux of what I'm getting at here.

In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the deaths of thousands of Libyan's in a bitter civil war and the eventual mass-participation in snuff movie production when Gaddafi was finally killed. How does this photo look? It didn't look brilliant at the time it was taken and there were people even then questioning the morality of Our Glorious Leader shaking hands with a known dictator.

In all honesty though, when one looks back through history there are many occasions which, with hindsight, now look rather different. You may, or may not be aware of the hideous nature of Joseph Stalin, the mass murder and poverty which he inflicted upon his own people and the fact that he was photographed numerous times with Winston Churchill. This defining image of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, meeting during the Second World War is arguably seen very differently now, to then:

                                   
Why then, was there such mass hysteria when an episode of young children's program transmitted an episode in which a character imitated Jimmy Savile presenting Top of the Pops was broadcast early on Sunday morning. The episode in question had been made in 2001, long before Savile's crimes were discussed openly. The false outrage was almost laughable, yes, Savile was a strange man and there have been revelations about how he abused his privileged position. That doesn't make a show which makes only mild reference to Savile, a reference which only adults would understand, in a context for which he was very well known, offensive.

It might seem a little tasteless to some, and perhaps it's better now that the episode has been permanently removed circulation because of the associations which Savile's unique presenting style has with far darker actions. 

What we shouldn't have to do though, is apologise for history. At the time the program was made no one shouted in outrage, and no one really has the right to do so now either. The episode wasn't 'hidden away' and it's core audience won't have any idea of who Savile was and they'll probably only see him as a figure of history. 

Anyone intrigued by the slurry of recent Savile-related outrage from certain morally questionable tabloids might be interested in this article. I hate giving them hits, but it's worth remembering that it's not only the BBC who need to check their archives. 

A Stable Diet

Over the past year I've been trying to eat less meat, significantly, not eating meat in restaurants. I don't have any stern moral ground for this, nor will I attempt to justify this decision to you. I could just as easily ask you, why do you eat meat? If you can't justify it (social normality is not justification) then why do you do it? I'd also like to ask you one other question in relation to the news.

Is there any actual difference between eating one of these:

                                       

one of these;

                                       
or even one of these;

                                       
When they all look like this on your plate:

                                      
Because, and I mean this, I can't really see what the difference is, beyond what you consider to be 'socially acceptable'. I'm not saying that it's acceptable to mis-sell products. But even if all these animals were listed as 'ingredients' on the packaging would you really stop eating burgers?

If you're still confused about this, look up the meaning of sentient in the dictionary.

And the Award Goes to...

      

                          

Seth MacFarlane and Emma Stone managed to bring a little humour and even an edge of satire into the announcements of the nominations for this years Oscars. An event usually marked by it's complacency, apathy and significant levels of disinterest from all, with the exception of the nominees. The most notable aspects of the presentation was the reference to several of the actor nominations and those people 'who had won before' and that it was nice to see some variation in the nominations.

With the ceremonies themselves being even closer together this year than before, the general relevance of them to the overall public influence has dropped even further. My favourite films of the past few years; Inception, The Dark Night Rises, Drive, Toy Story 3 and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy have either been snubbed, received minimal nominations and most significantly have all missed out on the coveted Best Director or Best Picture.  Toy Story 3 did win Best Animated feature, but only after completing the final chapter of one of the best movie trilogies of all time. Alongside Chris Nolan's  Batman films.

Based largely on anecdotal evidence, but also on what I've seen on sale in shops for a long-time since release, it seems that beyond the initial hype that draws people in, the films which actually go onto win the awards aren't held in that high regard for much time after. Or rather, even if these films are held in high regard, it's only alongside those which were 'snubbed' at the time of nominations.

Aside from Colin Paterson who has a encyclopedic knowledge of awards, who won what and how often. I don't know that people actually know or indeed care about which films are previous winners. Films which are often cited as long-living classics (i.e. Citizen Kane) were in fact 'neglected' or indeed 'snubbed' by the awards at the time of release.

Ultimately, they all just blend into one great melange of self-indulgence, brown-nosing and irrelevance. As Ricky Gervais' repeat performances at the Golden Globes demonstrates. It's only uncomfortable, because it's so close to the truth. Nobody really understands how the Oscars voting system works, nor do people really have any interest. Unless you're this man:

                                             

(It's Harvey Weinstein, he'll be on the internet somewhere)

Jessops: The latest casualty of Online Shopping

Edit: Since this blog was firs published, Jessops has closed down entirely. My thoughts go out to those now seeking employment.

Note: This blog is based on my personal experiences and no locations will be given. I realise that the possibility of losing your job is horrible and that going into administration is a very serious matter. This is just my own perspective.

                      

Location: A Jessops High street store

(Customer walks into store, looks at a selection of Canon cameras)
Shop Assistant: Hello sir, can I help you?
Customer: Yes, I'd like to look at a Canon 50mm f1.8 (about £90) lens please
Shop Assistant: Ok, I'll be right back.
(Shop assistant returns with a Nikon 50mm f1.2 (about £600, and the wrong make)
Customer: That's the wrong make, it won't fit my camera, and it's six times the price of the one which I had intended to purchase.
Shop Assistant: (with blank expression) Isn't it cross compatable? I'm sure they are, you're using a Canon and I'm sure that they fit Canon.

It was experiences like this, alongside pretty horrendous mark-ups, that put me off buying from my local Jessops. I do have friend's who've worked for Jessops and am aware that they would never do something as idiotic as the example above. The broader point though, is that Jessops' business plan seems to have been something akin to constantly balancing more and more empty cans without any support or ballast hoping that they wouldn't fall over.

The company has been in existence since 1935 and I know that it would be a travesty for it to disappear. I know that going into administration isn't the equal to liquidation but there will certainly be fewer Jessops on the high street. The problem with a store like Jessops is much like that which forced Comet out of business. Stores which thrive on selling expensive products, with only a limited amount of day to day items that people are likely to purchase, it's a difficult endeavour.

Whilst Supermarkets do sell expensive electronics, they also sell very cheap products. This is why they can become so successful, and continue to stay open. People will always need food. They will not always need cameras. I've brought 2 cameras in 2 years, both of them second hand and whilst I have brought accessories for them both, Jessops has more often than not been the most expensive (and least helpful) option.

I do have anecdotal accounts of Jessops shop assistants being directed to sell DSLRs when in fact what the customer needs is a compact. Or the example above of bringing out the completely wrong lens, putting me off ever going back into the store. As I said before, I'm not trying to tarnish them all with the same brush but these are genuine experiences. In a world where the High Street store carries less and less value from the perspective of the consumer, no one wants a bad reputation.

This isn't a fault with the individuals but rather with the companies training program. If someone who works for you can't tell the difference between Canon and Nikon, or more likely doesn't realise that their products are not cross-compatible, the fault lies with the person that gave the assistant the ok to go out and interact with the public. On this occasion, as with everytime such a thing has happened to me, I explained that that's not the case and that I would need a Canon fit. Not everyone is so polite.

It would seem that the overall business strategy of continuing to open more and more stores as the economic situation remains stagnate and people have less disposable income year on year is a deeply flawed one. In truth though, the Photography service business has taken a serious hit in the past decade since Jessops opened their 200th store in the shape of Digital Photography and cheap home printing. Photo sharing is now something done primarily online and people simply don't have the need to get photos developed and printed.

When was the last time you actually looked at a photo album? Let put one together using shop purchased prints from negatives. No, I can't remember either. It was probably sometime around 2003. The truth is that from a purely consumerist perspective we don't actually need shops like Jessops. We can get our photos developed via post, print our own photos on the machines in Boots, get all the advice we need from online blogs and reviews and easily return a camera to the online store we brought it from if we decide that it's the wrong one for us. It's sad but true.

Shopping is becoming increasingly dehumanised, which is great if you're neurotic, but some of us actually like to buy things from real people.

What Politicians could learn from David Bowie, or how to stay interesting in an increasing boring world

                                            

David Cameron wonders how he can get the plebs as excited as David Bowie did.

The internet nearly exploded with excitement this morning, and ordinary people felt like famous people on Twitter were their friend's as they all shared the collective experience of hearing the new song from Ziggy Stardust creator David Bowie. Now, I should be honest from the start and say that beyond his cameo in extras and the Father Ted episode which features three appearance of Elvis and a brief slaughtering of 'Ziggy played guitar' I know almost nothing of David Bowie or his music. What I'm not going to do, is offer yet another opinion to the mire on a song when I can't compare it to the artists other work.

What is more interesting about the release of the single, the upcoming album and the assumptions that there will be a tour is the reaction to the news. The main talking point of much of the coverage of the story was the fact that Bowie hasn't performed live since 2006 and 'has barely been seen in public' a phrase which translates as 'has managed to live his life relatively privately and let others take the limelight'. As such, the release of the new single comes without the weight of the past 7 years of Bowie's non-music life. Increasing the chances of it being judged on musical merits rather than hype. 

Unlike Paul McCartney, who many people just want to disappear quietly, or at least never sing again (I did say after the Olympics that dying might not be such a bad thing for Sir Paul - as it would prevent him from further alienating himself from the British public) Bowie has retained an air of mystery in an age when everyone knows everything and knowledge is there at the touch of a button. Questions which could, in the past have taken hours or days to answer, and which required a competent navigation of Dewey Decimal system can now be asked by a four year old. You don't even have to be able to spell as Google will patronisingly correct you. 

Staying relatively anonymous has now become a harder task than getting noticed. More and more it is possible for people to say contentious things on social media and then get noticed, not caring what is said about them. Only that stuff is being said and that they are the headline topic. For all of three minutes. 

The title of Bowie's single 'Where are we now?' is as ambiguous a statement as it is broad. A question which could be applied to any number of subjects, but which when viewed from a certain historical perspective (it's a decade since Bowie released any new music) a awful lot has changed about the world and as we enter the year that wasn't supposed to be, if you believed the Mayan's that is, it's a fair point to make, where exactly in the overall course of human history are we? Sure, we can tell where we are geographically, but probably not morally. 

What then, is the lesson that not just Politicians, but many more people besides, could learn from Bowie after today. In short, it's that keeping your head down and not saying anything until it is absolutely worth saying does you a lot of favours. There is a distinct surreality to the way in which politicians now give their statements, with new correspondents often saying '[Politician] is expected to say [main point of politicians speech slightly reworked by the press officer] later today'. There is no mystery, yet at the same time there has never been more mystery.

I'm never going to like David Cameron, but I'd have a little less disdain and perhaps a little more respect, if he wasn't constantly on the television. I might just be agnostic about the quality of Michael McIntyre's comedy if he wasn't grinning stupidly in a poster at every sodding train station and bus stop. Yes, David Bowie is an artist legend and yes, I'm sure that even if his new single was a reinterpretation of 'My Lovely Horse'  people's heads would still be exploding with excitement. But he's managed to remain relevant and culturally interesting without inviting television cameras into his home or letting 3 million people on Twitter know when he's just had a coffee.

If everyone did what they did best, and didn't try to do everything else. Things could be a whole lot better.

Thanks Nigel, but we're all glad you don't want to be PM

                     
                        

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage realises that this is as good as it gets.

In an interview he gave today to the Grauniad the android faced leader of the UK Independence Party. Plane crash survivor and slightly righter-right winger Nigel Farage confessed that he 'doesn't ever want to to be Prime Minister'. This will come as a relief to some, but only a few. As there can only be a few people who would ever genuinely consider becoming worried about the possibility of a UKIP-led Government. Granted that it is more likely than one led by Nick Clegg. 

That he would consider entering into a coalition with the Tories is no surprise. What would be a surprise would be if it were to actually happen. Those people who paid particular attention to the last General Election in 2010  may recall a brief time when a few of us held out for a Labour-Lib-Small Parties Coalition. It was never going to happen. Unless the Tory and UKIP votes both increase significantly in 2015, they'll both find themselves without a majority. Unless they side with the BNP.

Dear old Dishface put his foot in the racial row back in 2006 by calling UKIP 'closet racists'. They're not racist, just, as the interview demonstrates, overly idealistic about Britain and their hopes for what 'Great Britain' means. That Farage laments not being able to have a drink in the country pub on a Sunday afternoon feels terribly nostalgic. The problem with nostalgia being that it recalls only the best of times. So yes, a Britain with Country Pubs, independence from the EU and all the shops closed on a Sunday would be nice. I'm not so sure about rationing, mainstream fascism, sexism and widespread poverty are quite such appealing aspects of the 20th Century which Farage and pals would like to see return.

I'm not a Royalist, but I don't hate the Queen, I just don't think we should pay for her. I'm a liberal but I don't think that there is a conspiracy of the Right to screw us all out of our Pensions. Nor do I think that Higher Education should necessarily be something paid for entirely by those who don't choose to take that path. I'm what most people call a human being, with opinions just like any other human being and whether or not you agree with me. You don't have any reason to hate me, or call me crazy. 

Nigel Farage isn't bonkers, despite what he says about the kind of people he wants in his party. There are aspects of his views with which I sympathise (hey, in 2001, UKIP campaigned on the basis of keeping the Pound - which in hindsight was a pretty wise move). What I find objectionable about Nigel Farage, I actually find to be a fundamental flaw with politicians as a whole. A tendency to over-zealous rhetoric and the constant quest to give out the right kind of soundbite. 

UKIP are at best the presentable face of reactionary politics - although 99% of political posturing is reactionary as it is. I don't doubt that they have views beyond Britain leaving Europe, an Englishmans right to his pint and an objection to Gay Marriage based on outdated ideological views. 

On that last topic Nigel is actually a good example of the typical psuedo-Anglican who gets enraged about the fact that two people of the same gender can get married in the place where they go for Christmas, Easter, Funerals, Christenings and (straight) Weddings. On the basis of which I should be able to say that all Wetherspoons should serve Michelin Star Food and have table service. I mean, I go there about once every two months (more often that Farage goes to church) so I have the right to make a claim about how the place should be run, despite knowing noting about how to run a budget pub chain. 

In truth, not that many people will care about Farage not gunning for 10 Downing Street. For two reasons; firstly, the chances of him actually getting there are incredibly slim and secondly, he'd have to be tied into a Coalition deal to actually get a foot in the door so it's unlikely that much legislation would ever get through during his time in office. So not that different to the current establishment then.

That said, stranger things have happened. This man is going to run for election again, after getting clear of jail thanks to a piece of legislation which he ensured passed into law:

               

Oh World. You are funny.

  

It's Peter File, not Paedophile, or Paediatrician for that matter

                                           

Fictional Character Peter File released after case of public illiteracy.

I was first introduced to the concept of 'moral panics' when a friend of mine at University was discussing his dissertation on the hysteria surrounding MDMA. His investigation was into the cause of moral panics and the effect which global media has upon them. Although it may seem to be a forgone conclusion, where you come to the decision that 24 hours news networks and social media make every kind of public outcry into a near-breakdown of civilisation. 

In all truth, what social media and global news actually does is reduce the overall impact of a story because instead of learning about it from a stern-faced news reader we actually get it in dribs and drabs from complete strangers on the internet. It was no surprise to me then to learn that Jim Davidson had been arrested as a part of Operation Yewtree, slang name 'Jimmy Savile Paedo Investigation'. The link to which many people were subsequently jumping was that 'he's a paedo' when in actuality he'd been arrested 'on suspicion of sexual offences' a very important distinction. And one which we should all be aware of when discussing the subject.

I don't need to recount the now cult-like status which the final episode of Brasseye has taken on, and the accompanying moral manic (incidentally, the episode is now available in full on the Channel 4 website). You do have to sign up for an account to view it though, so perhaps they're monitoring what type of people watch the satirical show and are starting to consider whether or not  a follow-up would appeal. Or not. The outcry at the Brasseye episode, and the subsequent attacks on paediatricians  lifted what was a relatively niche entertainment program into infamy. The irony being that the reaction the show gained was identical to that which it was mocking.

The events which led to the instigation of Operation Yewtree are clearly horrible but they have caused the worst aspect of moral panics. The po-faced academic discussion of the topic. In this case; sexual politics, gender rights, the nature of the media and general pussyfooting around the topic of the medical causes of paedophilia . It's not that these topics shouldn't be discussed, rather it is that it takes a crime to provide the catalyst for the discussion in the first place. It also gives people with less sense and more time to flood message boards and comment threads with notions as out-dated as the suggestion that sexual harassment is ok in the workplace.

Paedophilia is a trigger word for moral panic. It's like tax-evasion, child murder or spending cuts. They're all words and phrases which provoke a knee-jerk reaction whereby the actual story gets lost in all of the words being thrown around like tomatoes at Tomentina. To the point where everyone is just covered in red stuff and there is no way of actually distinguishing any one single point out of the mess that is left behind.

In some ways the attempt to rationalise paedophilia through abstract discussion of it as a medical condition is  worse than going crazy about it. At least when you post an ill-worded and badly spelt comment on a website, your views are clear and easy to understand. Academic discussion of a subject is an attempt by people who consider themselves too clever and rational to panic to make everyone realise just how level headed and rational they really are, whilst in their head they're no different to Dave from East Barnett. All angry and misunderstood by their peers so they are forced to vent via the Internet.

I'm concious that I'm not doing anything to aid the situation, and that there is an irony is talking about how we should all really stop talking about something. Even though that it isn't actually my point. It's important that taboo subjects are addressed and calling for sense and sensitivity via the Internet isn't going to do much. If you do agree with me though, how about not discussing the accusations against Jim Davidson until we know a little more, perhaps until the Police, or Jim himself decide to make a statement.

Moral panics are very much like Tomentina, everyone goes crazy for a short period of time. We all become disorientated and all we know is that what we're doing is ok because everyone else it doing it. Whereas someone on the periphery will have every right to think that you're all just insane.

When everyone loses their shit and goes crazy, it's hard to not get covered in the stuff.  None of us are innocent or immune in this panic, unless you're a hermit. In which case, you've now involved yourself in the shit-slinging by reading this blog.

Good work. 

Happy New Year, By the way, you should've renewed your Season Ticket in December

  

                                    

The news that President Obama had avoided the 'fiscal cliff'' (no, me neither) cemented the fact that we were  guaranteed some gloomy financial news in Britain. Arriving right when expected, unlike many things in life, the annual blackmail of commuters was yet again hiked today. Rail fares across the country were raised by an average of 3.9%. I know that this may seem to be a relatively low number, and that for people who drive to work getting fuel at the best price constant gamble between convenience and the little red warning light inducing panic.

In reality though, fuel prices haven't actually risen much in the past 18 months. They've fluctuated heavily but if you were to take an average across the last year and half since I brought my old car, the biggest price change has been caused by driving between counties and vendors. Rail fares on the other hand have risen consistently year on year causing a real term rise of 50% over a ten year period. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't think of many examples of jobs where people's average salary has done the same.

It's not like cost of just existing has become any easier. And Gideon seems determined to make it still worse.

I know that I am extremely lucky to be in a job where my day to day travel comes under expenses (saving me about £100 a month) but I still feel justified in my animosity towards the rail companies given that I've been using trains on a regular basis for the past seven years. I've not noticed any real improvement in service, yes there have been some fancy new trains in the past 10 years but this doesn't make the quality of the service any better.

I am also conscious that rail companies have been spending money on stations attempting to catch more fare dodgers and thereby keep the costs down for those of us who actually pay for our train travel. However, the railway organisation is a mess, it is perfectly possible for track, station and train all to be owned and therefore maintained by three separate companies, dependent upon where you are travelling.

I'm not old enough to remember British Rail, but I do recall the complete cock-up of Railtrack and the subsequent cost to the taxpayer. Yes, things are probably better now than they were, and maybe they'll get better. It's not like we're exactly being filled with confidence though, the recent case of the West Coast Omnishambles   is sign enough that this government is just as incompetent as the last (and probably the next) when it comes to dealing with big businesses where the PM isn't personal friends with the Dark Overlord.

The national railway system is still subsidised by the Government, yet the rail companies continue to make a healthy profit. I'm not a trained economist, and I'm not claiming that I could do anything better. But I still can't help but feel like there has to be a better way to deal with the situation. Happy 2013 everyone, at least the rail fares won't rise for another year so that's something to celebrate!

Yay!