Rich Man Joins Social Network! Fails to Engage the Lower Classes!

As of about 8.15am, on Wednesday 20h March 2013, Gideon 'George' Osbourne joined the quagmire of nonsense that is Twitter. Not that anyone will really care after about 5 minutes of realising and once they've sent one tweet expressing their opinion of him. His first foray into the muddy waters was a brief, not overly insightful and rather self-indulgent:

'Today I'll present a Budget that tackles the economy's problems head on helping those who want to work hard & get on'

It was made worse by the use of this picture as an accompaniment:

                                       
I won't spend any time attempting to present some form of analysis of the picture, how it's structured or what it says about Gideon's PR people. I'll just settle for stating the obvious; it's clearly faked as no one can actually write with a suitcase on their desk. He's also holding his pen next to a typed section - with no sign of wet ink in sight - but I'm going to leave the analysis to the experts/ obsessives/ people who have nothing better to do than write sprawling blog entries about politicians vague attempts to engage with the public.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the decision taken by Gideon's team to introduce him to Twitter, or what effect they think it'll have on his non-existent popularity. If anything it'll just give people an easy avenue through which they can vent their fury at the 'verified' account of one of the many incompetent people charged with the job of running the country.

Not that Gideon's team would ever let him actually look at the replies for fear of him feeling bullied and wondering 'why the peasants don't like what I'm doing'.

So as to not disregard all analysis, I should point out that what I can skim from the phrasing of this introduction, notably the reference to 'work hard and get on' aside from opening up possibilities for cheap innuendo, is that it's a phrase which will please the right-wing press as it'll mean they can say 'OSBOURNE ATTACKS BENEFIT SCROUNGERS IN BUDGET'. This is somewhat ironic given the stereotypical demographic of such newspapers.

I am also glad that he is hoping to present a budget which will 'tackle the economy's problems' as if there was another option; 'a budget which won't really help anyone except those who are too rich to care, like me'.  It is after all, the job of the Government to make sure that things don't go all Greek over here. Or Spanish, Portuguese, Icelandic...

Ultimately though, I do rather wish that politicians would spend less time attempting to interact with people via social networks and spend more time getting on with the job which they are paid to do. A shocking and controversial opinion I know. If this latest foray into the 21st Century is being thought of as an attempt to 'digitalise' those in power and 'engage with the big web of chatter' that is the internet. Then I must once again ask you this; do you really think that anyone who doesn't already follow the news either online, television, radio or print will somehow be introduced to Gideon now that he's come down to their level? I doubt it.

I like to have some insight and analysis with my news, and I don't always like it to come straight from the horses mouth, as by the time it's reached it there have already been numerous meetings to finalise each and every syllable which he will then say to the press such that it needs an interpreter to actually work out what was 'not' being said. There's going to be hundreds of blogs about Gideon, Twitter and the Budget today.

Isn't the internet fun.

In Defense of Utopia, or why reality hurts

                         

I've always been queasy about eyes, this only compounded the horror

I got into a discussion this morning, via Twitter, with one-man comedy band Mitch Benn. It began after I responded to his query about continuing with Channel 4's Utopia beyond the first two episodes, because of the unrelenting cruelty implied, if not actually portrayed, on screen. Although this discussion was more about the actual merits of the show (story, characters etc) rather than simply about the violence, it feels impossible to separate the two.

Utopia is one of the darkest, and most disturbing tv shows to be made in Britain in a long while, it is also incredibly violent - but more in the vein of Funny Games rather than Saw. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the violence depicted in the show, and it really does hurt. The most shocking aspect of this being the violence towards/ in front of, children. An issue which, itself, is deeply unsettling. Irrelevant of context or timing.

I don't want to give anything away about Utopia as the less you know the better, and the most controversial scenes have been well-documented elsewhere. There has been a handful of complaints to Ofcom about the show's use of violent imagery, and whether or not it is appropriate in light of recent events (although that doesn't seem to me to be a strong enough argument - 'it would be ok, if it didn't remind us of real stuff'). Needless to say, Utopia is violent in such a way as to haunt the viewers. Neil Maskell is genuinely terrifying, but there is more to his character than meets the eye. I won't say any more, what with spoilers and all.

The news that there had been complaints about the violence in the show didn't surprise me. But then again, I don't think that the complaints were necessarily justified. Here's why: at no point, not for one single moment, does Utopia attempt to make the violence anything other than horrific. It uses it for narrative, and isn't gratuitous.

Another show currently being shown on Channel 4, an hour earlier than Utopia (10pm, Tuesday) and on a Saturday evening (when younger viewers are more likely to see it) is the latest epic adaptation of an equally 'epic' novel by Ken Follet; World Without End. A show which has it's roots in history, it's definitively more of a piece of slock entertainment. In the vein of shows such as HBO's Game of Thrones (more of which in a minute) W.W.E is just as violent as Utopia and is more explicit.

Over four hours (or three episodes) there have been brutal fights, hangings, mutilations, disembowelments, rape, gratuitous (female) nudity and a docker's load of contemporary cussing. Episode Three saw a young girl raped before one of her attackers was partially hung before being disemboweled. We saw the lot, guts and everything. As far as I am aware, there have been no complaints about this show. Despite it's use of violence as entertainment, historical context or not.

Game of Thrones is equally gratuitous, sweary, and full of more female nudity than the American Pie movies. It revels in all forms of violence and has no shame in showing a daughter be forced to watch her father get beheaded, and then forced to look at his head on a pole. There was also one scene in the second series, which implied a grotesque act of sexual violence by one prostitute against another under the duress of the vile King Joffrey. Again though, this was accompanied by some nice nudity beforehand.

Oh, and there was a horse having it's throat slit open so as to resurrect somebody.

The reason why GoT, W.W.E and much more of their ilk don't ignite such outrage is that they don't hurt. Yes, there isn't any violence against children or at least, none that we actually see, but there is a thoroughly misogynistic trait that runs through both. Particularly through the sexual violence portrayed.

The film adaptation (Original Swedish - haven't seen the American Version) of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo features horrific sexual violence, but at no point is it made too explicit, with the camera turning away at the worst moments but equally it is made to feel all too real. This is what makes us feel such a deep sense of discomfort when we watch it.

Now, I'm all for gratuitous violence, I enjoyed the heck out of Django Unchained and have a real affection for the ultra-violence of most of Tarantino's work (excluding Kill Bill and Death Proof). In Django there is a distinct contrast between the comedic violence of slave-owners getting their head's shot to pieces, and the horrendous treatment of slaves. The film contrasts both of these distinct forms of violence, and whilst it doesn't make any great political point, it doesn't revel in the forced cruelty.

Utopia was never going to be for everyone, and it may be that you found it disengaging. But, and this is an important but, as a show, Utopia is discreet in its use of violence. We see people going to do horrible things, we see indications of the consequences and worst of all we hear these things being done. At no point though, do we feel encouraged to enjoy the violence. Even an act of retribution is made to seem as horrible, despite how people might think they should feel.

Every time there is a violent act in a normally non-violent community we hear about how we are being 'desensitised to violence' and how 'accurate portrayals of violence are making it appealing'. When death and murder is accurately portrayed, it is anything but appealing. Yes, World Without End is set in a time when violent public executions were justified as a deterrent  (and still are in certain parts of the world) as well as entertainment (character at the end of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves 'I loves a good hanging, I does'),  but then did the last 600 years not happen?

Ok, so perhaps that was a little over the top. However, I still can't escape the feeling that maybe, just maybe there is something of a hypocrisy in a television audience who are fine with rape, beheading, disembowelling  etc but consider the implied murder of a child a step too far.

It's certainly not a straightforward issue, but at least Utopia showed the violence for what it is, rather than over-exaggerating it to distance it enough so that we feel comfortable in finding it entertaining.

'Violence begets violence and it's all horrible' - Mark Kermode, on the message of Wes Craven's 'The Last House on the Left'

I'm no Economist, but I can't escape the feeling that if we just stopped fiddling, the world would sort itself out

                                

Money, money, money, no one really understands what to do with it

At the end of last week, the EU leaders agreed on a 'historic' budget for the next seven years of something like £900bn. The actual figure was calcuated in Euros, but when you're dealing with numbers of this size, currency and exchange rates are pretty irrelevant. We'd be better off just saying 'a lot of money' or 'more money that any of us could ever really conceive of in any tangible way. It was also apparently a 'Victory' for DC as he'd achieved a 'cut' in the overall budget, but Britain's contributions were going to continue to rise. Meaning that Nigel Farage had an excuse to get on tv again, something which none of us really want. 

On the subject of Mr Farage, I'd like to take this opportunity to quote a tweet, of which I cannot recall the author, but whoever they are this is their joke: 'Voting UKIP because you don't like Labour or the Tories is like saying "I don't like Coke or Pepsi so I'll drink piss"'. 

It's unlikely that any of us will actually feel any noticable effect of the new deal with Europe, not that that justifies an obfuscation of the matter, as it does remain important. The point which I'm trying to make here is that getting up and angry about the actual economics seems to be a waste of time, unless you're an economist who understands what the problems (or otherwise) are with the way the deal has been done and why such large sums of money are being passed around in cyberspace. 

It's a similar issue with many of the broad sweeping cuts and the headlines that accompany them. Take this story for example 'Inheritance tax freeze to fund social care cap of £75,000'. In principle, I understand what they're trying to achieve. Which is people not having to pay for care when they reach retirement age, I can also see that what Jeremy *unt is attempting to do is tax people who get a large inheritance in order to pay for those who don't have much left to give when they die as they've sold it all to pay for care. 

Actually, this is a relatively straightforward example of how the Government is trying to make things better, however, as you read down the article it soon becomes clear that things are going to cost £Xbn or £Ym making the entire plan seem grossly over-complicated. This is accompanied by the news that the UK Economy 'slipped back towards recession in the last quarter of 2013'. What does that actually mean though?! When growth is less than 0.5% the only people who seem to be getting concerned over the economics are economists. 

Despite the fate of both Jessops and HMV in the first month of January (the latter of which is downsizing but looks to be moving towards some kind of resolution) for many other business (including the small business for which I work) business has greatly improved in the first 6 weeks of the new year.  

Why Gove's U-Turn on Assessment is Demonstrative of the Power of Speech, and how the Coalition can actually be for the better.

Sorry Govey, you've lost this one mate. 

Although it might seem odd, and somewhat eccentric, I almost cheered on a crowded train when I first read that Michael Gove had been forced to scrap his plans for a new (old) exam system in Britain for 16 year olds. A joke which I should credit to Andy Hamilton; 'Michael Gove wants us to return to the exam system that produced Michael Gove'; pretty much says it all about why we should be worried about any plans which he has to 'reform' education. 

I'd become a known bore on the subject of Gove and his pans to ruin future generations by saddling them with a single percentage instead of a grade and reducing their entire 12 years of education to a single day and a single paper. I had been somewhat skeptical that the plans would actually get through  and survive another Government. Given that they were due to be instigated until 2015. The year when the next election is due. 

I'm not anti-reform of the system, and I do think that there does need to be a re-think of the competition which has been introduced by having numerous exam boards. Having a centralised exam board would solve accountancy problems, but it would leave them unaccountable to anyone else. Anyone who has been through University will be aware that it can take months for work to be returned due to it being looked at  by 'External Markers' a.k.a Academics from other Universities who mark the work independently to ensure that everyone is being assessed on a level playing field. Although there is an argument that this could be done by teachers from different schools. It's a thorny issue to say the least.

How we assess people's ability at 16 has become less significant since the introduction of compulsory education until the age of 18, where qualifications have become more of a 'stepping stone' to the next stage rather than anything else. It is important that people's strength's and weaknesses are determined and I don't favour the complete eradication of assessment at 16, but it's a subject which should be dealt with lightly. As the decisions made will have major consequences on thousands of lives. 

A lot of that is beside the point today however, when what we are acknowledging is the power of objection to reforms by the adults most qualified to make the decisions about how children should be assessed. I'm not going to reproduce the details here, I'll instead harness the power of the internet and give you a link to the superb piece in the Guardian, which has all the details you need, here's that link.

It is also a sign that having a Coalition Government can be for the better. Whatever people may think of  the Lib Dems, they have had a hand in stopping Gove in his tracks. I'm not going to rake over old ground and re-ignite discussions about the morality (or otherwise) of making people pay for Higher Education, as that's not relevant here. 

After a week which started with a debate in parliament over whether or not people are 'equal' in today's society, we're looking to finish it with the news that whilst things might need to change, it needs more thought than just being nostalgic. 

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)