Despondent Productions Official Site
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter

Despondent Publications

Feel free to respond to anything that stirs your barrel.
Keep it real and keep it clean. Peace.

Johnny Despondent

Click here to return to Despondent Industries
  • Home
  • Commissions & Collaborations
    • barbaralaing.com promo
    • Breakfast Vox Pops
    • Dyffrydan 2013 promo
    • Dyffrydan Video Guide
    • NHS - Skills for Health
    • Piper & Dolce Vita
    • Safety in the Balance with Captain Bruce Dickinson >
      • Shoot Stills
    • Subaleague International Christmas Cup 2008
    • Subaleague International Christmas Cup 2013
    • The Belmont Concerto
    • Thousands & Thousands
  • Special Events
    • Backtorp 2015
    • Ben & Rasa's Wedding
    • California Sailing
    • Despondent Productions Get Married
    • Edinburgh Botanical Gardens Light Show 2015
    • Locks & Lochs - Part I - Locks
    • Man Catches Ram at Dyffrydan
    • Presently Pleasantly Seventy - The Movie
    • SHaKin' it up at 40
    • The Christmas Cup Final, 2008
  • The Rest
    • Barcelona
    • Chablo & the Punchline
    • Christmas 2014 in Denmark & Sweden
    • Directions
    • Dunkeld >
      • Stills
    • In Iceland
    • In Iceland II
    • In the Don with M & P
    • LA Day
    • LA Sports (it's in the name)
    • Lascia Ch'io Pianga mia Cruda Sorte
    • Man Overboard!
    • McGregor & I
    • Seacliff Beach
    • Thailand & Malaysia >
      • Andaman Adventure
      • Andaman Sun
      • The Hong
      • Under the Andaman Sea
    • Tonight
    • Trouble
    • Wardrobe
    • Whales
    • Despondent Productions Showreel
  • Johnny Despondent
    • Bio
    • Contact
    • Knucklehead >
      • Go-Go Rockers
      • No Attitudes
      • Audio
      • Gallery
    • Dyffrydan 2013 bid
  • Despondent Industries
    • About
    • Despondent Images >
      • Autumn in Humbie Woods
      • Duck
      • Deer
      • Leith Wildlife
      • Waterfall
      • Rock Faces
      • Loch Earn & Killen
      • Johnny Despondent Guerilla Awareness Campaign
      • Along the Water of Leith
      • Southern Uplands Way - St Mary's Loch
      • Flooding & Sunset
      • Leaf Art
      • Marrakech
      • Breakfast with Birds
      • Le Jardin Marjorelle
      • Glencoe
    • Despondent Publications
    • A Game of Kings (fiction)

Taking the 'meh' option

6/5/2015

0 Comments

 
For the last six weeks or more I have been routinely told that I must no longer fight for what I believe to be right. That I must not stand up 100% for my principles and beliefs. That I must abandon the notion of voting for what I truly see as politically right and instead settle for a second or even third best option, by way of using my vote as protest against those I do not want to run the country rather than as a means to elect those I do. Instead of voting for the party I truly think would make a difference I have to take the ‘meh’ option.

The problem, for me, of playing the election game tactically is that it all just feels a bit apathetic. There’s a party out there that I want to vote for, that stands for more of the things that I believe in than any of the others but if I vote for them I could get 1000 times worse than if I take the meh option. So rather than take the rare opportunity to vote for real change I am being told to vote to maintain the status quo - the very thing I want to be rid of - for if I do not the status quo will become even worse. If I wasn’t so helpless it would be infuriating. But since I am utterly helpless it is simply ‘meh’ and get on with it.

Because of the mainstream parties’ innate collective inability to listen to an unhappy electorate - instead preferring to press ahead with sometimes deeply flawed and often self-serving policies - we now find ourselves with myriad parties to vote for, all of them trying to offer a little of what the mainstream do not. We have even seen a debate on television involving the leaders of seven different parties. 

Of those seven parties the three mainstreamers sit atop the tree, even if only by virtue of their current job in Clegg’s case. While they are more than reticent when it comes to stating their full intentions should they be elected, they appear to be very happy to play fortune teller when it comes to making predictions about what will happen if I vote for X, Y or Z. And somehow, for Cameron and Miliband, this rhetoric works in tandem with them telling us they are going to win a majority.

It is not in the mainstreamers’ interests to recognise any real backlash among the British public over the emotive issue of privilege. To do so would be to threaten their own children’s futures. Instead they must cling on for as long as they can to the last bastions of an outdated, not fit for purpose system.

Only 5 years ago coalition was a dirty word. So feared was it there was (what we can now plainly see as) risible talk of a second general election. Yet today coalition is the future! Rather than face the prospect of handing over to someone new, with new ideas on how public money should be raised and spent, the old guard are actually willing to jump into bed with each other to salvage the dregs of the old regime; the one that brought them to where they are today - and the country to where it is. The regime that merely sees the balance of power shift from Labour to Conservative and back again ad infinitum.

For the second successive election no one party is expected to win a majority. Yet rather than evolve to appeal to a larger proportion of the electorate they so vociferously claim to know and represent, our statesmen would rather bury their heads in the sand. Insist you can win, then form a coalition when you don’t. The aim of the strategy is to keep any form of new order out of positions of tangible power. And it works. But that they are willing to compromise party policy in pursuit of a personal salary, yet not in order to gain a larger support base, is politically absurd and utterly shameful.

I live in Scotland where I have the opportunity to vote for the only party in the United Kingdom that genuinely cares about Scotland. I like the Greens policy of high taxation for the rich but, alone, it is not enough to persuade me to vote for them. However, if the Labour Party were cute and took the SNP’s stance on Trident and/or the Green Party’s stance on tax and/or either party’s stance on fracking, instead of burying their heads in the sand so they can keep Cameron and his cronies in work one way or another, I would have to seriously reconsider deserting them - as, I suspect, would many other people who will be voting SNP or Green today. They might even gain a few Plaid votes. And a further benefit of such common sense would be the mess it would leave the Tories in. They would be forced to become more UKIP and decent Tories - for they do exist on some misguided sphere - would be forced to reconsider their vote.

But I am dreaming. There is no chance of anything remotely radical happening in this election.  Since no one can get a majority the individual careers of the mainstream leaders is better served with a hugely divided electorate that ensures ‘the other guy’ isn't left in power to his own devices. Miliband and Cameron are fighting for top dog status with Clegg sniffing around for any scraps that might be thrown his way. Power will continue to pendulum depressingly one way before the other, as a constant stream of public schoolboys continue with short-term policies that guarantee their pensions and their kids’ educations, thus enabling the cycle of privilege to stay alive and well - the price being coalition.

This election has been relatively free of ‘British Values’, which I welcome. I have never really been sure what they are: tolerance, justice and freedom maybe? But aren’t those just the traits of any decent human being, whatever country they hail from? While I admit a great deal of tolerance has been shown to dodgy bankers, bent police officers, peadophiles and their employers, telephone hackers, illegal-war mongerers, tax dodgers and MPs caught with both hands in the expenses pot, it can hardly be described as admirable. And while Cameron peddles the myth that he has created a fair society, try telling that to the families of the 96 Hillsborough victims who have campaigned for justice under both Tory and Labour governments, or victims of the bedroom tax, or the people whose property value has plummeted because their homes are being fracked under without their consent. And can freedom even be a value? The only British Value I can detect is this new one being coerced upon us; that of taking the meh option.

But this time around I don’t have to apathetically vote for the second or third best of a bad lot, muttering ‘meh’ as I scribble my X against the anointed candidate’s name. I will be voting for what I believe in - not in the belief that it will make much difference in the forthcoming term of government, but in the hope that this is the start of a peaceful revolution that will take many years and several elections to gain pace and achieve its noble aims. This time I am not willing to take the meh option.
0 Comments

When the right turns to the left

30/4/2013

0 Comments

 
This Government has come up with some ludicrous ideas in its short tenure at the helm but surely nothing tops Iain Duncan Smith’s bizarre notion that wealthy pensioners might voluntarily return benefits they do not require? "It is up to them, if they don’t want it, to hand it back," Smith told The Sunday Telegraph while urging its readers to return their bus passes and winter fuel allowances and pay for their TV licences. I find this idea - and the blatant lack of thought that has gone into it - utterly staggering.

First of all there is the process to consider: Take, for example, the winter fuel payment. This benefit, available to all British pensioners across the EC, is administered by the pensions side of the already woefully understaffed Department for Work and Pensions, whose staff will, presumably, be expected to process its return, taking them yet further away from what one might be forgiven for believing is their real job; that of actually serving the multitudes of pensioners in genuine need. Forms will need to be drafted and printed. Pensioners will not be able to simply stick a cheque in an envelope, address it to G Osborne and send it to 11 Downing Street. With no research to indicate even roughly how many pensioners would be willing to return their payments there is a very real possibility that the administration will cost more than the figure recouped.

Then there is the small matter regarding exactly who will feel wealthy enough to repay their money. A large number of people who were in their 30s in the 1980s, and prospered handsomely under Thatcher’s money-grabbing culture of greed and self-fulfillment, will now be retired. Many of them are grateful to Thatcher for their wealth, showing their appreciation all over the BBC recently when she finally departed this mortal coil and repaying her by becoming lifelong Tories. They see nothing wrong with the values that made them their money and that they still hold dear - and why should they? Can we really expect these people, who were repeatedly told that there is no such thing as society, to suddenly develop a social conscience, or be able to make the marginally self-sacrificial decision that they have accumulated enough wealth already? Can they really be expected to discard their take, take, take attitudes and senses of entitlement, thus undoing everything that Mother Thatcher taught them and that put them in the comfortable positions they now superciliously occupy?

There is not enough money in the national coffers; of that there is no doubt. But for a Tory politician it is better to break this inevitably vote-losing news slowly, over 20 years, to today’s 40-somethings so that we can at least mentally prepare ourselves for our inevitable poverty in retirement, rather than lose the votes of wealthy pensioners now by taking away benefits they feel entitled to and have looked forward to, but do not actually need. And of course, this news must be broken in such a manner that it appears they still believe we will, one day, actually be able to retire.

Iain Duncan Smith told The Sunday Telegraph there is "no indication of change" to the current system. While Nigel Farage nips like an irksome Chihuahua at the heels of the Tories, could it be that IDS is fully aware of the consequences of telling today’s pensioners they will not be entitled to the same benefits their parents enjoyed?

I am not suggesting there are no pensioners in Britain who would be willing to return their OAP benefits on the basis that they do not need them. Indeed, I know at least two retirees who already give their winter fuel allowance to charity and have done for several years, one of them after trying, to no avail, to refuse it in the first place. I would like to think there are many more like them. But neither of these people have ever voted for the Conservative Party in their lives and - I can say with absolute certainty - will never do so.

David Cameron loves nothing more than following up the standard Tory rhetoric of robbing from the poor to protect the rich with soundbites to the media about ‘difficult decisions’. Oddly he never outright says; "look, let's be clear here; we really didn’t want to do this but we had no choice," but he likes to imply they have agonised over something that everyone knows is basic Tory policy. To make these pensioner benefits means tested would undoubtedly lose the Conservatives valuable votes. So instead, Iain Duncan Smith, the former leader of a party that scoffed at Greece’s ‘voluntary tax’ system, is effectively asking those who did not vote for him - socialists no less - to take responsibility for his Government’s right-wing failings by voluntarily returning their pensioner benefits to save this coalition from actually having to make a difficult decision for the first time in their administration. Like I said; staggering.

0 Comments

It's all gone horribly wrong

11/3/2013

0 Comments

 
 Ask yourself this simple question: How many of your friends, colleagues and/or employees are criminals? Use your fingers to count them if needs be. Unless you indulge in crime yourself it is unlikely you will need both hands. Now discount the ones who have never been - and are unlikely to ever be - in jail, and those whose convictions are minor and do not involve victims, deception, fraud or collusion. Chances are you no longer even need one hand - unless of course you are near, or at, the top of politics.

With Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce facing sentencing today, one might reasonably imagine that the self-styled Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, would want to publically distance himself from them. But this is to overlook his boss’s willingness to employ Andy Coulson after he resigned from his position as News of the World editor in 2007 following the conviction of one of his charges for illegal phone-hacking, or Cameron’s equally crass cavorting with the multi-arrested, husband-beating Rebekah Brooks, herself awaiting trial on numerous, serious charges.

Indeed, rather than distance himself from Huhne, Clegg has spent the weekend telling anyone who would listen what an ‘effective and outstanding’ politician the proven and self-confessed liar Chris Huhne is. Putting aside the cost to the public purse of the disgraced former MP’s dishonesty (more than £100,000 so far, the cost of his incarceration still to come) it does not take a genius to work out the values Nick Clegg - no doubt influenced by his boss - holds dear to his heart.

As children our parents warn us about hanging around with the naughty kids at school. Our judgement may not be totally sound and we may find ourselves attracted to the thrill of doing what we know to be wrong or encouraging our peers in their pursuit of rule-breaking. But when we mature we are expected to be able to recognise and act upon the lessons and counsel of our youth and make stable judgements for ourselves. How can it be then that we are genuinely expected to elect to office politicians with zero credibility, who clearly have no concept of right and wrong? How are these people still allowed to stand?

0 Comments

A Matter of Trust

19/12/2012

0 Comments

 
For years now -–whenever America is not dominating our news, that is - the standard theme in British news reports has been a massive lack of trust from institutions in authority and commerce towards the people. In 1995 the DNA register was established and it has now accrued the DNA of just shy of 6 million individuals. These days the hysterical calls for the register to include every citizen in the country are given a lesser platform, but we may be able to attribute that to the advent of a much easier method for monitoring the nation.

Recent news items have seen the Government unveil the Data Communications Bill; a bill which, if passed, will extend the range of data that telecoms firms will have to store for up to 12 months. This will include details of messages sent on social media, webmail, internet voice calls, gaming, emails and phone calls and is hailed as being ‘for our own protection’ yet it is inarguably the actions of a paranoid administration that trusts nobody.

The same day the Government also announced plans to allow more whiplash claims to be challenged in small claims courts. Currently it can be cheaper for insurance companies - without doubt the greatest ever perpetrators of legal theft  - to accept ‘questionable’ claims but this new legislation will change that, thus making bookmakers more reputable than insurance brokers - and certainly better value.

When one half of a relationship becomes erroneously paranoid that their other half is cheating on them it is not uncommon to discover that their paranoia stems from their own infidelities: I’m cheating on her so it stands to reason she’s probably cheating on me. While judging others by one's own standards is not always the best option it is also not a new phenomenon, showing no signs of abatement and apparent in all areas of life, never more so than now.

Today the news is full of revelations of lies: The detective who lied about Andrew Mitchell’s language; the question of why Mitchell did not accuse him of lying at the time; what the BBC knew and didn't know about Jimmy Savile and Lord McAlpine; the 23-year Hillsborough cover-up; Cameron’s cavorting with Rebekah Brooks and his fox-hunting pals.

It is pretty obvious what is happening here. Corruption breeds paranoia. It is not us, the electorate, that cannot be trusted, yet we are paying the price for the Government and the police judging us by their own standards. Corruption is rife within authority in the UK and the only method authority has of covering it up is to deflect it back onto us, which can only stem from the question they presumably genuinely ask themselves: “How could anyone not be corrupt?”

The expenses scandal laid bare how politicians screw their own benefits system - and surely continue to. This accounts for their unswerving belief that the unemployed are screwing theirs. The police lie to cover their sorry arses, therefore rendering themselves unable to believe that the public do not do the same. Nobody trusts anybody. Insurance companies don't trust the people, the people don’t trust the politicians, the politicians don’t trust the police, the police don’t trust the media, the media don’t trust the politicians, hell even the politicians don’t trust the politicians. In fact, the politicians don't trust anyone. Surely the more people you don't trust the less trustworthy you are yourself? Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Interestingly when it comes to tax avoidance we might assume that politicians' tax affairs are in order since it does not occur to them to enforce taxation on their peers, even when it is made crystal clear that tax responsibilities are not being met. But I digress.

Whether it is government, police or just large corporations meting out the distrust, it is obvious that we are viewed as an ever-more deceitful and dishonest  society. Psychologists talk about the self-fulfilling prophecy; the phenomenon that sees a person erroneously and continually labelled in a certain way until, eventually, it is easier - almost natural - for that person to take on the qualities they stand accused of. Hey, welcome to the Big Society.

0 Comments

Nurse Jacintha Saldanha, the Windsors & the press

8/12/2012

0 Comments

 
Following the suicide of Jacintha Saldanha, the nurse who fell victim to a hoax call from the Australian radio station 2Day FM, I can’t help thinking the subsequent outrage, particularly in light of the recent Leveson enquiry, is totally misdirected.

Hoax calls from radio stations are nothing new. Enter the term in a You Tube search and it will yield thousands of results from all over the world. Hoax calls have been making people laugh/cringe for many years and will continue to do so for many more to come. That the victim of one chooses to commit suicide is as rare as it is tragic but a well-executed prank call can be very funny to even the most miserable of men.

When 2Day FM played their prank call on air -–without the permission of those involved it would appear -–nobody was particularly surprised or, I should imagine, particularly impressed. The call lacked any real humour and -–aside from the obvious breach of confidentiality - was newsworthy only because the accents of the DJs impersonating the Queen and Prince Charles were so appallingly bad yet were still believed. Nobody took umbrage at the ‘prank’, indeed Prince Charles even attempted a joke about it when asked how he felt about his daughter-in-law’s pregnancy.

Lord Justice Leveson has spent over a year conducting an inquiry into the behaviour of the press, in part, seeking to quantify what qualifies as being ‘in the public interest’. While there can be no argument that a pregnant girl suffering from morning sickness is not in any way newsworthy it could reasonably be claimed that this non-story becomes slightly newsworthy when we consider that the girl in question might be the Queen one day.

But how can it be in the public interest to station untold reporters outside the hospital where she was being treated for what is not an unknown part of early pregnancy? These are people on upwards of £80k a year with university educations! They are being asked to utilise their skills by standing around waiting for someone completely unknown to them - as well as to the public - to come out of a building and say ‘she’s fine’. And their bosses feel it in the public interest for them to inform viewers/listeners of all visitors Middleton does and doesn’t get! Is this serious journalism - and what we pay our license fees for - or just mindless bollocks? You decide. But if it is mindless bollocks how can it possibly be in the public interest?

When it comes to the Windsors, such is the behaviour of the press that every story, however inconsequential, becomes a huge media shitstorm generating headlines all around the globe. In this case it caught the attention of a couple of two-bit Aussie DJs simply looking for a cheap laugh, unaware it would culminate in the tragic death of a nurse; someone whose only crime was not to recognise the importance placed upon the royal family by the world’s media until it was too late.

And spare a thought for the parents-to-be. At what is supposed to be one of the happiest times of their lives, morning sickness or no morning sickness, even the staunchest republican would be hard-pressed not to feel some degree of sympathy for them. They tried to keep the pregnancy quiet but a condition beyond their control put them on a hiding to nothing. And now a nurse is dead. If there is a god, never has the maxim ‘what he gives with one hand he takes with the other’ been truer. Yet, aside from Prince Charles’ attempt at a joke before the suicide, the silence from the Royal Family is deafening.

The BBC is now reporting that Lord Glenarthur, the chairman of the private King Edward VII Hospital where Middleton was being treated, has written a ‘furious’ letter to 2Day FM citing their ‘ill-considered actions’. This follows the hospital’s chief executive, John Lofthouse’s, statement issued after Mrs Saldanha’s death that revealed, “We can confirm that Jacintha was recently the victim of a hoax call to the hospital. The hospital had been supporting her throughout this difficult time.”

One has to wonder what form this support took. Did her bosses - who unlikely ever deign to answer the telephone to general calls - tell her not to worry, that everyone makes mistakes? Or did they give her a thorough dressing down for being so gullible and bringing apparent disrepute on a private hospital used by the royal family–- and by extension the very same people administering the dressing down? We must assume it was the former since to assume the latter would be cynical and would not be supportive to the nurse at all. Indeed it might even have contributed to the tragedy that eventually played out.

0 Comments

Steve Padraig DeSha

14/12/2011

1 Comment

 
The following was written some time ago for a booklet that was to be put together in tribute to a dear friend who sadly died when he should have had another 40 years to live. It was too long to post on his Facebook tribute page. I don't know if the booklet was ever produced - if it was I never saw it - so I have rewritten my tribute to my good friend Padraig here. Rest in peace mate.


It's any mid-90s Sunday afternoon after a heavy Saturday in the Chap, Roxy & Battalion. The Brits are in the Sport Bar off Vaclavske Nam watching the footy. About 20 minutes before the end Padraig shuffles in, not long up, hair still wet from his shower, sheepish, hungover grin from ear to ear. Oblivious to the game, he immediately starts bollocking on. Mildly irked we tell him to shut up, we're watching the match. He continues, unperturbed; "you guys are always watching soccer. It's so boring. Why do you watch this crap? You should watch a real game..."
The footy finishes and we neck our beers and start digging our coats out from the 4ft piles of apparel, in preparation for the short, downhill march to the Chapeau
, but The Simpsons starts.
"Hey, aren't you guys gonna watch this?" shouts Steve, as he notices we're leaving. "Isn't this why you came to the Sport Bar?"
Too hungover to point out the obvious, we disrobe, slump back into our chairs, get the waitress' attention and watch the The Simpsons. Steve laughs the loudest out of all the folk in the boozer, constantly turning to us saying, "you guys don't get that do you?" before going on to explain every political joke and dig in the show. We're going; "we know Padraig! We get it! We have heard of Dick Chaney in England you know!"

                                                                                   *

By coincidence Steve and I were reading the same book at the same time. It was Alan Bullock's Parallel Lives, a 1,000 page, side-by-side biography of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. My copy was in one piece on my bedside table. I discovered we were reading it simultaneously because Steve's copy was in tattered 80-100 page chunks that he tore out of the tome - photographic plates and all - and carried around in his coat pocket, discarding them when he'd read them, and ripping the next chunk out and stuffing it in his pocket whenever he got home. The way he read that book was the way he lived his life.


We had some brilliant chats about Parallel Lives and its revelations. When we first realised we were both reading it, I mentioned that I was beginning to find it hard work and he asked me where I'd got to. I told him I had reached roughly 1933. "Stick with it," he urged me, "you're about to get to the good bit!" He wasn't wrong and it became a staple subject of our conversation.

He knew a bit, old Padraig. Once, in the Chapeau, when I had woman troubles and the woman was there and I needed a distraction, I asked Steve to tell me a story. Without hesitation he launched into the tale of an American spy; he knew his whole life-story. I can't recall the exact detail now but it was a great yarn, he told it well and I was pleased to have him as a mate. The pleasure I felt then has been replaced over time with honour. I am genuinely privileged to have known him.


Padraig didn't really do electronic communication but, like everyone else who knew him, I just assumed I would see him again some time, some place, sink a few pivos and laugh till my sides ached. He phoned me out of the blue about 3 or 4 years ago and we chatted like no time had passed. And as always with Padraig, we laughed a lot.

Steven Padriag DeSha: Gentleman, raconteur, always a laugh. A true, dear and greatly missed friend.
1 Comment

Read this and save yourself a few quid

31/10/2011

3 Comments

 
So the 99% are unhappy and the 1% need to know about it. Though not quite making all the front pages, the Occupy movement is in full flow.

While I half-heartedly support this campaign - I figure I’m taking it as seriously as those it is directed at - I think it is wholly flawed in that it will achieve very little, certainly nothing tangible. And, from the pictures I have seen, I do not think it is representative of the 99%.

The public purse covered the basic incompetence of the banks - you, the banker, knew how much I earned. Why did you coerce me into borrowing more than I could afford to repay? - and bankers responded by awarding themselves six and seven figure bonuses - on top of their six and seven figure salaries. They have effectively flicked the finger at the very people who, willingly or most likely otherwise, have enabled them to enjoy such outrageous status in society. This is not the action of a humble creature with a sense of gratitude or obligation, a beast now ready to sit down and be tamed, and discuss how best he can exhibit his appreciation. This is the action of a selfish fucker who literally could not care less. It’s pretty black and white.

Meanwhile, company directors continue to award themselves obscene pay rises - as if proof that they’ve been overcharging us for decades were actually needed. Politicians mutter about it when pushed, but it is out of their hands and they know it. For them, the most sensible course of action is to brown nose said directors and quickly establish whether there is any possible method by which they might get their own grubby hands on some of that cash or, if nothing else, secure a party donation, the optimum outcome being both.

The Occupy campaign is a potential force for good, working against the very worst elements of capitalism in a bid to restore some semblance of parity. But it is representative only of a certain demographic and the longer it continues the more simply tolerated it will become. And how long will it continue? There is talk of Occupy demonstrations going on into next year! Why? We’ve been shafted long enough already! Surely we want a response right now?

It is my belief that a more direct, all-encompassing and radical approach is required. A course of action that can involve those outside the 18-25 age group. It must include those who cannot spare the time to erect a tent before a bank or a church. It must include people desperately hoping they will keep their job long enough to make the next mortgage repayment. It must include families struggling to feed their children, pensioners too. We who are discontent must all voice our displeasure.

The solution is simple and relatively effortless in practice: A financial strike. We, the 99%, refuse to pay any corporate direct debits and standing orders for three months. We just say no.

For the sake of example may I propose the months of February, March and April 2012 which, in the northern hemisphere at least, incorporates a chunk of our winter heating costs, thus depriving the rip-off merchants of - and saving ourselves - a tidy sum? Between now and next February the fiscal criminals would have plenty of time to address their behaviour. Probably too much time - the situation is that desperate - but it would also allow for the word to spread so that, come January 31st 2012 the full 99% would simply cancel all their personal account monthly, corporate, automated (or international equivalent) outgoings. Mobile phone, broadband, television, television license, landline, gas, electric, water, council tax, mortgage, rent (where your private landlord owns so much property that you pay to a company name rather than an individual), travel card, insurance, credit cards, loans, Specsavers, gym, the full Montgomery.

We, the 99%, would refuse to make up these three missed payments. At the end of the three month period we would resume all payments and give ‘them’ six months to come up with a proper and satisfactory plan for the redistribution of wealth. If one is not forthcoming we organise another Three Free Months protest - once again refusing to ever make up these missed payments. If we don’t give them the money they simply cannot pay themselves such licentious sums. Their immorality relies on our cohesion and we must make it clear that we know this and can face it head on.

Inevitably, there would be repercussions. We might have our utilities cut off - though I rather doubt it. The council might cancel all rubbish collection and turn off the street lighting - though, again, this would surprise me. These scenarios are more likely to fan the flames than douse them and, come this mythical time, those making such decisions would do well to bear this foremost in mind. But it is undeniable that a protest of this sort would be seen by its targets as a treacherous act of war. There would be a backlash of retaliation. An attempt to weaken, then quell the uprising. Ultimately, a ‘who needs who most?’ stand-off.

Most likely is that we lose the use of our mobile phones and internet connections for a few months, a situation anyone over the age of 30 has already survived without incident. The upside is that just three months later, when we’re all reconnected, we will no longer be tied into 18-month - or more - contracts, with providers who don’t actually cover our area or are physically unable to supply 20Mg/sec to our address. And, in the scheme of things, the three missed months will seem like minutes. Insurance companies, who practice legal theft at it’s most glorious, would, of course, refuse to pay out where premiums go unpaid, but we already tolerate a situation where, even when the premiums are paid without fail, these legitimate crooks will still do all they can to wriggle out of their responsibilities to the customer, who, many years ago, was king.

The million-dollar question then is; how much do we want it? To me, in return for an element of regulation to be introduced into our capitalist ‘free’ market, it is a small price to pay. In the short term we would actually have more money for three months, a share of which would otherwise have found its way into fat-cat bonuses and salary rises, thereby achieving our very aim, if only for a few months! As in the board game Monopoly, we are landing on their property and are refusing, or are simply unable, to pay the rent. Unlike in Monopoly they cannot simply quote the rules and retire us from the game. Though they will undoubtedly try.

Given the electronic organisation that would be required to implement a Three Free Month protest, the temptation would be to continue to pay phone and internet tariffs, but given the size of the communication companies today, this goes against the whole nature of the protest. We need to expressly convey that if they’re not going to play fair we have nothing for them and they should swivel. How long would it take for a fair and democratic company to spring up offering mobile phone, broadband and TV contracts? No-one is saying huge profits aren’t there to be made. I could run Vodafone, pay my tax bill in full, offer a fair wage to all my staff (whether here or in a call centre in Asia) and still take home more than I need. But it needn’t be more than I know what to do with.

This global protest need make no specific demands. We are surely beyond that. The message is simple: Behave. Clean yourselves up. Recognise your responsibilities and duties to the society that made you, even the parts that don’t subscribe to whatever it is you pedal - nay, especially the parts that don’t subscribe to whatever it is you pedal. Start leading by example and give us the society we deserve for allowing you to become so wealthy. Otherwise we will attempt to take that wealth away. And if we manage that, who knows where we’ll stop? But of course, until January 31st 2012 none of this needs to happen.

3 Comments

Never mind the feral youth, what about the feral politicians?

24/8/2011

0 Comments

 
Now that the hysteria has died down, the dust is settling and taxes are finally being spent in a constructive manner (on legal-aid appeals overturning reactionary and downright stupid sentences imposed upon the apparent dregs of our country), might it finally be time to turn our attention to our esteemed leaders and those in positions of influence and power who, as they would have us believe, have done such a sterling job in curtailing the violence and restoring the calm, even though the weather may have played just as great a part in this as they did?

The 'us and them' situation referred to in The uprise of the Lidl Classes no longer divides those who chose to violently flout the law from those who did not. That division was always only temporary. Now the divide returns to more familiar territory: the aloof political classes and the proletariat. The man in the street is once again united with his feral, lawless cousins.

The OED defines the word 'feral' thus; 'adjective; (especially of an animal) in a wild state, especially after escape from captivity or domestication'. It also informs that describing youths as feral has been in the vernacular since the early 17th century. Presumably it is the wild state of a wayward youth and a release from captivity rather than domestication that linguists were thinking of when the phrase was coined. But what happens when you release Thatcher's children from domestication? The answer can be seen every day in an ever more feral Parliament.

It is my belief that a larger than acceptable number of today’s politicians are just as out of control as those they damn. The 1980s me-culture they grew up in has blinded them to the truth and consequence of their own behaviour and nobody, not Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or Clegg, has attempted to do anything to redress the sins of Margaret Thatcher. Why would they? They, and their economic peers, have the most to lose. For all her crimes against society however, I'm sure a majority of corrupt men and women governing the nation in the years proceeding her premiership was not Thatcher’s intention. (Though, that all three leaders of the UK’s main political parties were privately educated, probably was.)

Thatcher’s unfettered, inexorable exhortation of personal greed and gain has - somewhat inevitably - been wholly embraced by those in power since her not-before-time demise as PM. She gave them the confidence to believe that their perceived personal success (often inherited - whether financial or through nepotism) equates to full justification of their actions, whether above or below society’s belt. They openly cheat, lie and steal and show little and even no remorse. On the rare occasions when they are brought to justice their belligerence shines through with only a few taking the path of contrition, and only then in a desperate attempt to reduce the impact of their wanton pursuit of gain
 to them and theirs. There is no hint of shame or accountability: just indignation at being the one who had to take the hit, for they are never the only ones. And it is never their fault. Every robotic and insincere ‘sorry’ is followed by a robust and vehement ‘but...’.

Tony Blair, who only led the country into an illegal war without any serious repercussions to himself, makes no secret of his lust for the dollar. When Hazel Blears repaid the money she illegally and fraudulently claimed from the state she felt it expedient to wave the cheque - for more than £13,000 - to the media and smile cheerfully as if she were making a charitable donation. That it might be bad taste to repay what amounted to a year’s salary for her lowest paid administrative assistants in such a flamboyant manner, making clear it did not affect her fiscal position one jot, clearly did not enter her head. Her ability to repay the money in such a crass manner was actually a personal reflection of her overall success.

Meanwhile, as the Daily Mail barks and howls like a rabid dog, the government of the day makes conscious decisions to come down ever harder on low-life benefit cheats who con the public purse out of whatever they can get in whatever underhand ways they believe they can get away with - while all the while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge they have led by example. They cannot see their part in the steady corruption of society. When they themselves cheated their own, vastly superior, benefit system only a handful were punished. The rest just paid it back with a nervous yet dismissive laugh, accompanied by an emphatic, if somewhat tedious, speech about how mistakes can happen. If only we were all given that chance. One can’t help feeling they have already worked out all the loopholes in the new system and are already milking it for all they possibly can.

Amid the ridiculous sentences called for by David Cameron, handed out by the courts, appealed against and revised, there is a call for a more restorative form of justice; community servitude of some sort. But we cannot have confidence that the more feral of our politicians will not take advantage even of this: today we learn that Jacqui Smith used two day-release inmates from HMP Hewell in Redditch to decorate her £450,000 house. This is the same Jacquboot Smith who put in a  £116,000 expenses claim which included two pornographic flicks, apparently for her husband (who in turn was once discovered to be behind a series of letters written to various newspapers, praising the work of his wife but failing to mention that he was married to her or that he managed her constituency office).

Smith, who was serving as Home Secretary at the time, claimed the prisoners ‘didn’t have anything else on’, which, in turn, would suggest that she believes her Worcestershire constituency is in pristine condition with no work required. I don’t need to go there to know this was not, is not and has never been the case. And true to the nature of the modern politician, she sees no need to apologise for taking free labour out of the community and utilising it to her own gain, instead indignantly declaring that The Sun (who put the story on their front page) are ‘having a go at me’. The quotes attributed to her make two things clear: she does not take it seriously and she has a victim mentality. Unfortunately both these traits are synonymous with this current generation of politicians and, though many onlookers will sigh and shake their heads, few will be particularly surprised by her remarks.

Our MPs allow the most outrageous events to unfold, stopping only to give soundbites to the press and greater power to the police, while imposing stringent cuts on the poor - with whom they have very little direct contact. The decision to waive Vodafone’s £6bn tax bill was followed by the revelation that cuts to the tune of £7bn were being made to benefits - of the welfare variety. It is absolutely unthinkable that the day will come when an MP hands in his/her expenses claim and is told, ‘sorry, there’s no money left. Cuts see?’. It is almost as if they do not understand what the word ‘welfare’ means.

Last year, in the run up to the election, I wrote to my then-local MP, the not necessarily right but possibly honourable Ben Bradshaw, to ask why two 6-month tax discs cost considerably more than one 12-month disc. I expected him to tell me it was due to two annual administration charges as opposed to one -–which I would not have accepted - but he instead referred me to the then-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling. So I asked Darling why I couldn’t pay for my tax disc in monthly installments as I do my TV license and he replied that it was because people ‘sell their cars more often than they sell their homes’. I wish I had asked why I couldn’t pay my tax disc in installments as I do my car insurance, though I’m sure his answer would have been just as nonsensical. Reading between the lines, both MPs effectively told me this; ‘Thanks for taking the time to write to me. Now piss off’. Earlier this year, two letters to my current MP, 
Mark Lazarowicz, on a different subject, yielded the same reply. I posted both letters, and his replies, on Facebook.

When Bob Frost, a councilor on Dover's District Council in Kent, called rioters ‘jungle bunnies’ on his Facebook page on August 7th he did, for a millisecond, buck the politician’s trend by apologising ‘unreservedly’. But the automated gesture was lost when, in an attempt to justify himself, he said;
‘Looking at the dictionary it would appear that the term jungle bunnies is pejorative and is a racist slur relating to African-Americans. Needless to say I did not mean to use any offensive racist term and was referring to the urban jungle. [Needless indeed] As for the bunny bit it was originally 'animals', but I thought people might object to me calling fellow humans this so I chose something I thought was innocent and also cuddly.’
Mr Frost is either a racist liar or he is so removed from the modern world that he should never have been allowed to get involved in politics and represent real and decent people in the first place. Given that this is not the first time Frost has been chastised for his Facebook idiocy - in a previous posting he complained of having to foot the bill for single mothers’ ‘beer and tattoos lifestyles’ and referred to their children as ‘push-chaired spawn’ -–I have no doubt he is both. That he would not pay any less tax were there no single mothers, or that what he pays is just a percentage of what he earns (the same percentage that anyone else in his wage bracket pays), is lost on him.

We are told, with an air of ‘look what you’ve done’, that the cost of the recent riots to the taxpayer will be £100m. (This, in part, can be attributed to the government’s willingness to stand by and watch while insurance companies once again wriggle out of their whole raison d’être.) We also have access to figures that show that the cost of Britain’s involvement in Libya, where we are far from finished, reached the £100m mark long ago. The cost of the 120 cruise missiles alone, fired at Libyan positions in just four days between March 18th and March 22nd, was more than £60m - and this is before you account for servicing, crew, fuel and training costs. These are not trifling matters. Yet David Cameron has recently cut short his fourth holiday of the year. In any other job the prospect of a holiday would not arise but for this generation of politicians, personal satisfaction and entitlement to what is thiers is without doubt their most pressing agenda. The idea of Cameron telling his wife, ‘I’m afraid things are a bit hectic at work right now’ is laughable. In truth, if he thought he could get away with it, he would probably be grandiosely pointing out that he’s now cut short two holidays in one year.

Politicians, by the very nature of their jobs, believe they should be heard. They must possess a level of ambition, self-confidence and ego not required in many other jobs. But all these traits need to be kept in check and when they are not... well, there is no need to speculate. The likes of Boris Johnson, with his affected buffoonery and unkempt hair, are the product of a society where only the top tier is evolving. Like the 17th century youth in a wild state, recently released from captivity, our future MPs are released from the domesticity of university (if that is how some MP’s student antics can be described), where the seeds of superiority first began to flourish, and are set free in a world where personal progress is directly linked to where you were born and who you know - both of far greater significance than what you know, or even what you have done. When David Cameron said of his equal and peer, Andy Coulson, ‘everyone deserves a second chance’, he did not envisage these words returning to haunt him. And how right he was! He lives in a world where he can change his mind from day to day with impunity, as he expected Nick Clegg to do on the issue of tuition fees, and as Nick Clegg humbly did in order to keep his job. This unbridled freedom and wholehearted lack of responsibility and accountability has gone to the modern politician’s young head.

The public loves a rags to riches story. But the government recognise this as fairy-tale. They prefer a riches to further riches story. But they are not averse to a rags to dirtier rags story either.


I say again: our politicians are out of control, and it transcends all parties. When Thatcher first set about installing the ‘every man for himself’ attitude that is now destroying once great parts of our society, the country did at least have a few assets that she could offer out to those closer to the bottom of the pile. People who had never dreamt of owning their own home were suddenly able to do just that. Privatisation, whatever you may think of it (and I’m not a fan), offered people the chance to own shares in utility and transport companies and make some money. Her model appeared to work because the state was able to sustain it. But the price, as common sense surely dictates, is that, with many of the nation’s assets now long gone, the same values towards greed and material possession can no longer be sustained. And that to attempt to sustain them will result in a two-, three- and even four-tier society, with more and more people slipping down the social ladder as it gains more and more rungs. Most Prime Ministers will, at some point, pay lip service to the idea of a classless society. David Cameron has already tried to peddle the myth that we live in one. But it is more than a myth. It is an outright lie. And Cameron himself cannot believe it for one second. Yet he openly says it. He denies that raising tuition fees will preclude people from certain backgrounds from going to university, safe in the knowledge that his own children’s university education is not at risk. These are the ramblings of a madman and/or the lies of a politician. Unfortunately we now accept that the two go hand-in-hand. 

Thatcher’s children now run the country. They stand by as the police corrupt themselves by taking payments from the press, granting them further powers when, with the cases of Jean Charles de Menezes, Ian Tomlinson and Mark Duggan, to name but three, fresh in our memories, some sectors of the public feel they are unable to cope with the power they already have. Thatcher’s legacy of greed means that today’s MPs openly do not care about anyone but themselves and will happily break the law in pursuit of their goals, without any realisation that they are supposed to be setting an example. They are feral. We can’t seriously be expected to vote for out-of-control narcissists, who routinely tell lies, act only in their own best interests and will go to great lengths to cover their duplicity, can we?

0 Comments

The uprise of the Lidl Classes

9/8/2011

5 Comments

 
As London burns and the injured get mugged the internet is awash with outrage and incredulity that young people can behave in such a manner. Twitter is into overload and every other post on Facebook is riot-related as we all virtually holler our own two-pennith worth. The general (and possibly reactionary) consensus appears to be that the perpetrators of these crimes are 'fucking retards' and 'assholes' with many advocating that the army and a few water cannon be brought in. Helpful as these suggestions may or may not be, the crux of the problem surely runs far deeper than simple name-calling and subsequent loss of liberty.

We know, without doing too much research, the demographic of the people involved: The Lidl Class. Ill-educated people from ill-educated backgrounds whose families and communities have been steadily marginalised by successive governments so that they have given up on life, hopes and dreams, preferring instead to sit at home, feeding on a diet of subscription TV, watching soaps, X-Factor and their mates on Jeremy Kyle, while ignoring their children. We know that some of them are benefit cheats. We know that some of them severely lack any parenting skills. We know that some of them have no time for education, preferring to earn some semblance of a living through crime. We know that they are skint and we know that they are depressed and bitter.

To simply write these people off is to exacerbate the problem. To arrest and deal harshly with the offenders and see this as job done is to invite unrest in the future. By then, rioting may have progressed from the 1980s trend of setting fire to police vehicles, to the current looting and burning of shops, to eventually setting fire to Buck House, Number 10 or Parliament itself. Perhaps they'll bring their Dobermans and Rottweilers. The trend in rioting does not offer hope that future riots will be more peaceful events than they currently are. Instead of granting police extraordinary powers for these anticipated future riots, shouldn't we be looking at ways to placate citizens so that we may instead not anticipate them at all, thereby affording us genuine surprise if they do occur?

The resigned acceptance expressed on internet forums and social networking sites ("scum will be scum" etc) suggests that many of us already know what the problem is. However, the vitriol directed at the hooligans responsible for the unrest suggests that we may have difficulty recognising it.

For more than a decade young people have been systematically targeted and criminalised by the state with the first ASBO handed out in 1999. I wonder how many of the kids involved in the rioting and looting had nothing to lose by virtue of the fact that they were already registered crims, already known to the police? Seen by the police as easy pickings, children have been routinely harassed in their own backyards for years. In a 2006 Channel 4 documentary one 12 year old on a Leeds housing estate revealed that he was stopped and asked to empty his pockets 11 times a day by the police; without ever leaving his estate. That child will now be 17 or 18 and, if (by some miracle of one god or another) he managed; never to get caught daubing graffiti; never to get caught with a sixteenth of hash in his pocket; never to get caught throwing stones at an already dilapidated bus shelter; never to get caught shouting obscenities; never to get caught underage drinking, and somehow develop a healthy regard for authority, he may be a well-rounded, law-abiding individual now. If, on the other hand, he didn't, he may be contemplating getting a few mates together, going out in Leeds tonight and helping himself to a flat-screen TV and a handful of shirts. The same Channel 4 documentary revealed that all bar one police force in the UK (South Wales for the record) were, at that time, on monthly cash bonuses of between £50 and £250 for nicking repeat underage offenders. Head up to the estates. Easy money.

In the coming days, weeks and even months the offenders will be rightly rounded up and dealt with severely by the courts. But what happens next? The offenders go to prison and their families remain in shithole estates. The rest of society turns it back again, grateful that the attention-seeking has stopped. On the estates, emotions fester, younger siblings and sons vow revenge and jailed rioters become heroes. The bleakest of futures awaits. Anger and bitterness, much in evidence before these riots, come to the fore. Already-existing community feelings of victimisation and alienation are wholly reinforced. Improvements to estates are not made. Investment in youth activities does not happen. Education is not a priority. Hope and ambition are scarce. Day-to-day, poor-diet living is the norm. There is no respect for authority - even when you've done nothing wrong they treat you like you have anyway. Success is measured in material possession. Items such as flat-screen TVs, a comfortable sofa from which to watch it, cars, the right clothes, jewellery and phones are must-have. Much of this is stolen, some purchased on the never never. Poor financial management and lack of education is rife. The prospect of a job? Minimal. These are the lessons the next generations on these estates are learning, and for each generation that passes on this ever-establishing order, the sense of 'them and us' gets greater and greater, until it is entrenched. Meanwhile, those of us lucky enough to be free from the trappings of such poverty and distress carry on blissfully -  even gratefully - unaware, until it kicks off again - at which point the line between 'them and us' becomes blurred, with both parties claiming to be "us".

One senior police officer described the looting as "greed, not anger". This greed is learned: Bankers brought the world to its knees yet were awarding themselves huge bonuses just 12 months later. The expenses scandal brought to light the true extravagance afforded to MPs and many of them, after paying back the money, went unpunished - as if returning the money somehow negated the fraud. Rupert Murdoch's regime will break the law in the name of profit. Television depicts success and greed in direct correlation. Government ministers announce swingeing cuts before taking their families abroad on their jollies. Utility companies announce huge profits and price hikes in the same sentence. Meanwhile, role models and heroes of the Lidl Classes include classless footballers, X-Factor judges, porn stars and Phil Mitchell, none of whom manage to combine wealth with much taste or intellect.

David Cameron's July 2006 call to 'hug a hoodie' is now attracting some ridicule (Cameron softens crime image in 'hug a hoodie' call) but maybe not for the right reasons. Cameron was not suggesting we embrace criminals but was instead recognising that not everyone living on an estate in abject poverty (by western standards) is a villain. Regard a kid with suspicion for long enough and he will eventually come to appear suspicious. There is a certain self-fulfilling prophecy at work. Cameron was suggesting that we don't scowl disparagingly at what we might perceive to be young hoodlums but instead treat them as we would anyone else in the street, ie courteously. It is certainly an unconservative view and, while not an ignoble one, it is neither realistic nor enough. For one thing, huge parts of the population never see the poorest people in our society. The Lidl Classes have their own pubs, shops and malls now for Christ's sake! The nearest shopping mall to the nearest estate where I live houses a Lidl, a Farm Foods, two Poundstretchers, a hairdressers and a Ladbrokes bookie. Round the corner there is a pawn shop, and drug dealers and loan sharks are not hard to find. Sainsbury's have stayed away. Waitrose have not bothered. Marks & Sparks see no point. I do not go there. Only Tesco, themselves the subject less than four months ago of ultimately violent protests in Bristol - leading to more than 30 arrests - have tried to muscle in, albeit up the road.

Major investment is required. It is the only way to dispel the utter hopelessness that has been allowed to brew and fester on our country's poorest estates under successive governments for 30 years. Voices need to be returned to people. And people need to be educated so they know how to use them.



If I, Johnny Despondent, your humble Sports Correspondent, were the Prime Minister, I would, after after giver her a very public bollocking, set about righting the wrongs of Margaret Thatcher, beginning by replacing all the housing she sold off. It is too late to try and regenerate the worst housing estates in the country. They are mired in their misery. Using the same pot that is currently paying for all the extra policing, plus raising more by seriously scrutinising the defence budget and pulling troops out of places they are neither required nor requested, I would embark on a building programme throughout the country, throwing up cheap housing as quickly as possible. There would be plenty of work for uneducated labourers who could be selected from the over-crowded estates they currently inhabit. They would feel a sense of pride and community if they were building their own or their children's new homes. The economy would get a kick-start as construction companies vie for tenders and begin purchasing the required materials. Community gardens for on-going cultivation would be incorporated. And councils would need to plan how they can eventually buy the properties local to them at cost price from the government over the next 20 or so years. I believe this would give people a sense of purpose and belonging. Earning a wage and paying your own way is a source of pride too many people under the age of 35 - children and parents - are completely oblivious to.

Government ministers can talk in their chambers until they are blue in the face, reeling off the "completely unacceptable" and the "they will be found and severely punished" lines again and again, but rather than pander to ad captandum why don't they actually do something about it before it gets even worse? It would be late, but not too late.
5 Comments

      

    Picture

    Taking the 'meh' option

    When the right turns to the left


    It's all gone horribly wrong

    A Matter of Trust

    Nurse Jacintha Saldanha, the Windsors & the press

    Steve Padraig DeSha


    Read this and save yourself a few quid

    Never mind the feral youth, what about the feral politicians?

    The uprise of the Lidl Classes

    All

Despondent Productions. Part of the Despondent Industries Group since 2007. All right reserved.
Permission must be sought. ©Despondent Productions 2006