tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13170781327458551182024-03-15T05:13:36.057-07:00A comfortable placeI'm trying this out to see if it works; seems to be working so farRob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.comBlogger383125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-24629399711915214382024-03-15T05:12:00.000-07:002024-03-15T05:12:49.335-07:00The shadow of covid<p> First published in <a href="https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-shadow-of-covid-74836.html">LibDemVoice</a> on Long Covid Awareness Day, March 15th, 2024.</p><p>Today is Long Covid Awareness day. It is strange that such a day should be necessary, given how many people’s lives Covid and Long Covid have touched in this country and around the world. Yet it is very necessary as the prevailing public discourse is that Covid is over, and it was never much of a problem to start with. Yet it still kills every week throughout the year, and an estimated 2 million people have Long Covid, affecting their health, and the country’s economy.</p><p>The ongoing Covid pandemic is a catastrophic example of the failures of the UK’s public health system. (I refer here primarily to English experience. The devolved administrations have done better than England, but are still affected to a large and tragic extent by the factors discussed below.) Covid requires both treatment and prevention, both medical and public health intervention, and both short and long term strategies with public, professional and political support.</p><p>The NHS did immensely well and the government moderately well in the initial phases; the public in general also did well in dealing with the restrictions and exigencies of lockdown. But there were clearly right from the beginning several negatives, which broadly compromised the capacity of public health approaches to be as effective as they could, and have badly compromised government action and professional and public response in the years since the emergency phase:</p><p>a) the instinctive reaction of our right wing governments that private provision must be better than public, so wasting billions of taxpayers’ pounds employing immensely expensive private firms to set up a ramshackle test and trace system rather than using existing public health capacity.</p><p>b) corruption in government, making sure for instance that funds for the provision of PPE went to their friends rather than to companies with proven track records in such provision.</p><p>c) vociferous anti-science and anti-clear thinking conspiracists given far too much air time on both social and traditional media.</p><p>d) a kind of neoliberal reductionism in which marginal increases in economic activity like enabling people to go to pubs again are valued far more than keeping people healthy; and school attendance is valued far more highly than reducing transmission – which has resulted in current high rates of absence of both children and teachers through sickness.</p><p>e) a refusal from government to take simple steps that might reduce transmission, such as ensuring air filtration in all classrooms and other public spaces which could easily and relatively cheaply have been done in the last four years.</p><p>f) short term and blinkered thinking in government and in public debate, in which the most important, and sometimes, the only important metric is death rates, leading us to ignore the creeping epidemic of long term illness and other forms of severe damage which Covid is wreaking on millions of people. We seem to be terrible at assessing long term risk: the fact that we got over a bout of Covid means we ignore the mountain of evidence that it will have done damage to one or more of our organs, which we will regret in ten or fifteen years time.</p><p>This is a massive failure on the part of our entire social and political system. All parties, including the LibDems, are complicit in downplaying and denying the damage this disease has done and is still doing to our health. Is it not time for the LibDems to find a bit of non-conformist spirit, and start saying what no other party will say – that Covid is still here, and we need to be taking it seriously?</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-81427341905252680242023-12-09T09:38:00.000-08:002023-12-09T09:38:40.156-08:00Covid, measurement and public health<p>Some thoughts, not necessarily connected.</p><p>The first is inspired by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/13/targeted-vaccination-of-vulnerable-groups-is-the-most-cost-effective-covid-strategy">a letter to the Guardian in September this year</a>. The writer criticised general vaccination measures as not cost effective when judged against hospital admissions and deaths. These are very short term and limited criteria.</p><p>There is now a mountain of evidence showing that, even among those who get covid mildly, the long term effects on their body is significant - albeit currently not detectable - with notably increased risk of cardiovascular problems, including heart attacks, compromising of kidneys, liver and other organs, increased likelihood of diabetes and other long term conditions, and more besides. And for those who are infected more than once, the effect and the risks increase with each infection. Not shielding everybody, even those in the rudest good health, is storing up a landslide of health conditions in ten or twenty years time that will dwarf the cost of a widespread and continuous vaccination programme. </p><p>Then there is also long covid, which is already causing a strain to the economy with hundreds of thousands in this country alone unable to work or contribute as they could if they were healthy. </p><p>I would argue also that we should be taking other precautions, for instance making normal the wearing of masks instead of privileging people's freedom to infect everybody around them. In all of this, my primary concern is enabling as many people as possible to live a life free of illness and disability, but in this context we are talking about money. If Professor Majeed would calculate the long term costs to the economy of illnesses made more likely by covid, I am sure he would re-evaluate his opinion on the cost-effectiveness of widespread vaccination. </p><p>And then there was another article about mental health: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/21/people-who-stuck-by-uk-covid-rules-have-worst-mental-health-says-survey">"People who stuck by UK Covid rules have worst mental health, says survey"</a>. I think we need a very serious examination of how much it was lockdown that damaged people's mental health, or the crazy and lethal messaging around it. UK public health practice and narrative wasn't just bad, it was actually destructive. Largely because driven by the squalid Johnson and his friends, as we have just been reminded by Boris Johnson’s blathering appearance at the Covid enquiry. If the people who stuck by the rules, who took responsibility and deprived themselves had been told constantly over the ensuing years that they had done the right thing, they would certainly be feeling a lot better now. </p><p>But the subtext beneath the government's messaging was always that being irresponsible was the right way to go, and very little credit was ever given to those who obeyed the rules to their own cost. How could it have been different when we had the most lethally irresponsible Prime Minister of modern times in charge, and an entire government either in thrall to him or looking to profit? </p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-11708737167079243312023-10-14T04:21:00.005-07:002023-10-15T04:17:46.488-07:00Johnson at 10<p>Seldon and Newell’s “Johnson at 10” is a deeply dispiriting book. I read it because a friend of mine with normally reliable opinions told me I really had to, as it contained such a stark and detailed portrayal of the depths Johnson was prepared to plumb. I didn’t much look forward to it, but agreed I would, and, because I’d agreed, I read it from start to finish. As I started, I reflected on the fact that I was pretty sure that nothing could make my opinion of Johnson any lower than it was already, but also prepared for the possibility that what I read might do just that.</p><p>It did. There wasn’t anything worse than we already knew about. But the sheer relentless detail of it made clear what an utter reprobate of a human being Johnson is with not one redeeming feature. He has a great gift with words, he can be charming, he can be nice, he can be generous (as long as it’s with other people’s money). None of those redeem his utter lack of morals. I recently heard of the concept of an “energy drain”, a person who is so negative that they drain the life out of you. I expect we all know one or two. Johnson is an integrity drain. Whatever integrity there is in a situation, Johnson’s very presence just drains it away. I knew that already, although I’ve only now coined the phrase. But the book confirmed for me in black and white, with no shades of grey in between, just what an integrity drain he is.</p><p>In its way this book will be seen as a contribution to the historical record. It is a detailed account, using many eye witness statements, and noting provenance where appropriate (though more of that a little later). It gives detailed and apparently accurate accounts of many events, issues and relationships in a period that will receive intense examination from future generations, not just out of macabre historical interest but also with a view to not making the same mistakes again. (On p470 the authors note a supreme irony with regard to a book entitled “How To Run A Government”: "Barber was chuffed to have been told that Johnson had read his book "How To Run A Government". (Johnson was a voracious reader, but this title sounds incongruous: a more implausible title for him to read would be hard to conceive.)" This passage is one of many showing – apparently – that they had no illusions about the man they were writing about.</p><p><br /></p><p>And yet. And yet.</p><p><br /></p><p>Throughout the book, through almost six hundred pages, every one packed with detail of how impossible it was for Johnson ever to do anything systematic or responsible, and comments which make it clear that the authors were completely aware of the person they are portraying, they repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly seem to be trying to find ways to exonerate him, to portray him as a man capable of goodness but somehow repeatedly mistaken, misled or falling short.</p><p>For example, the quote above about the inappropriateness of Johnson’s reading material is followed soon by p471 "[Rosenfield] was on a hiding to nothing from the start, doing a job no one wanted, working for an impossible man..."</p><p>Sandwiched between these two excoriating statements we find this: p470 "The appointment [of Barber] revealed Johnson at his best." There is no "best". Occasionally the shopping trolley points in the right direction. Occasionally Johnson's capacity to produce the right sounding words while meaning absolutely none of them, would fortuitously result in the right person being put into the right place. The authors mistake happenstance for moral character.</p><p>Earlier on they write of his victory speech after the 2019 election that he was "gracious in victory" (p135). He wasn't: he wrote words that made him seem gracious in victory. He's actually a human generative AI - "Johnson, write a speech that looks like one delivered by someone gracious in victory". Knowing what we know of Johnson – of which the authors have supplied thousands of examples in this book – we would need proof that he was actually being gracious rather than not. Later on we get references to his speeches about Ukraine. The same caveat applies: "Johnson, write me a speech about the invasion of Ukraine, Churchillian with echoes of Thatcher." And out it comes. Given everything Seldon and Newell have themselves said about Johnson, it is not believable that he actually meant any of it. Ukraine's need happened to coincide with Johnson's desires of the time, and that is all. Eton’s teaching of rhetoric has a great deal to answer for.</p><p>And so on throughout: p482 "Why did it all go wrong? Simple. Johnson repeated, though it's hard to believe, exactly the same three mistakes..." I don't find it hard to believe at all; and, given what they've written about him in the previous 481 pages, neither should they. The reason they write that "hard to believe" is that they still believe deep down that Johnson is somehow fundamentally a serious and decent man, and he has just made "mistakes". With a bit of guidance he could have been put on the right path. Everything they write about what he actually does shows that this is not true, is never true. These are not mistakes; they are the essence of Johnson.</p><p>And, having inserted that “hard to believe” they then add, just a couple of pages later: p484 "Johnson seemed to have learned little over his three successive regimes in no 10. There is no reason to believe that, were there ever to be a fourth regime, he would not make exactly the same mistakes." Absolutely right, no reason to believe it at all, yet they still seem to want to.</p><p>As I noted above, the book is buttressed with contemporary evidence - notes of and conversations with participants in the chaos. But the forgiving asides they insert are not often so buttressed. I have not made a detailed analysis of all the phrases, but it seemed to me as I read that more often than not such forgiving asides were not supported by evidence. From the same section of the book, here is an example: p478 "For all his frustrations with Mirza he mourned being abandoned by his moral compass." If you want to make a statement about Johnson’s inner feelings, you must have detailed evidence from a contemporary source who was close to Johnson, very close. No such evidence is offered. Quite aside from the lack of evidence, this is an astounding sentence. They have demonstrated repeatedly in the book that there is no room for a moral compass anywhere in Johnson's life. How can they let themselves, after all they've said about him, actually believe that he would in any way respond to a moral compass? Particularly as she resigned because of an egregiously immoral statement about Starmer failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, and then equally immorally – as they themselves explain - not apologising after he promised her he would.</p><p>And so they continue. In chapter 10 (“Downfall” with a presumably deliberate, but distasteful, echo of Hitler’s last days) after examining all the possible culprits, they exonerate them all, and conclude that it was Johnson who brought Johnson down. Pp564-5: "An ability to govern is the most crucial of all qualities Prime Ministers need to display... Johnson never understood how to be Prime Minister or how to govern." They're right - and he was never going to. Even while examining the death throes of his Prime Ministership, they insist that he was capable of learning. “He could improve in some areas where he could learn from repeated errors…”. I have never seen a man less capable of learning than Johnson - at least unless the learning were of immediate benefit to him. And immediately after saying this - well, to be precise, two pages later, they say "He never listened, never learned, never changed: he never believed he had done anything wrong." Their summary of his personal weaknesses on p567, ending with a quote "He possessed a chronic aversion to the truth, lying morning noon and night", is devastating.</p><p>P577: "his most successful performance, showing he was capable of taking effective decisions and producing statesmanlike leadership in response to the invasion of Ukraine. It was no coincidence that his best moment was in a area where he had learned from experience". I doubt there was any learning, and I do not see any effectiveness or statesmanlike actions over this period. He was not "being" statesmanlike, he was playing being statesmanlike as he always did. What made him successful on this occasion was that - completely fortuitously - what he was good at was what was demanded. The Ukraine crisis combined two things he likes to do most of all a) be a showman b) spend other people's money - both of which have been a lifelong habit. There was very little serious decision making – all he had to do was to headline what everybody else wanted. There was no genuine concern for the people of Ukraine; we know, for example, that his trips to Ukraine were generally timed to take the spotlight off moments of domestic difficulty. The facts that it was in a good cause, and one that everybody else rallied round to, are merely fortuitous. Perhaps they're right to call it a "successful performance", because that is what it was, a performance. On a stage. For the consumption of the media.</p><p>Right to the end, they're desperate to portray him as capable of being serious. p579 "Had he been prepared to work harder and in a more systematic way, as affirmed by those working at his shoulder, he would have achieved…". Every piece of evidence brought up in the 578 previous pages demonstrates that that was never going to happen. Johnson is not capable, and never was, of hard or systematic work.</p><p>The final sentences read, p582 "Johnson had the potential, the aspirations and the opportunity to be one of Britain's great Prime Ministers. His unequivocal exclusion from that club can be laid at the feet of no one else, but himself." I agree with every word of that, except one, "potential" - it ought to be blindingly clear to the authors as well as to everyone who has read what they have written, that Johnson never had the potential to be great. He has a very strong and very defined character, with no moral compass whatsoever: his character excludes greatness. It makes him incapable of system or responsibility.</p><p>Thus it is a useful book because of the wealth of historical evidence it contains. But also a book whose analytical aspect is fatally flawed by the authors’ consuming need to find mitigations for one of the most squalid characters of all time.</p><p>Updated 15 Oct 23 to correct typos.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-31438412381571187572023-10-07T06:36:00.001-07:002023-10-07T06:36:40.977-07:00Restore Trust has changed the way I vote in National Trust elections<p>Restore Trust has changed the way I vote in National Trust elections, which is ultimately unhelpful for the long term robustness of the National Trust.</p><p>Several seats on the governing body come up for re-election every year. The council recommend those they think best. Up till now I have looked at all the candidates. I usually accepted most of the council's recommendations, but substituted one or two choices of new candidates who I thought would bring fresh thinking or fresh skills to the council.</p><p>I don't do that any longer. I accept the council's recommendations in their entirety. The danger of a Restore candidate getting in because of a council recommendation not getting votes is too great a risk. <a href="https://acomfortableplace.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-resistible-rise-of-restore-trust.html">I outline in another post</a> the reasons why I find Restore Trust dangerous for the National Trust and ultimately dangerous for what is left of our democracy.</p><p>I think it is a shame that I find it necessary to vote in this way, because it reduces the possibility of vibrant new opinions finding their way on to the council. But I will continue to do that as long as it thwarts Restore Trust's regressive, destructive, anti-democratic agenda.</p><p>I have also looked at the resolutions, some of which are supported by Restore Trust. Again, it is clear that the resolutions they support are not designed to improve governance or democracy, but to make it easier for Restore Trust to promote their own deceitful agenda. I shall vote in line with the Trustees’ recommendations in all cases. </p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-9806115733258988032023-09-08T04:27:00.000-07:002023-09-08T04:27:01.214-07:00The Resistible Rise of Restore Trust<p> ‘Tis the season for National Trust voting again. And once again Restore Trust have posted their very helpful list of people not to vote for.</p><p>Restore Trust thinks the National Trust has a problem. Or, to be more accurate, Restore Trust wants the rest of us to think the National Trust has a problem. On the face of it, Restore Trust are very nice people. But there is a not so very hidden agenda.</p><p>First of all, they claim to be independent. They claim that having an office at 55, Tufton Street is just coincidence. 55, Tufton Street houses a bunch of opaque organisations with right wing libertarian and climate sceptic agendas. Their common feature, apart from their very right wing politics, is their opaqueness. Restore Trust claimed not to be connected to any other organisation there until it was pointed out that board member Neil Record was chair of the IEA and climate change deniers Net Zero Watch. Restore Trust’s director, Zewditu Gebreyohanes, previously worked at Policy Exchange, which is described by George Monbiot as “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/08/rspb-ministers-wildlife-charity-power-britain#:~:text=it%20as%20a-,dark%20money,-lobby%20group%2C%20and">a dark money lobby group, and one of the most deadly anti-environmental organisations in the UK</a>”. They claim that all their funding is from small donors without revealing any of the sources – in common with most if not all the other tenants of Tufton Street.</p><p>They rely on imprecision, impression and deniability. For instance, the X (Twitter) handle RestoreTrustNT mimics National Trust practice, such as <a href="https://twitter.com/ClandonParkNT">ClandonParkNT</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/SheffieldParkNT">SheffieldParkNT</a>, giving the impression that they are connected to the main body. When pressed they will deny it, "Of course not, don't be silly", but the impression is there in the background.</p><p>They have a mantra - a form of words that gets repeated and repeated and repeated. In this case it is "get back to its original purpose". They provide little evidence that it has strayed from its initial purpose, and the evidence they do provide is very low quality. (More of that later.) They couch the idea of "original purpose" in their own language, without referring to the formal objects of the National Trust, which might not help their cause.</p><p>Such evidence as they use tends to get reused and repurposed over and over again, and is of very poor quality. The most notorious is the Hanbury Hall torchères, which they alleged had been removed because of a "woke agenda". Hanbury Hall corrected them, saying that the torchères were in a fragile state and had been removed from public view for protection and renovation. The inaccurate tweet has not been deleted, which would be standard practice for an organisation that respected the truth. <a href="https://twitter.com/RestoreTrustNT/status/1572874031396974599">(The tweet is here</a> - checked on Sept 8th 2023.)</p><p>You might wonder what would happen if the National Trust did all the things Restore Trust wants. But culture wars, such as the campaign Restore Trust is waging, are not about results. They don't care if the National Trust changes or not; what they want is to keep their audience angry, like Dacre's Daily Mail, just angry enough to keep supporting Restore Trust. If the National Trust changed everything to be the way Restore Trust says it wants them to be, Restore Trust would find something else to complain about. What they want is a constant state of pre-emptive resentment.</p><p>What is the end game? They don’t say. Apart from abolishing woke. But I have a notion. It comes in two forms. One is to be a permanent thorn in the flesh - that would suit them quite nicely, so that they can push Tufton Street's exploitative agenda in the culture sphere. The second is more ambitious, and, frankly for me more frightening. They would enjoy being in charge of the National Trust. They would enjoy having a majority on the Council, appointing a chief executive sympathetic to their aims. They could claim to have won and no doubt all reference to slavery would disappear from all NT properties. And Restore Trust would have a direct line to the minds of the National Trust's membership: nearly six million thoughtful British people (thoughtful, but mostly "unpolitical" hence ripe for cultivating). What might they do with publications like the NT magazine to push their right wing exploitative agenda? Restore Trust, in my opinion, does not have the interests of the National Trust at heart at all. What they want is disruption and control for their own agenda. I would urge all National Trust members to resist. The immediate way to resist is to vote for the Council’s recommended candidates, and nobody else.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-35464571867900021462023-06-22T08:54:00.000-07:002023-06-22T08:54:42.296-07:00Covid is not over<p> <a href="https://www.libdemvoice.org/covid-is-not-over-73410.html">First published on LibDemVoice.</a></p><p>The UK’s response to Covid has been, and still is, characterised by delay and indifference. This is largely but not wholly because Boris Johnson was Prime Minister when it struck. Johnson made being irresponsible fun, and we all paid the price for it, as the Covid inquiry is now slowly and painstakingly beginning to make clear. The British electorate was shallow enough to fall for it, and resistant enough to taking responsibility seriously to make it very risky for a political party to advocate it. But sometimes it is right for political parties to say unpopular things.</p><p>A liberal response to Covid would start from the basic principle: we should be free to do everything we want, provided we do not infringe other people’s freedom. Conrad Russell noted that that proviso is far more of a limitation than most people realise.</p><p>During the crisis we did all the things we were asked to do (unlike Johnson et al). Once it was over, most of us embraced our “freedom”, and stopped counting the cost to other people. More than a million clinically extremely vulnerable people remain effectively trapped in their own homes because they cannot count on the rest of us to keep them safe. The population at large (including, unfortunately, a lot of medical practitioners) embraces the fictions that it’s over (while the aptly named FU.1 variant is spreading globally 50% faster than previous variants) and that it’s just like flu. But currently 200+ people die every week with Covid on the death certificate (this is known to be significant underreporting). Flu doesn’t kill people in the summer. Flu doesn’t cause the long term sequelae that Covid does. People don’t get Long Flu, whereas currently in the UK alone two million are suffering from Long Covid (ONS figures).</p><p>80% of Japanese people still mask in public. The instant reaction will be they’re different, they’re more conformist, we believe in freedom. But it doesn’t have to be about ideology or culture. It can and should be about common sense. I am free to not wear a mask; but my not wearing a mask increases the risk of you getting Covid. And that is a much worse fate than the tiny inconvenience of a mask. Back to the key principle that we are free to do whatever we want provided it does not impact on other people’s freedom. This principle says that we must take responsibility for the effect we have on other people. Going about unmasked and not taking other sensible and barely inconvenient precautions puts other people at risk. To be liberal, we should take account of that and act responsibly.</p><p>It is time for the Liberal Democrats to say, “Hey, this is our core principle. It’s time to be sensible about this. People are suffering dire long term consequences, or even dying, because we refuse to take responsibility for the effect we have on others. People are suffering dire long term consequences, or even dying, because we won’t press the government to do sensible things like allocating meaningful budgets for air filtration in schools and public buildings. ‘Living with’ Covid actually means dying with it.”</p><p>It seems to me that this would be the liberal way, despite the public’s impatience with it.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-36251571093958367342023-05-27T02:47:00.001-07:002023-05-27T02:47:42.452-07:00Embrace the Elephant!<p> First published in <a href="https://www.libdemvoice.org/embrace-the-elephant-73254.html">LibDemVoice Sat 27th May 2023</a></p><p>The elephant is of course that big, and growing, elephant in the corner of the sitting room: Brexit. Now that Project Fear has become Project Here, it is time for us in the Lib Dems to be much more open about our belief that Britain’s place lies back at the heart of Europe.</p><p>Ever since the Brexit vote I’ve been reasonably sure this time would come. Voting to leave was a mistake, and its costs would sooner or later become apparent. The ideological nature of the vote was such that many people would cling stubbornly to their belief that it was right – for some years, I thought. But once it began to crumble, it would crumble quickly. I was right about the trajectory, wrong about the timing. I thought it would be at least another couple of years. (I didn’t allow for the damage to be so deep, or the government to be so negligent.)</p><p>As long as the bulk of Brexit voters held to their beliefs, and, equally, as long as the bulk of the British population continued to be hoodwinked by the idea that to campaign for our beliefs was somehow undemocratic, we were probably right to soft pedal on it. I have thought for a long time that the backlash would outweigh the potential gains; but I believed we only needed to be patient.</p><p>Our policy has become clear with <a href="https://www.libdems.org.uk/fileadmin/groups/2_Federal_Party/Documents/PolicyPapers/144_-_Rebuilding_Trade_and_Cooperation_with_Europe__2022_.pdf">“Rebuilding Trade and Cooperation with Europe”</a>, though the mainstream media have been, as usual, exceedingly quiet about it. Our leadership on the whole has remained reticent, but now the time for reticence has passed. There was some indication of this at the spring conference – the European passages of Ed’s speech were highly optimistic and were loudly and enthusiastically applauded. (Not reported in the mainstream press of course – maybe Ed was counting on that.)</p><p>That shows that popularity within the party is high, and now opinion polls are regularly showing solid majorities saying Brexit has failed, the costs are too high, it was the wrong choice. Opinion is with us. We have to contend with the right wing media and the Rees-Mogg Tendency: but we always will have to. But now is the time to make it bold. The time is now for us to embrace the elephant.</p><p>It remains a technically awkward policy to sell. It’s difficult to make a catchy slogan out of “repair, rebuild confidence, trade, single market”. And a great deal of prior work needs to be done in this country, <a href="https://www.libdemvoice.org/i-have-about-twenty-years-left-72799.html">as I’ve said before</a>, to make us fit for them to accept us. Perhaps there is a slogan available: coined in an inspired moment by Sally Burnell: “from Brexit to Fixit”.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-2251033911163277182023-03-16T13:43:00.002-07:002023-03-16T13:43:34.712-07:00I have about twenty years left<p> <a href="https://www.libdemvoice.org/i-have-about-twenty-years-left-72799.html">First published on LibDem Voice.</a></p><p>I have about twenty years or so left on this planet. I very much hope that before I shuffle off, the UK will have rejoined the EU. I think it will be touch and go whether we manage it. Apologies to our more enthusiastic Europhiles if that disappoints you, but I think it is realistic.</p><p>The EU needs to see a steady majority in favour of joining over a period of time. We don’t have that stable majority yet, though I expect we will. It will then need to remain stable for a number of years (particularly important for us, given Britain’s current and immediate past tendencies towards exceptionalism and fascism). Then the process of accession will take several years even if, in the meantime, we have laid the groundwork by joining the EEA, rejoining the single market, rejoining Horizon, or whatever we choose to do.</p><p>It will take a lot of work, and although we are enthusiastic about this ourselves, it is very difficult to persuade other people of an objective that may be fifteen or twenty years off. So it is not necessarily helpful to make a greater noise about wanting to rejoin, as some would have us do. It may make more sense for us to stand for an intermediate objective, one which is necessary for this country, as well as necessary if we are to have any realistic prospect of rejoining.</p><p>If we are to hope to rejoin, we need to make this country different to what it is now. We actually need to do that anyway. Regardless of our chances of joining the EU, I do not want to live in a country where millions rely on foodbanks to fend off starvation while the Prime Minister changes the grid to have electricity delivered to his swimming pool; a country where a previous Prime Minister seeks to ennoble his wife-beating father; a country where the Home Secretary uses language about asylum seekers reminiscent of 1930s Germany (yes, I will say that, because it is true); a country where the heroism of NHS staff is rewarded with applause but not with a pay rise.</p><p>So I propose a slogan: “Let’s fix this country”. Let’s fix things so that they actually work for the people and not just the elite.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>fix the voting system so that everybody’s vote actually counts</li><li>fix the tax system so that wealth pays its fair share</li><li>fix the benefit system so that people are treated with respect, not with contempt</li><li>fix the housing system by allowing councils to build green affordable housing where it is actually needed</li><li>fix energy use and storage so that we will genuinely be green in the foreseeable future</li><li>fix all the privatised public services so that they are forced to put citizens before profits</li></ul><p></p><p>There are many more fixes, I am sure, that others will want to add to this list, and it can be as long as you like because the idea is for a radical approach to changing this country to work for everybody. Putting it this way focuses the voters on what we’re doing for them. If we achieve it, or anything like it, over the lifetime of two or three parliaments, we will have made this country democratic, warm, respectful and liberal. And, almost as a by product, we will have slid into being a really good candidate to join the EU.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-4382628395502611902023-02-08T03:15:00.007-08:002023-02-08T03:21:06.506-08:00ICO, OFCOM, please do your jobs<p> Dear ICO, dear Ofcom</p><p>I got a call today from a company saying my solar panels were overdue a service. We have solar panels so the call was almost plausible, but in the end they rang off.</p><p>I looked up the number the call came from. 02033760447 if you want to know. It's been looked up on Who Calls Me more than 300 times. If 300 people have bothered to look it up, how many thousands do you think have had calls from it?</p><p>It is very clearly being used for scam calls and has been reported and known about for months. Why have you not shut it down? </p><p>We get calls like this over and over again. We look them up and the numbers have been checked and reported over and over again for months. Our privacy is being invaded over and over again by people who we know are scammers, yet you do nothing.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-44219639850955514352023-01-31T06:43:00.002-08:002023-01-31T06:45:25.282-08:00Brexit has worked<p> Everyone who is saying Brexit hasn't worked is wrong. It has worked. It did exactly what it was supposed to do.</p><p>It didn't do what they said it would do - of course it didn't. They were lying.</p><p>The aim of Brexit, what they were working towards for forty years and more, was to turn the UK into a plutocrats' playground.</p><p>The only reason that we haven't actually become that yet is that governments led by May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak have proved too incompetent, or possibly too pusillanimous, to follow through on the initial breakthrough which was to get Britain out of the EU.</p><p>(In my view, the involvement of Russian influence could be seen as coincidental. The Russian regime undoubtedly did its bit to secure Brexit and was delighted when it happened, but its influence was limited in the context of forty years of dedicated work by plutocrats and their enablers. In another sense, Russian involvement was not a coincidence because Russia re-emerged from the collapse of the USSR as a plutocratic state, and was therefore completely in tune with the Brexit plot.)</p><p>Getting us out of the EU was only one step in the plan. Once out we could much more easily be turned into a low wage, low security, high risk, high profit and toxically filthy countrywide freeport.</p><p>While we haven't got there, we're well on the way, more by luck than judgement. Behind the terminal dithering of the May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak axis, the plutocrats' aims are still in sight - removing our human rights, removing our right to protest, making voting more difficult, etc, etc.</p><p>And the argument about whether Brexit has "worked", or making Brexit "work" is nothing more than a massive shell game, which the Tories know and Labour have fallen for. Brexit was never meant to work for ordinary people, but Brexiters have to keep pretending that it was meant to until it's too late for us to do anything about the destruction of our rights and our democracy.</p><p>Luckily the British public is proving to have some common sense, and Brexit regret is beginning to take hold. <a href="https://britain.unherd.com/">There is now only one constituency in the country where a majority of voters still think Brexit was a good choice.</a></p><p>But common sense has to be turned into action, and we are now in a race. Either we move decisively towards the defence of our democracy and our rights, or we will have reached a point where so many of our rights have been dismantled that it won't matter any more. We have to fight and to keep fighting, now and into the foreseeable future. The battle will be long because the plutocrats will not give up; our determination has to be at least as long as theirs.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-80878083295818093442022-12-24T04:47:00.000-08:002022-12-24T04:47:20.060-08:00Polly Toynbee on Christians<p> I admire Polly Toynbee greatly, so it was disappointing to find her falling for the same inaccuracy as lesser commentators with regard to the reporting of Christian identity in the census. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/23/christmas-religious-christian-humanist">“This is the first Christmas since time immemorial that most people in this country are not Christians.”</a> This is not true. Ticking a box about Christian identity in a census is very different from “being a Christian”. The vast majority of people in this country have not been Christian for a very long time, and it shows.</p><p>While I accept completely Toynbee’s strictures about the damage done to the world and to the country by people who use Christianity to cover for their violence, I would observe that the country has not actually been Christian for a very long time, and does not appear to be much the better for it – the need for food banks (many of them run by Christians); the adulation and protection of wealth; the complete acceptance of lying and venality among the country’s leadership; the vicious racism and sexism promoted by the tabloid press (Clarkson); the vilification of strangers in the Rwanda policy. These are thoroughly non Christian developments.</p><p>Christianity – real Christianity – still has a role to play in this country, notably in speaking truth to power, as Jonathan Gullis seems to realise (<a href="https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tory-mp-says-bishops-should-stop-using-the-pulpit-to-preach-from-340831/">“Too many people are using the pulpit to preach from.”</a>!!).</p><p>As a Christian, I welcome the fact that fewer people are inaccurately self identifying as such. Honesty is a Christian value. More people being honest about having no religion is a step in the right direction. </p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-6608742050407377452022-07-04T06:52:00.000-07:002022-07-04T07:12:09.962-07:00Roe v Wade and Brexit<p> A is for anti abortion. B is for Brexit. C is for chaos.</p><p>The anti abortion movement in the States and Brexit here in Britain are the same thing, wedge issues chosen by people with right wing authoritarian tendencies with a long term plan for asserting control over an entire body politic. They are on the surface utterly different issues, but they each performed the same function. In each case it took their proponents forty years starting in the 1970s to get their way. Each was chosen because of the characteristics of the country concerned. In the States anti abortion could be made to appeal to powerful and rich right wing fundamentalist churches. The churches’ views had to be nudged into shape, but that too was part of the long term project. In the UK Brexit / sovereignty was particularly powerful because of the gentle but tenacious grip imperial nostalgia had on large numbers of British people. The fact that Brexit became Russian policy is tangential to the main thrust of native and global right wing forces. Arguably Brexit only became Russian policy after twenty years of tabloid headlines convinced them that it was possible.</p><p>A key feature of a wedge issue is that it divides people. Abortion in the States and Brexit in the UK have divided the population so fundamentally that the kind of broad alliances that sweep megalomaniacs from power have become much more difficult.</p><p>In each case the headline issue itself was not the main point. Each in a way was a staging post, a symbol of what was wanted. The main issues were what was needed to achieve each and what was the overall purpose. The aim was for right wing policies to be embedded in the governance of the country concerned, and for the temper of that governance to be gradually altered so that policies which tend towards the fascist became acceptable. Some things were done differently and some similarly. In both countries right wing media were very important, and very compliant. Regulators, if not already powerless, needed to be rendered so in order to enable media to peddle lies. Gerrymandering and the capture of elected office were used in the States, in the UK the revolving door between government and business, and the favouring of donors.</p><p>Both strategies in the end hinged on the fortuitous* appearance of a maverick – Trump in the States, Johnson in the UK, both people for whom principle and the rule of law were meaningless. But the mavericks are just the icing on the subversive cake, they are by no means the whole story – they could only get to where they got with the support and nurturing of many other people, and they could only achieve their ends with the active involvement of others, eg Trump’s packing of the Supreme Court aided and abetted by the house republicans’ abuse of procedure. And in the UK, the number of people still willing to pay Johnson's bills is astonishing. Principle and the rule of law had already become meaningless for many; they were just not quite so egregious in their rule breaking.</p><p>*I'll stick to "fortuitous". Some would argue that the development of political and media culture in our two countries made the elevation of mavericks inevitable. I would say more likely, but not inevitable.</p><p>And in both cases, that is not the end. The right wing justices on the Supreme Court have made it clear that they will be moving on further rights, and in Britain the government have moved on to dismantling our very effective human rights apparatus. This was always intended; the aim is to concentrate power in the hands of a few, and to demoralise and disaggregate the rest.</p><p>As I see it, the way back may be easier in the UK than in the States. Movement away from fascism requires an alliance of the centre and the left groupings which are usually fragmented. Fortunately, British voters are on the whole more sensible than the parties that represent them. Anti Tory tactical voting is now well established when circumstances require it, and Johnson has become a liability. One election may change the temper of British politics, though there would still be a very long way to go to root out the corruption that has been seeping into the UK’s system for several decades. But I fear the road back for the USA is much longer and much thornier.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-68304290996683229762022-07-04T06:47:00.001-07:002022-07-04T06:47:52.951-07:00The two narcissists: peas in a pod?<p> Trump and Johnson are both narcissists, but in very different forms. It is true to say that neither cares for anything other than themselves. But their relationships to other people are very different. Trump cares deeply about other people – not “for” them, “about” them. In his world there have to be winners and losers. He has to be a winner and you can only be a winner if somebody else loses. (There is no such thing as win-win in Trump’s world.) So his activities are based very largely around making other people lose; he gets into intense relationships with people, many of whom he has never met, in order to make them lose so that he can be a winner.</p><p>Johnson does not see the world in this way. He doesn’t care about other people at all; he does not deliberately set out to destroy people, but he has no thought for any misery that his decisions might inflict. His calculations are only about what is good for him. If he had calculated that backing Remain would win him the premiership, then we might now be a corrupt and failing state within the EU instead of a corrupt and failing state outside the EU. It would make no difference to Johnson. That was very unlikely though – in order for Johnson to be as free as possible to behave the way he wants, he cannot be fettered by greater powers. He knows he can bend British institutions to his will – the bending has mostly been done for him already by his real boss (<a href="https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-refers-telegraph-real-boss-dominic-cummings-claims/">PM refers to Telegraph as his 'real boss', Dominic Cummings claims</a>) and others; he knows he could not have bent European institutions the same way.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-81642572103552647432022-07-04T06:45:00.000-07:002022-07-04T06:45:00.416-07:00Money is like water on a carpet<p> Money is like water on a carpet. It gets everywhere, as long as people let it. For a long time money, in the form of profit seeking, was kept out of systems that were hard or impossible to run competitively. But since the 1980s, when monetary policy began to win the battle for top people’s hearts and minds, money has sneaked – or been openly invited in – to almost every sphere of public life. They would privatise the air you breathe, if they could (it has been suggested).</p><p>For a while I’ve been watching one of the more recent manifestations of this phenomenon, the fact that big money, I mean really huge, vast, global money has embedded itself into the UK children’s care sector (where forced competitive tendering was introduced in the 1980s). Many, many homes for deprived children or difficult children are now run by investment funds and the like. The dogma of privatisation has soaked right through into the responsibilities of local authorities, and money is being allowed to run riot. It shows in the number of children’s home rated poorly by Ofsted, and also in other figures:</p><p>June 28th 2022 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/28/serious-incidents-more-common-in-for-profit-childrens-homes-in-england">Serious incidents more common in for-profit children’s homes in England</a>: Privately run homes have more police callouts and staff complaints than council ones, data shows (Private providers say that is because they deal with more difficult children. I have no evidence as to whether that is true, but if they do then they should have better systems to cope with the difficulties.)</p><p>April 18th 2022 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/18/english-councils-pay-1m-per-child-for-places-in-private-childrens-homes">English councils pay £1m per child for places in private children’s homes</a>: Private providers accused of making ‘obscene’ profits out of some of society’s most vulnerable children</p><p>March 10th 2022 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/mar/10/uk-sleepwalked-into-dysfunctional-childrens-social-care-market-cma">UK has ‘sleepwalked’ into dysfunctional children’s social care market, says regulator</a>: CMA finds local authorities are being forced to pay excessive fees for substandard privately run services</p><p>October 22nd 2021 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/22/private-childrens-home-providers-charging-councils-elevated-prices-report-finds">Private children’s home providers charging councils too much, report says</a>: Market in England is broken and failing too many children, says chair of independent review</p><p>Huge fees are now being paid by local authorities for poor standards of care in essential services. Why and how did we get to this point? Money does not care. That is one of the key issues with using the market to solve any social issue. Funds have invested in children’s homes because they see an opportunity for profit. They get a decent profit because they do nto care about the morality of charging hard pressed public authorities through the nose, and neither do they care about the outcome for the children they make themselves responsible for. This should not be surprising. The only responsibility of fund managers is to make a profit for their funds.</p><p>The only way to make funds do a good job of running a children’s home is to have contracts with penalise them heavily for getting things wrong, and a regulator that has and is prepared to use robust tools for enforcement. (There is one, and only one, effective way to regulate funds that run children’s home – by fining them heavily so that they lose the one thing they care about – profit.)</p><p>We are in this situation because, for forty years, those in charge of this country have worked on the unsupported assumptions that the market works better than other forms of provision, and that the market only needs to be lightly regulated in order to keep it efficient. Those assumptions have been made in other countries too, but in the UK we have raised it to an art form. There are examples in almost every sphere – sewage in our bathing water, with a regulator that is just beginning to wake up, having previously done hardly anything to ensure the investment that the firms promised they would make, or to prevent profit extraction from customers who have quite literally nowhere else to turn. (see Filth for a local example); crushing costs of energy, with an energy regulator that has done hardly anything to ensure the companies pass profits back to consumers rather than to shareholders and overpaid executives. Childcare is just a more extreme form of this behaviour.</p><p>The mantra that regulation is bad still holds sway. That is despite the disaster of 2008 which demonstrated with the utmost clarity what happens when you under regulate. Over regulation is indeed a bad idea; under regulation is just as bad. But that is still what we are told – markets work, entrepreneurs need to be free to make bold decisions, (global Britain ha ha) blah, blah, blah.</p><p>It might make sense to have commercial companies running some of our systems, like parts of the NHS under contract, but only under strict regulatory control. (And regulation actually costs money – a lot of it. One of the most fundamental misconceptions about the market mantra is that regulation can be done on the cheap.) But in some fields it makes no sense. Childcare is one of them, but we are still stuck with a system in which all the key decision makers maintain their cruelly compromised faith in the effectiveness of the market, and their fealty to money.</p><p>In my view there is a deep connection between the obeisance that has been paid to money since the 1980s and the current political crises working their way out in the UK and the USA. The overwhelming temper of market decisions is that money and the market must rule. No space is left for humanity, for caring about anything. Forty years of reducing caring about anything to second class status in any high level decision making has seen both the USA in 2016 and the UK in 2019 elect leaders who quite literally cared for nothing beside themselves. It didn’t have to be like this but the tendency was always there and the tendency in the end won.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-59802169795312567382022-04-27T06:02:00.001-07:002022-04-27T06:02:51.232-07:00The Angela Rayner story: I don't agree with the speaker<p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/angela-rayner-hits-back-at-claims-she-enjoys-sexist-slurs">I am glad that the Speaker of the House of Commons is a staunch believer in press freedom.</a> So am I. But it is not his job to protect press freedom; they are quite good at doing that for themselves. It is his job to enable MPs to go about their business as freely as possible - and that includes freedom from misogyny and scurrilous insults.</p><p>Our press should be free to say anything they want, and indeed they are, as the story about Angela Rayner shows. But they should not be free to say anything they want without consequences.</p><p>The Mail on Sunday chose to write up the report about Angela Rayner in a scurrilous and misogynistic way. Assuming they're telling the truth about their source - which is by no means certain, but let's do them the courtesy of assuming it is - they could have reported it in any number of ways. The responsible thing would have been to write it up as "Tory MP tries to distract from partygate etc by using misogynistic innuendo against Labour front bencher".</p><p>But they didn't. They chose to write it as fact. They chose to aim it at Rayner rather than at the sad excuse for an MP who briefed them. They chose to be misogynist and they chose - quite deliberately - to be scurrilous.</p><p>The jouirnalist responsible for the story should have had his pass revoked - for a short but exemplary period of time.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-8327038656750673412022-03-05T05:02:00.001-08:002022-03-05T05:02:13.202-08:00Rob's International Film Festival, aka Riff70<p> March 26th is my 70th birthday. I have decided to celebrate it by holding an international film festival. International not in the sense that the films are international (they are decidedly not, as you will see below), but that I have friends in many places, and I hope some of my friends will join me film watching once or twice in the week leading up to March 26th.</p><p>I will be watching a film a day from March 20th to March 26th, and complementing the films with menus of my choice. I won’t share the menus. Suffice to say that hotdogs and popcorn both feature but so do other dishes.</p><p>The films I’ve chosen are films I know and like, and haven’t seen enough of. None of them is particularly demanding. It’s supposed to be good fun. So, for instance, I chose not to include the Russian film <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2802154/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1">Leviathan </a>, which is excellent but gut wrenching. I also chose not to include Casablanca which is The. Best. Film. Ever. Made. But I’ve seen it several times recently.</p><p>My choices won’t be everybody’s, but there are themes or associations for all of them, so I invite you to pick your own.</p><p>And while you watch I hope you will choose to donate to one of my fundraisers. I have two, one for Blood Cancer UK and one for Action For M.E. </p><p>(Circumstances are different now to when I planned this event. Many people will find their attention, and their donations, taken up with Ukraine. So be it: you can still enjoy the films.*)</p><p><b>Blood cancers are killers.</b> A lot of research is going on and breakthroughs occur regularly. But it is a very expensive business. Blood Cancer UK puts a lot of its budget into funding research. <a href="https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/rob-parsons6">Go here to donate to Blood Cancer UK.</a></p><p><b>ME is a horrible soul sapping illness which often affects its victims for life.</b> Action for M.E. supports people with ME and funds research into the causes and possible cures – there are none at the moment, but biomedical research, which has been increasing worldwide in the last few years, is beginning to allow for a greater understanding of what is going on and what we might do about it. <a href="https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/rob-parsonsme">Go here to donate to Action for M.E..</a></p><p>And so to the films.</p><p><b>Sunday 20th </b></p><p>I will start RIFF70 with<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></p><p><b>Star Wars: The Force Awakens</b></p><p>Perhaps it is coincidental that the first film of each of the Star Wars trilogies is the best (I’m not counting the middle three). I saw Star Wars when it came out in the cinema, yes, I am that old. I still try to teach toddlers in buggies the ways of the Force, sometimes to the bemusement of their parents. The Force Awakens shades it for me, just jolly good fun all the way through.</p><p>If you don’t have it or don’t like it, then I suggest </p><p>- any sci fi film (even Life of Brian – it has a sci fi sequence)</p><p>- any film with Carrie Fisher in it</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Monday 21st </b><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></p><p>RIFF70 day 2 will be</p><p><b>Miss Sloane</b></p><p>It has Jessica Chastain in it. What’s not to like? One of a small bunch of films that is even better to watch the second time. When you know what going to happen and why, there’s an extra joy in seeing it unfold behind the scenes. And the penultimate scene - when she begins to repeat the opening monologue, and you get quick, almost millisecond, shots of Daniel reacting because he’s realised what she’s doing - is a tour de force of editing.</p><p>If you don’t have it, then get into the spirit with</p><p>- any conspiracy film (Manchurian Candidate – the original, not the remake)</p><p>- any film that you enjoyed as much second time round</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Tuesday 22nd</b> </p><p>RIFF70 day 3 will be</p><p><b>The Ipcress File</b></p><p>I’m talking about the 1965 film here, not the TV series which is apparently being released around the time of RIFF. Not sure how I feel about that; I’ll probably try it, but I won’t finish it if it doesn’t measure up.</p><p>This is a film from my childhood. Or somewhere vaguely near my childhood; I don’t remember when I first saw the film, but I got the book in my early teens and there was a period when I re-read it two or three times a week for several months. I would say it’s iconic (over used word, but if everybody else is using it, so will I) in several ways. Those glasses; and the use of physical architecture to frame shots. So reminiscent.</p><p>If you don’t have it or don’t like it, then I suggest</p><p>- any 60s film with non-vertical shots (you could probably go the 50s for those as well)</p><p>- any spy film. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy would do. (There hasn’t been a film of The Honourable Schoolboy, though in some ways it’s the best book of the Smiley trilogy. And the BBC missed it out of its rendition of TTSS and Smiley’s People. Probably mainly for the same reason the film of The Ipcress File deviated from the book. They couldn’t afford a Hong Kong shoot, just as the producers of The Ipcress File probably drew the line at a Pacific atoll.)</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Wednesday 23rd</b></p><p>RIFF70 day 4 will be<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></p><p><b>Baghdad Café</b></p><p>Slice of life, small town Americana. Miniplots, social issues, fish out of water. Lots of clichés there, but a happy vibrant film. And a scene stealing cameo from Jack Palance.</p><p>If you don’t have it or don’t like it, then I suggest</p><p>- any other small town America film. There are a lot to choose from: Paris, Texas; Three Billboards…</p><p>- if not America, then other countries. Bulgaria’s The Lesson</p><p>- or any film with a famous actor in a bit part stealing the scene</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Thursday 24th<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></b></p><p>RIFF70 day 5 will be</p><p><b>Seven Samurai</b></p><p>Number 2 in my list of best films ever. Bravery, comradeship, the meaning of life. And death. </p><p>I might follow up with The Magnificent Seven, which would feature highly in a list of Remakes Nearly As Good As The Original. The Yul Brynner version of course. Denzel Washington is always watchable, but his version should have been left in the cutting room.</p><p>If you don’t have it or don’t like it, then I suggest</p><p>- get hold of it. It’s too good to miss</p><p>- any “against the odds” film.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Friday 25th</b></p><p>RIFF70 day 6 will be<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></p><p><b>The Station Agent</b></p><p>I like this film a lot. Very watchable characters, a fair bit of quirkiness. And Peter Dinklage – pre Game Of Thrones. It has the feel of an adaptation of a book, but it’s an original screenplay. Economical direction and great feel for location.</p><p>If you don’t have it or don’t like it, then I suggest</p><p>- any random group of people film. For some reason my mind is drawn to Went the Day Well.</p><p>- films about trains</p><p>- films with librarians in: Party Girl; The Name Of The Rose; Fahrenheit 451; The Shawshank Redemption (yes - he becomes the prison librarian)</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Saturday 26th - my birthday</b></p><p>RIFF70 day 7 will be<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span></p><p><b>Tampopo</b></p><p>It’s a food film. No, it’s a love film. No, it’s a western. It has noodles in it; it has gangsters; it has a showdown. The finest mixing of genres you could imagine.</p><p>If you don’t have it or don’t like it, then I suggest</p><p>- any film that mixes genres: Blazing Saddles - western and food (remember the baked bean scene).</p><p><br /></p><p>And that will be that.</p><p><br /></p><p>Join me in ten years’ time for Riff80.</p><p><i>*And finally if you haven't donated to Ukraine and want to, here are two options:</i></p><p><i>The Red Cross DEC appeal https://donate.redcross.org.uk/appeal/ukraine-crisis-appeal</i></p><p><i>And to donate direct to the Ukrainian war effort or humanitarian aid, use the links on this page: https://online.yes-ukraine.org/2022-march</i></p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-29114459177033801592021-10-19T10:46:00.001-07:002021-10-19T10:46:12.843-07:00Hunting with hounds<p> Hunting with hounds is back in the news. In a short space of time we have seen <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2021-10-08/secret-filming-shows-hunting-hounds-being-shot-dead-at-kennels">video footage of Beaufort Hunt staff killing dogs</a> and we have seen Mark Hankinson, a director of the Master of Foxhounds Association, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58654916">convicted of conspiring to break the law in a deliberate and systematic fashion</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>Leaving aside the law breaking for the moment, let us consider the arguments for and against hunting with hounds. The key argument is ethical. A lot of other stuff gets mentioned, but none stands up to scrutiny. One argument is that hunting creates jobs. It does but they are very expensive jobs. Keeping hounds - feeding them, housing them, ensuring their wellbeing costs a lot of money. Horses are even more expensive. If the money used to support hunting were spent in other ways it would create more jobs, not fewer.</p><p><br /></p><p>Another is that hunting helps with pest control. The contribution of hunts to pest control was never more than 10%, I understand, and should now be less than that. When foxes and deer need to be controlled, it is done more efficiently and more humanely by shooters who know what they're doing. In addition to that, it is far from clear that hunts do actually contribute to pest control as there is uncontrovertible evidence that they protect foxes and their cubs during much of the year in order to make sure that there are plenty for them to chase in the hunting season.</p><p><br /></p><p>It's traditional. Yes, it is. So was bear baiting before we banned it. So was dog fighting. So was cock fighting. The fact that something is traditional does not mean that we should keep it if it is harmful.</p><p><br /></p><p>So the key argument is ethical. Is hunting with hounds an ethical thing to do? To answer this question we need to consider three others:</p><p>1) are civil liberties involved?</p><p>2) is cruelty to animals involved?</p><p>3) if the answer to both 1) and 2) is yes, which should outweigh the other?</p><p><br /></p><p>The answer to the first question is yes. People should be free to do whatever they want provided their freedom does not impinge other people's freedom, or result in cruelty. If it were only a question of civil liberties, then my view of hunting would be the same as my view of Morris dancing: it's not for me, but if you want to dress up in silly clothes and make an exhibition of yourself all over the countryside, then I will not only defend your right to do that, I will celebrate it.</p><p><br /></p><p>The answer to the second question is also yes. Confusion is sown here by hunters quite deliberately. The foxes enjoy the chase. Yeah, sure. They have a sporting chance of getting away. Yeah, right. Animals don't feel fear. Wrong, just wrong. Hunting with hounds has not been designed to be purposefully cruel, but cruelty is built in as a feature. The point is to have a great afternoon out jumping over hedges and seeing animals get bitten to death. It wouldn't be nearly so much fun if it were over quickly, so hunting packs have been bred for stamina rather than speed and strength. The fox or the deer is chased and chased and chased and chased until exhausted and cornered. That is not compassionate.</p><p><br /></p><p>So the answer to questions 1 and 2 is yes in both cases. Which should prevail? I accept that views on this will differ; I respect the right of other people to come to a different conclusion to mine. But in my view there is only one ethical conclusion. People have many ways of enjoying themselves. Nobody's life will be constrained or badly affected if they are no longer able to hunt with hounds. If killing vermin matters to them, then they can learn to shoot. If jumping over things on their horses matters to them, they can still do that without having a fox or a deer to chase. If running with dogs matters to them, they can do that without having a frightened fox in front of them. There is no ethical or civil liberties reason that I can think of that justifies killing wild animals in this particularly cruel manner.</p><p><br /></p><p>So my conclusion is quite simple. Hunting wild animals with packs of hounds should not be allowed. Some will criticise my conclusion on the grounds that it is not liberal. But it is liberal. Liberalism means that everyone should be free to do whatever they like. But it also says there is a limit to that freedom if it impinges on others' liberty. An ultraliberal might say that animals don't count. I believe they do, and, even if they don't, my argument remains that protection of the natural world is a right that I and every other human holds. My right to protect the natural world is infringed if you hunt animals with such cruelty.</p><p><br /></p><p>Our current position is complicated by the passing of the Hunting Act of 2004. This outlawed the deliberate pursuit of animals with hounds, but allowed for trail hunting, and made exceptions to the pursuit of wild animals if it happened by accident in the pursuit of trail hunting. The Act has been widely and systematically flouted by hunts and they have not been properly pursued by the police even when evidence has been supplied in many, many cases. Should we now seek to have the Hunting Act applied forcefully, or should we seek to amend it?</p><p><br /></p><p>Law depends on consent to some degree; laws work when those subject to them consent at least to the extent of obeying them, albeit unwillingly. It is clear that hunters have systematically, deliberately and purposefully flouted the law of the Hunting Act ever since it came into force. Not only that, but enforcement by rural police forces has been at most lacklustre in the face of case after case of evidence being given them by hunt monitors all over the country. Hunters' evasion of the law has been persistent for fifteen years, and enforcement has been lax for that length of time. Even the occasional successful prosecution has not dented the hunters' determination. We know, in fact, that they have been law breaking for much longer - laws about blocking up setts, sending dogs into tunnels and such, have been ignored for many, many years. They have also always treated their own hounds as expendable, which is not necessarily illegal, but they have gone to great lengths to hide the truth from the public at large, knowing that the public would view their treatment of their hounds as unacceptable. In other words, law breaking and secrecy are routine for hunters. They do not respect or abide by the law, and I do not foresee that they will any time in the future. Some things really do not change.</p><p><br /></p><p>That being the case, in my view, hunters have forfeited the right to have their view heard. I take into account that there are many law abiding hunters; but there are far too many who have routinely broken the law for far too long. And the law abiding hunters, many of them, knew of the law breaking and did nothing about it. They are not innocent bystanders.</p><p><br /></p><p>So in my view the response of the law should be uncompromising. The 2004 Hunting Act should be amended so that no form of hunting with packs of hounds should be lawful. The caveats and permissions of the Hunting Act should be removed so that the law is simpler and clearer. Penalties for breaking it should be severe, and it must be made absolutely clear to rural police forces that they must enforce it.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-42196283220151554892021-09-08T09:43:00.040-07:002023-04-10T14:01:09.935-07:00No, they didn't! (Evolution and purpose)<p> I've been dismayed over and over again at the way evolution is routinely misrepresented by people who ought to know better.</p><p>So I decided to keep a log of instances where I see it.</p><p style="text-align: center;">* * * * * * * * * * * * * </p><p style="text-align: left;">29th March 2023 <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2366716-our-attempts-to-kill-cockroaches-forced-them-to-evolve-new-sex-moves/">Here's the New Scientist</a>, which really ought to know better. The headline is OK: "Our attempts to kill cockroaches forced them to evolve new sex moves" It's just on the edge of acceptable, but, you know, even the New Scientist needs clickbait.</p><p style="text-align: left;">But it's the subheader that just gets evolution wrong. "Some male cockroaches have adapted their mating strategy to succeed with females that have developed a distaste for the sugar used in both poisonous baits and gifts from males" This just didn't happen. No male cockroach had a think and decided to change his mating technique. What happened was that the ones that happened (via the random variation of evolution) to have a more varied mating game survived better than those that didn't.</p><p style="text-align: center;">* * * * * * * * * * * * * </p><p>10th Sept 2021 from the BBC. This might not be an actual contender. I have not found more details than are available on <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58507100">this page about this year's IG Nobel prizes</a>. But the way it is phrased is just plain wrong. </p><p>"<i>Peace Prize: Ethan Beseris and colleagues, for testing the hypothesis that humans evolved beards to protect themselves from punches to the face.</i>" Bushy beards may have spread, pardon the pun, because men who had them survived being punched better than those who didn't. But the beards did not strategically evolve themselves However, humans, of course, are capable of agency, so it might be that some deliberately chose to cultivate their beards as a defence mechanism. Hard to say how humans might have made their beards bushier than they naturally were, though, so it sounds a bit suspect to me. And in any case, why didn't women evolve bushy beards - presumably they got punched in the face just as much.</p><p style="text-align: center;">* * * * * * * * * * * * * </p><p>First up: the Guardian's science correspondent <a href="https://www.twitter.com/NatalieGrover">Natalie Grover.</a> 27th Aug 2021 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/26/female-hummingbirds-mimic-males-to-avoid-attacks-study-suggests">"Female hummingbirds look like males to avoid attacks, study suggests"</a>. No, there is no intention in evolution. Female hummingbirds who look like males turned out to have an evolutionary advantage - more of them survived because they were attacked less.</p><p style="text-align: center;">* * * * * * * * * * * * * </p><p>No #2: Simon Barnes in Tortoise 26th Aug 2021 <a href="https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2021/08/26/much-as-you-love-to-mow-the-lawn-let-the-grass-grow/">"Much as you love to mow the lawn, let the grass grow"</a>. He states: <i>"the growing bit – the place at which the cells divide and growth can take place, technically the meristem – is not at the tip, as it is in most plants. It’s near the bottom.</i></p><p><i>"That may not sound all that exciting, but it’s central to the way life on land operates. It means you can eat grass without killing it. You can munch away at it, but it keeps coming back for more. This strategy evolved as a defence against grazing animals: the plants get eaten but they go on growing."</i></p><p>The key bit is "<i>This strategy evolved as a defence against grazing animals". </i>No, grass does not have strategies; it cannot think its way to a defence. Grass whose meristem was closer to the bottom happened to survive better when munched than that with its meristem near the tip, so bottom meristemmed grass spread and top meristemmed grass didn't. Grass does not have intentions.</p><p style="text-align: center;">* * * * * * * * * * * * * </p><p><br /></p><h1 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: white; font-family: "Wolpe Pegasus", serif; font-size: 64px; font-weight: 400; grid-column: 2 / span 10; line-height: 66px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%;">Much as you love to mow the lawn, let the grass grow</h1><h1 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: white; font-family: "Wolpe Pegasus", serif; font-size: 64px; font-weight: 400; grid-column: 2 / span 10; line-height: 66px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%;">Much as you love to mow the lawn, let the grass grow</h1><h1 style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: white; font-family: "Wolpe Pegasus", serif; font-size: 64px; font-weight: 400; grid-column: 2 / span 10; line-height: 66px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; text-size-adjust: 100%;">Much as you love to mow the lawn, let the grass grow</h1><p><br /></p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-3138964994059443042021-07-11T09:16:00.002-07:002021-07-13T04:51:18.817-07:00Dave<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgar3s68-UGE50Ke4idWxG2M1W1MeSSjWgCtu_IHS9T-ESrM7x3UdyjFoUkDcyp-iK5sGtX_XHMRklE_yM63J68lYyoBbpfqPsuOtLKwHOj7AAXSjZs2wnSL-PJ_Lat-le7atnpicb8PPKl/s960/dave+hat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="720" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgar3s68-UGE50Ke4idWxG2M1W1MeSSjWgCtu_IHS9T-ESrM7x3UdyjFoUkDcyp-iK5sGtX_XHMRklE_yM63J68lYyoBbpfqPsuOtLKwHOj7AAXSjZs2wnSL-PJ_Lat-le7atnpicb8PPKl/s320/dave+hat.jpg" /></a></div><br />Dave, my brother-in-law, has just died after living with Parkinson's for several decades. What follows below is not the whole story of Dave by any means, just the bits I remember best. (We're remembering him </span><a href="https://davidsalt.muchloved.com/" style="text-align: left;" target="_blank">by suggesting donations to Parkinson's UK</a><span style="text-align: left;">.)</span></div><div><br /></div><div>I’ve known him for more than fifty years. It was a bit of a surprise when I worked that out; I hadn’t realised that I was so old. I was about 18 when he married my sister, the first occasion I’d ever been to in proper formal dress. My parents insisted on that sort of thing.</div><div><br /></div><div>He was doing a PhD which our dad teased him about; our dad teased everyone about everything. Dave took it in good spirit; I wish I’d learned from him. But then he didn’t have to live with the old bugger.*</div><div><br /></div><div>Once Dave had finished his PhD, he got a job at Portsmouth Poly as it was back then – I told you it was a long time ago – teaching maths and stats. Dave did everything with enthusiasm. I’ve worked with a few statisticians in my time. I’ve never known anyone get as enthusiastic about stats as him. He was equally enthusiastic as a teacher, and I am sure there are many hundreds of students who have reason to be grateful to him. He developed a lot of research projects in his time as well, and moved into the field of statistical modelling of chemical reactions. If you have any idea what than means, please let me know. Actually there is somebody in the family who does, his son, Ben, who inherited Dave’s way with numbers. Ben saw the light, however, and moved into an entirely different field when it came to making a living.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi75R6Hg1QqRrbkXNQTaJeZLQMwmiYeefPUhJpw2-1HDfqnDnA9KOcv8hNqxUDuU5dlMPzMSikpDjqeL6pMuRi89SzEqXT6SJCFLKUz-5XyQhK8F0oJEdeGBJnEUJWKgaqjJqg8iWaCPfWs/s888/dave+musical+600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="888" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi75R6Hg1QqRrbkXNQTaJeZLQMwmiYeefPUhJpw2-1HDfqnDnA9KOcv8hNqxUDuU5dlMPzMSikpDjqeL6pMuRi89SzEqXT6SJCFLKUz-5XyQhK8F0oJEdeGBJnEUJWKgaqjJqg8iWaCPfWs/s320/dave+musical+600.jpg" /></a></div><br />The Parkinson's was with him for several decades. It was a few years before it was properly diagnosed and he was able to get the appropriate treatment. He lived with it for many, many years. He had a life and he lived it well. He continued for many years to cycle into college. He went on working, researching, teaching, contributing and enjoying his food. He dabbled in many things. Well, when I say dabbled, he put a lot into it – a railway line in the garden, astronomy – proper astronomy with a telescope on wheels, sailing, a human mix of joy in nature with scientific precision. And the curiosity of the researcher never went away. After retirement and with his Parkinson's well advanced, he got interested in a problem somebody told him about to do with yachts, keels and sailing positions. There must be a mathematical model for this, he thought, and began to examine the problem with a computer programme. I never heard whether he solved it, but for him I don’t think solving it was ever the main motive. He just liked messing around with things and with numbers and seeing what they would do together.</div><div><br /></div><div>He was always good for a chat, liberally sprinkled with dad jokes. We didn’t agree about everything. He supported Chelsea. I mean….</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoDnO4kRqP_Cq-XwEtVrF0yzycbqcJwTnPssbNoYyM-geoMJKrH6ik5_uDdvPXEOBi8lOp11pwDLDu-AYahhyphenhyphen4-Y6PN8tZt97yooSSbXTJp1qsVy9hPlL1jtFfHD_2B6HQE3B9M4z1_4aL/s881/dave+chef+600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="881" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoDnO4kRqP_Cq-XwEtVrF0yzycbqcJwTnPssbNoYyM-geoMJKrH6ik5_uDdvPXEOBi8lOp11pwDLDu-AYahhyphenhyphen4-Y6PN8tZt97yooSSbXTJp1qsVy9hPlL1jtFfHD_2B6HQE3B9M4z1_4aL/s320/dave+chef+600.jpg" /></a></div><br />He also continued with his life the way he always had done, not letting the Parkinson's get in the way of that. There were meals out and holidays, even cruises. I would get pictures from time to time which I might have thought were designed to make me jealous if there was an ounce of malice in either Dave or Julia. Nearly every picture we have of him involves a sun hat. He would cook; and when I say cook, I mean cook, not just opening tins, but starting from scratch. I remember him, with a considerable tremble, cooking butternut squash soup, then sashaying across the kitchen with a pan full of boiling soup, everyone else diving for cover, and Dave filling the bowls from the pan without spilling a drop.</div><div><br /></div><div>One of the treatments offered in later years was brain implants, which involved the head being screwed into a vice and then holes drilled in the skull to insert electrodes. The patient has to stay awake during the operation so that at the crucial time they can tell the surgeon what they feel when the electrodes are wiggled around. The patient is required to keep talking to the surgical team throughout so that they can tell he’s still OK. This was a situation tailor made for Dave, an opportunity to tell Dad jokes for four hours without anyone begging him to stop.** The operation worked, though not as well as it might have done. Moving on from it involved kicking rolled up socks around the house. I have no idea why, but Dave took to it with some gusto.</div><div><br /></div><div>I was last able to see Dave a good couple of years ago. He was communicating then very slowly with an alphabet sheet, but with his mind fully sharp, and able to absorb and engage.</div><div><br /></div><div>Covid changed the world for everybody, but particularly for people with any kind of disability or chronic condition. And their carers. With Dave worsening, Julia had to look after him largely unsupported, and with her own bodily issues, for many months. She had to do all the cooking and housework, see to his medication, pick him up when he fell, communicate with him with painful slowness whenever necessary. It was a very dispiriting and undeserved end period for a life lived with such verve. The final decline was mercifully brief, and a shock to all of us. We’d known for a long time that it was coming, but after living with Parkinson's and a gradually worsening body for thirty years, Dave seemed indestructible. He wasn’t, but our memories of him will be.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">* * * * * * * * * * * *</div><div><br /></div><div>*My sister reminds me, quite rightly, that Dad was actually liked by a lot of people, and that Dave and he got on very well. My relationship with him was not typical.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>**A Dave joke</div><div><br /></div><div>An American tourist eats at an Italian restaurant one day. He tells the waiter, “I want a steak. Done just right. Not too well done. Not too rare. Just, tchk, in the groove.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The waiter goes into the kitchen and says to the chef, “There’s a bigga Americana tourista. He wantsa a steak. Done notta too well, notta too rare, just, tchk, inna da groove.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The chef says, “OK, He can havea da steak, notta too well done, notta too rare, just, tchk, inna da groove.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The steak is delivered. The tourist wants vegetables. “Not too mushy, not too crunchy. Just, tchk, in the groove.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The waiter goes into the kitchen and says to the chef, “Tha bigga Americana tourista wantsa vegetables. Notta too mushy, notta too crunchy, just, tchk, inna da groove.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The chef says, “OK, He can havea da vegetables. Notta too mushy, notta too crunchy, just, tchk, inna da groove.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The vegetables are delivered. The tourist asks for roast potatoes. “Not too soft, not too hard. Just, tchk, in the groove.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The waiter goes into the kitchen and says to the chef, “Tha bigga Americana tourista wantsa roast potatoes. Notta too soft, notta too hard, just, tchk, inna da groove.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The chef says, “OK, He can havea da roast potatoes. Notta too soft, notta too hard, just, tchk, inna da groove.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The roast potatoes are delivered to the table. The tourist says, “OK, I’d like some gravy. Not too thick, not too thin. Just, tchk, in the groove.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The waiter goes into the kitchen and says to the chef, “Tha bigga Americana tourista wantsa gravy. Notta too thick, notta too thin, just, tchk, inna da groove.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The chef finally loses patience. “You tella da big American tourist. He canna kissa my ass. Not onna da left cheek, not onna da right cheek, just, tchk, inna da groove.”</div><p></p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-24098469659091456712021-06-14T06:26:00.000-07:002021-06-14T06:26:04.870-07:00What to do with a repentant brexiter<p> When somebody finally says they regret having voted for Brexit, we are confronted by the problem that there is on the face of it so little that we can do that's positive. Even if we have a repentant Brexiter in front of us, "I realise I was wrong", the automatic response is "It's too f****** late now, isn't it???" and to say so shoutily because there is no other relevant emotion to fit the moment.</p><p>So we need to construct something positive to move on with and get the Bregretter to engage more positively with whatever might happen next. As far as Brexit itself is concerned, it really is too late. That is a large part of the problem when confronting the future. The Remainer knows the battle is lost; the Bregretter is confronted by knowing that they can do nothing to undo the decision they made in 2016. The upshot is collective helplessness - a helplessness on which those who brought us Brexit feed.</p><p>Getting back into the EU on the terms we had is a chimaera. We're not going to get back in on those terms. If we do want to get back in, we will need to build a majority in favour of rejoining on third country terms, and the majority will need to be big enough and stable enough for the EU to take us seriously. That is going to take a very long time.</p><p>But Brexit was not the final goal for the Brexiters; it was always only a stage in the game for them. They are still here, they have nowhere near finished, and they are still prepared to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want.</p><p>Our Bregretter, usually, has to start by admitting to having been conned. That in itself is quite a hard thing to do, and especially hard if there is no apparent upside to the admission.</p><p>So, perhaps, stage one of the conversation is to say gently, "You were conned weren't you." If they're still a bit reluctant about it, you can say, "It's all right being conned. They've been lying for forty years. They've had half the media on their side, telling their lies for them for all that time. It's not surprising a lot of perfectly intelligent people were taken in."</p><p>(As an aside, when somebody complains about the effects of Brexit, it is perfectly legitimate to ask them if they voted for it. The trick is to do it in a gentle and friendly tone.)</p><p>They might say, "If only I could vote again". Even if they don't, you can say, you can't get that vote back, but you can be better prepared for next time.</p><p>"Because you have to realise there is going to be a next time. The next thing they're going to do is soften you up for trade deals that weaken our workers' protections, or maybe our environmental protections. They'll be working on softening you up to back selling off the NHS. And they'll do it exactly the same way - they'll lie to you, they'll plant stories in the papers, they'll tell the same lies over and over again, and they'll do it for years if they have to. They lied about the EU for forty years to get their way.</p><p>"So what are you going to do to stop yourself from falling for it again?"</p><p>You might debate around that for a while. (At this point a point of beer probably comes in handy.)</p><p>And at the right moment, you say to them. "It's going to take an effort. You can't just say to yourself, 'I won't let it happen again'. You've got to work at being prepared. You've got to start noticing how the right wing press works. Better still, stop reading the Mail / Express / Telegraph - they lie to you all the time. If you're not prepared to give them up, then what you're saying is you don't mind being lied to, and you're setting yourself up for being conned again next time. So you need to be prepared to do some hard work - and I can help you with that.</p><p>And then the conversation continues....</p><p><b>The TL;DR version of this is, every Bregretter can be a project. But the aim of the project is not first and foremost to get us back into the EU. The aim of the project is first to turn us back into a democracy.</b></p><p><i>Addendum</i></p><p><i>What about those who voted for Brexit and haven't changed their minds? Debating with them (not "arguing" with them, but "debating" with them) has both purpose and benefits too. Firstly, people do change their minds, but they don't change their minds over something like this as a result of one conversation. It happens most often over a period of years as a result of many, many conversations and experiences. Yours might be one in the chain that leads to a change of heart. You will never know, but, if you choose to do it, it's still worth doing. Secondly, when you debate with someone, particularly on social media, you are not just talking to them, you are talking to everyone who reads the conversation. Even if the person you are talking to is apparently a brick wall, others may not be. The first rule about talking to convinced Brexiters, though, is that is should never be compulsory, whatever the putative benefits. Do it if you choose to, but never feel that you have to.</i></p><div><br /></div>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-19102794873075597882021-01-30T05:12:00.001-08:002021-01-30T05:12:57.616-08:00Read Paul Garner<p> If you want to understand ME (and I won't blame you if you don't want to), you should read <a href="https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/25/paul-garner-on-his-recovery-from-long-covid/">Paul Garner's piece in the BMJ</a>, and then you should read the comments after it.</p><p>Paul Garner, an experienced and respected professor at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, specialising in infectious diseases, has written about his recovery from long Covid. He also states that he met the criteria for ME/CFS. He used positive thinking, most likely in the form of the Lightning Process, though he is unspecific about that. He then claims to have "looked down the barrel of the ME/CFS gun and disarmed it", a sentence he is quite proud of, as he uses it in his tweet signposting the article.</p><p>Not surprisingly, he has been met with consistent contradiction from ME sufferers and specialists who know what they're talking about. What was noticeable to me is the measured nature of the responses. There is anger, not surprisingly, and there is some robust language, not surprisingly, considering that he has just told millions of people that their illness is all in the mind. He is met with polite, albeit vigorous, rebuttal from people with ME, from their carers and from medical professionals who work in the field. I am deeply impressed with everybody who replied to him, because it feels so degrading to have to say, yet again, ME is real. It is not just in the mind, it is not something you get over by having a positive attitude, any more than a broken leg is. Hope can help, but it is not a cure. And when you've hoped for twenty years, and you still don't have a cure, hope feels a bit bankrupt.</p><p>Garner's article is a prime piece of gaslighting, perfectly carried out. He phrases his article very cleverly, never quite saying "if I did it, you can do it too", but that is the thread woven into everything he says. Perhaps in the enthusiasm of his newly recovered life he doesn't realise what he has done. I hope so. But I am surprised that a professor of such experience should not have investigated and understood the medical science behind ME, and equally surprised that such an eminent academic should so misunderstand the difference between anecdote and data. And I am surprised that the BMJ should give its powerful platform to such a medically and scientifically illiterate piece of writing.</p><p>To Paul Garner: You may have disarmed the gun for yourself, Paul, and I am glad for you that it happened. But you just made the gun blow up in everybody else's face.</p><p>To everybody else: if you read his article, and then the comments on it, you may have a much better understanding of the awful, physical, bodycrushing, mindsearing, emotionwrenching reality of ME.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-77515094889575797652021-01-04T08:13:00.000-08:002021-01-04T08:13:21.161-08:00Let's fix this country first<p> I have thought for a while that Brexit is not just about Brexit. Leaving the EU is only a step on the way for fundamental Brexiters to get what they want, which is to turn Britain into a neoliberal paradise – Singapore on Thames is exactly what they want. That being the case, populism is not going to disappear, because it is still the primary tool for securing that end. Farage has already switched from Brexit to covid: he is adept at latching on to anything that stokes resentment, and we will continue to see the politics of resentment at high intensity for years to come.</p><p>For that reason, I think Nick Tolhurst <a href="https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1344592194930438144" target="_blank">here </a>is right about future prospects but wrong about strategy. I’m coming to think more and more that figuring out how to rejoin the EU is the wrong focus, for two reasons. The first is that the populists will use it against us very successfully: it will actually do us more harm than good. The second is that if we are to be acceptable as renewed members of the EU we have to fix this country first. We have massive problems – the voting system which denies power to people, the Parliamentary system which denies power to MPs, the media system which allows newspapers to tell lies without consequence, the tax system which allows rich people to find all sorts of ways to protect “their” money, the economic system which promotes inequality (and inequality kills, as we are seeing ever more with Covid), etc, etc, etc.</p><p>This is a long term struggle. (The Brexiters have spent forty years refusing to accept the result of the 1975 referendum and plotting for this moment.) In some ways we should view it like a military campaign. Don’t fight battles you can’t win – if we focus on re-entry to the EU now, we will not win that battle, we will merely give strength to our enemies. And secondly, you don’t just slam in and fight a battle when it is offered, you first shape the battlefield – you organise your army, you build up supplies, you send small elements to nibble away at your enemies’ strength, you pick when and where you are going to fight. That takes a great deal of organisation and preparation. And you always start with what you have now, not with what you wish you had, So we start with this country, here and now – it’s rotten voting system, its rotten economic system, its rotten political system, its rotten culture which promotes argument over conversation.</p><p>So my feeling is we should work on our internal problems, which is a massive job in itself, and let the gravitational pull of the EU gradually repair our relationship to the point where we can begin again to talk realistically about our integrated future.</p><p>I end with a titbit: a very interesting thread by German historian Helene von Bismarck on <a href="https://twitter.com/HeleneBismarck/status/1334817536706289665" target="_blank">why Brexit does not signal the end of populism</a>.</p><p><br /></p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-88795267451348195792020-11-22T04:20:00.000-08:002020-11-22T04:20:29.821-08:00Forty years in the making<p> First published in <a href="https://www.libdemvoice.org/forty-years-in-the-making-66374.html">LibDemVoice </a>22nd Nov 2020</p><p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Liberal democracy is
in crisis, particularly in the UK and the USA. In the UK we are
perhaps bemused at how we could have come to elect such a corrupt,
cronyistic and incompetent government, and in the USA there is much
debate over how the Trump lump has not gone away despite four years
of Trump’s Twitter tantrums.</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">There is a tendency
to view this as a short term phenomenon – what went wrong four
years ago, six years ago, even ten years ago. In my view this has
been coming for forty years. It has not been inevitable but, during
the neoliberal period (roughly from the 80s till today), social
forces and personal decision making have moved us steadily towards
the situation we now find ourselves in.</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">In a nutshell, the
elevation to power of Thatcher and Reagan marked the start of what
was seen to be a move towards freedom, opening up societies all over
the world to the liberating forces of the market. This had two sides,
globalisation, an ineluctable social force beyond the power of
individuals to affect, and the strategy of global elites both old and
new, to use globalisation to create new wealth and power for
themselves. They have been very successful. So it turned out to be a
move towards freedom for some, but by no means all. The elites used
liberalism as their watchword, while ignoring the principle of
liberalism that their freedom is only valid in so far as it does not
compromise other people’s freedom.</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">At the same time
there has been a steady corrosion of community and democratic values,
partly because the new markets require it (they don’t work without
precarious labour) and partly because of media elites who found that
telling lies worked, and political elites who did not care to
confront them. People sold on consumer capitalism found easy answers
to all the ills in their lives in the lies told them by the media.
Rupert Murdoch and Hugh Dacre, among others, spent decades preparing
the British public for the Brexit lie. They have succeeded in making
many people’s lives precarious and hoodwinking them into blaming
others for that.</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">The reason this
perspective is important is that it sheds light on our immediate
future. The Trump lump and the Brexit lump are not going to go away.
Their defining feature is resentment, honed over forty years. It
won’t disappear just because Trump has blown himself out and Brexit
has happened. (Farage is already looking for new ways to foment
resentment by attacking lockdown.) If we want to make our countries
more liberal again, then we have to look at long term solutions as
well as short term ones – there is no quick fix for a problem that
has been forty deliberate and persistent years in the making.</p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">We still need our
short term activity. We can and must fight to win elections and to
influence policy. But we also need a long term strategy as deliberate
and persistent as theirs has been. The epitome – and the nadir - of
the liberal attitude was the remain campaign in 2016, the most
disastrously disorganised and inept campaign I have ever been
involved in. We deserved to lose. Our biggest mistake was expecting
the voters to be sensible. That did not happen and will not happen
again until we make it happen. We must seek to persuade over a long
period of time – a drip, drip of persistent, deliberate and
targeted conversation over many years, if we want our countries ever
to be generous again.</p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-82937859631325625132020-10-15T03:33:00.002-07:002020-11-21T06:04:27.708-08:00A good read but a flawed conclusion<p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/15/britains-covid-19-strategy-jobless-people-virus-economic" target="_blank">Larry Elliott on Britain's covid crisis</a>, a good read but a flawed conclusion, particularly in his observation that in a crisis people change their behaviour. He's right they do, but in different ways, which is why his comparison with Sweden is wide of the mark.</p><p>"Scientific models suggested that Sweden would suffer 96,000 Covid-19 deaths in the first wave, owing to its government’s decision to have only mild restrictions, but they presupposed that Swedes would carry on as before. They didn’t, with the result that the death toll is fewer than 6,000..."</p><p>The implication - which Elliott does not follow through on, as his focus is mainly on the economics - is that a similar light touch would have had similar results in the UK. I doubt that very much. Sweden embarked on its light touch policy knowing that it could rely on the large bulk of the Swedish population taking sensible steps to preserve not only their own lives, but other people's too.</p><p>We cannot, unfortunately, make that assumption about the British population. For forty years, since Thatcher, mainstream influence in our society has been bent towards encouraging people to live lives of self based consumerism, to consider nothing but their own desires. Many people have not followed this path, but far too many have.</p><p>We are at the end of forty years of Thatcherite induced consumption based individualism, of which Johnson and Cummings' government is the apotheosis. Some large proportion of our population have accepted what they have been told, that permanent hedonism is their right, and no killjoy is going to come between them and their day out.</p><p>We do need our government to change the way they do things. It's not actually about competence. The government is capable of being competent. But competence requires time and energy, and this government doesn't care enough to put the effort in. We need our government to care. That on its own will do a lot to defeat covid. But it won't solve our basic problems. For that we need to change our society, our economy, our politics, in fact our way of life. We need to move away from unbridled consumption and individualism towards a more human centred way of doing things. </p>Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1317078132745855118.post-71080692103116179442019-12-06T04:35:00.000-08:002019-12-06T04:35:34.249-08:00Christmas instore torture<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Every
year I have a tussle with Tesco when they start playing Christmas
music instore. I ask if they are going to play it all the time, and
they say we have to, head office tell us to. When I contact head
office, they say it’s up to the manager. This dialogue has replayed
in different ways every year. This year I decided to ask them some
questions. It took two goes on their email contact service due to a
character limit of 1000. Below I quote my original query and their
reply.</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">It’s
quite ironic to see a reply of this nature just as they have
announced joining the yellow lanyard scheme (which Customer Services
refer to in their reply).</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The
tl;dr version of both is this.</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Me:</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-
I find the music played instore at Christmas distressing. Does it
have to be on all the time?</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-
You know some of your staff hate it. What care do you have for their
wellbeing?</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-
You know some disabled peope are triggered by noise. What
consideration do you have for them?</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The
answer I got was basically:</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-
we don’t care about our customers (<i>“</i><i>We do not need
customer approval to play Christmas songs in store”</i>)</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-
we particularly don’t care about disabled people (“<i>i</i><i>f
you do have an issue with the music, or the levels of the music, then
this can be raised in store, and this will be changed based on the
stores discretion”</i>. Every store manager I have ever spoken to
says they have no discretion.)</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-
we don’t care about our employees either (<i>“</i><i>Should staff
members have any issues with the music, then , as with our customers,
this will be taken into consideration, based on each store.”</i> -
I have spoken to a number of staff members over the years, including
this year, who hate it, but who can clearly do nothing about it.)</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-
so stuff you (politely).</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">What
the answer actually says looks quite reasonable. But it is uniformly
contradicted by what store managers have told me over the years, that
they have no discretion. It also fails to answer the questions I ask
about the reasons for the music being played (because it’s
Christmas time???) and fails to answer why it has to be played every
minute the store is open.</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Later
edit: and the attitude is contradicted by Tesco Scotland, who have
taken a step in the right direction:
<a href="https://pipedown.org.uk/tesco-extends-its-quiet-hours/">https://pipedown.org.uk/tesco-extends-its-quiet-hours/</a></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Here’s
the full version of my message. (The one Tesco got was slightly
different, as I had to trim it further to fit within the character
limit, and I did not keep a record of the trimmed version.)</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">I
discovered today that it is once again the time of year when you
inflict on your customers the annual mental torture known as
"Christmas" "music".</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">I
am sure that some of your customers appreciate it, and probably a
large majority don't care either way. But for a minority, myself
included, the experience is, as I described it above, torture.</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">During
the summer I was unfortunate to enter the store when there was some
kind of charity event on involving three days of dance music. I had
to leave rapidly, and the duty manager, to do her credit, came out to
speak to me about the experience. She said she had worked in stores
which had a regular stimulus free time weekly, which for me would be
a great boon.</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">I
know I will not change your policy on this - I have tried each
Christmas for several years and had dismissive, inaccurate or
unbending responses. But would you please answer some questions.
These follow in the next email.</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Follows
last email</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1)
</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">W</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">hat
evidence do you have that your customers so enjoy the music that they
need it for </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
weeks </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">continuously</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">;
</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">and</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">,
do you any e</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">v</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">iden</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">c</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">e
at all that having the music on helps your bottom line?</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2)
Does it have to be so relentless? Does it have to be on every hour of
every day for the whole of the next </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
weeks?</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3)
</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">How
do you</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
discharge your duty of care to your employees? </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Maybe</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
some enjoy it </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">or</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
just zone it out. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">B</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">ut
for some it </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">is</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
torture having to listen to that noise for </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">8</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
hours on end. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">U</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">ncontrolled
sound is a major factor in causing mental stress. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">D</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">o
you have any care for reducing the stress on your entire shop floor
workforce?</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">4)
</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">How
do you</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
discharge your duties under the Disability Discrimination Act? I do
not have a mental disability, just a pronounced and physical aversion
to this kind of noise. But many people with autism and related
conditions are triggered by extraneous sounds. What steps have you
taken to make your stores as welcoming to them as to other people?</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Rob
Parsons</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">And
here is their reply:</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Dear
Rob, </span></span>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Thank
you for contacting me, I hope you are well. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">I
was very sorry to hear about your concerns over the Christmas music
being played in store. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">We
do not need customer approval to play Christmas songs in store, just
as we do not require customer approval to play music throughout the
rest of the year. Is this something that affects you throughout the
year? </span></span>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">This
music is played, because it is the run up to Christmas, and not
because it has any sort of affect on our bottom line. As with most
retail stores, we will play festive music during the festive period.
Should staff members have any issues with the music, then , as with
our customers, this will be taken into consideration, based on each
store. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">I
am not sure why you would raise the Disability Discrimination act, as
this is irrelevant. As with all of our customers, if you do have an
issue with the music, or the levels of the music, then this can be
raised in store, and this will be changed based on the stores
discretion. We simply do not have the foresight to predict when
disabled customers will visit the store, so changes will be made on
an as needed basis. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">In
various stores, we have arranged quiet hours, for people with these
exact difficulties, as we realise that with some disabilities, this
can have a huge impact on them, so we do try to accommodate these
issues where we can. We also have a sunflower lanyard available, for
people with invisible disabilities, so that colleagues can be made
aware of any issues that may be present. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">If
you do experience any issues with the music being played in store, I
would advise that you raise this with management in store, as they
will be able to help make your store experience better. </span></span>
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Kind
regards</span></span></div>
<br /></div>
Rob Parsonshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10172127627370862611noreply@blogger.com1