Month: November 2008

When I was a boy in the 30s we were taught in Sunday School that the world would come to an end at the millennium – translated as sometime in the future. In retrospect the whole idea was obviously crazy, because in 70 years there would be the millennium, and nobody seemed to notice the fact, but a lot of us believed that in the future the world indeed would suddenly cease to exist altogether, not just the world that we knew, which in fact is the case. Three things last week generated these thoughts, one was clearly the spread of mayhem to the Indian Subcontinent, at such an incredible level. The second was that someone was trampled to death in New York, just for going to a sale, brought on by the credit crunch; and the third occurrence was that one day there was ample parking in our High Street at 11 o’clock in the morning, unheard of, allegedly because a store in Belfast had a 25% off, sale.

I notice that Gordon Brown, is choosing a lot of photo opportunities to smile at the cameras as if he had discovered the wheel. We are also told, although not fools enough to believe it, that Labour is climbing the ranks in the popularity polls. If they are, I suggest that this is as a result of the screaming rhetoric of the Conservative leader. There used to be a running joke that the Brits abroad, not speaking the language, would shout ever louder in English to get their point across. What I really find incredible, and against the philosophy that Brown is proposing, in order to get us out of the financial difficulties, and to keep money flowing, are these insane high-pressure sales by the larger companies, to the detriment of the smaller traders, and thus shifting large amounts of money into select pockets. It is evident that the idea of a bargain is irresistible to a lot of people, irrespective of whether the need is real or imagined. I was always a little sceptical of the government doing exactly what they were urging us not to do, get into debt. But when it is set on a particular path, to me it would seem that some sort of rules should pertain that make us follow that particular path for the good of the majority, not just those with spare cash, or a hefty cash flow problem.

I read on Google today that the change in VAT is allegedly bringing about a price war between the big retailers. Presumably implying that the 2p change in VAT is going to make that much difference. It seems so contrary to what I had expected. About a mile and a half from where I live there is a row of small shops which are frequented by those living nearby, and so small and so fully stocked, that more than four people within the shop at any one time make moving about like a chess game. It struck me when I was in it that it would take hours for the shopkeeper to re-price all the goods as a result of the 2p reduction. This then made me think about the differential between those at the bottom of the scale, who have about 10,000 a year to spend, which will provide them with a saving of about four pounds a week if they spend it all. While at the other end of the scale, with people earning 10 million a year, of which they get, say 6 million after tax, I strongly suspect that most of that will be going abroad to a tax haven, instead of the VAT on six million generating more trade in this country, or oiling the wheels of the banks. What happens between is a matter of scale. I just wonder if I am the only person who thinks along these lines? The government certainly doesn’t! My Dutch friend Jan tells me VAT in Holland is 19%.

In some ways it can be a curse to have an analytical mind, as it makes one pull things apart to find out what makes them tick. In Part 1 of these two posts I criticised a lot of the drama on TV because of aimless chatter and impossible wreckage. Then I discovered ‘Love Actually’, the zany, impossible, but to me, hilarious and joyful film, with just enough pathos to heighten the contrast. I wanted to understand why I could look at it more often than other films that were highly praised, and why when I was watching it I tended to sit with a silly smile on my face. I believe I have discovered that this film has aspects that, to my knowledge, no other has, and has been carefully put together so that the story builds inexorably to the conclusion, which too, is joyful.

The aspects that I refer to, firstly is that there are practically no long periods of dialogue, indeed the dialogue is the smallest feature. Secondly we are treated to a series of separate stories where the participants are seen together in a common scene, but the audience is not aware that we will be seeing them all under different circumstances, and in the penultimate and final scenes, see them all together again. Thirdly, there is a certain amount of background music, which for once doesn’t drown out the dialogue, and is used so that subconsciously we are aware that we have moved from one cameo to another, and the music itself is memorable. Each of the cameo stories, taken prosaically is impossible to believe, but the sincerity of the acting, the lack of any intent to send the stories up, encourages one to go back to one’s childhood and enjoy a ridiculous fairytale, without being critical of the content, or relating it to reality.

It would spoil the pleasure for those who have never seen the film, for me to comment on the actors and the acting, except merely to say it is done with a very delicate touch and very competently. I believe it is the simple and smooth transition from one cameo to the next, together with the story being told more by what we see, what we infer, than what we hear, which makes easy viewing. For me the joy was in the underlying ridiculousness of all situations and the apparent honesty with which they were portrayed. I accept that this film is not to everyone’s taste, but with a silly season coming up, it will be repeated regularly, and I strongly advise you, if you’re not totally of a serious disposition, to give it a go, because it has all the elements of some of the better comedy, like ‘Open All Hours’ when the actors don’t overtly play for a laugh, but the humour is paramount.

To people of my age the television, and television drama in all its guises, is the staple of the evening, often bolstered by DVDs, when the menu is repetitive. This tends to make one take more interest in the reason why one prefers one film to another, in retrospect. When I was at University I joined a group to put on a show at Christmas for charity. I was a backroom boy, I put things right when they went wrong, operated the lighting system and did anything I was told to do. The result of this, strangely, was that when I went to London and managed to scrounge front seats for a popular drama, I discovered I couldn’t get into the story of the play because my mind was more taken up with what actors call ‘business’, those little short speeches or actions, in the old days the act of lighting a cigarette, and so on, to give one or other of the actors on stage a moment to reposition himself, or for someone else to come from backstage.

I have already written about how I find the modern films suffering from endless car chases and extravagant mayhem, innumerable bullets being fired from guns holding only seven cartridges, and fisticuffs that would put one of the men in hospital with broken knuckles, and his opponents in the morgue, rather than walking into the sunset. Sensation seems more important than a cohesive, riveting story. The reason I suspect is cost. Not everyone can write riveting stories and dialogue, in order to take the place of the mayhem, and probably the cost is cheaper by smashing up cars that are wrecked anyway, than to pay more, for better and more notable actors to flesh out the story.

My complaint with some of the film-drama which is on television, is that the dialogue is more what you would expect from a soap – endless gossip, or quite often technology and technobabble in such stultifying portions and patently so impossible, that they annoy rather than amuse, thus replacing the dialogue of a serious film. In many cases the actors’ accents are regional and almost unintelligible especially in American films. I have come to the conclusion, by comparing the drama that I found tedious, with ones that I could see time and again and still enjoy, that the pace of the films that I liked were not only slower in action, but the number of the cast was small enough at any one time, to enable one to remember not only whom they all were but where they dovetailed. This inevitably meant that the staging, the filming, and the dialogue had a lot more to do with building the story. The films that I took exception to were full of players, being offered to you in such numbers, and I don’t mean extras in crowd scenes, that it was difficult to remember who they were, and why they were there. They were also given uninteresting dialogue that would bore you to tears, rather than carry the story forward. It seemed it was writing for writing’s sake, rather like the current novels with 500 pages, which makes one wonder if the royalties are paid by weight.

The best example of films that pleases all ages, is the Bond series. They open with a theme of naked women swimming or cavorting while the credits are coming, which in itself shows a level of understanding of the psyche of the audience; it sets the mood. The story unfolds in a serious of cameos, in each of which is the main character and a number of sub-characters, whom you may or may not meet again. The story is told in a chain of linking episodes which enables even the dullest of us to keep abreast of who is doing what and why. The technical innovations are amusing, clever, often practical, and some technically impossible, but for a while you believe them because you see them function. At the other end of the drama spectrum is the highly successful, Colin Firth version of Pride and Prejudice. It is a three-hour epic, slow in pace, but again, a series of cameos containing only a few characters carry the story forward, some you may never see again, and others reappear from time to time. The social behavioural differences between the Bennett family, the clergyman, the upper-crust folk, and the servant hall, is clearly defined, not only to underline their differences, and the differences in our culture, but to add drama and suspense to the story; unlike Bond, it does not travel on high octane, it has high moments of drama, underscored by domestic scenes and rural scenery.

It is rather ironic that Harriet Harman, the Equality Minister, has chosen Joan Bakewell as the official voice of old people, thus, I presume, distancing herself from what her mouthpiece might say. Joan is advocating a sort of selective euthanasia, but is a bit vague as to who is going to do the selecting, while urging in the face of all the pros and cons, set out in the website, euthanasia.com, and ignoring the fact that the medical profession has recently voted against euthanasia. This credit crunch seems to be causing a lot of rashness, and statements that are not properly thought through, and can only be construed as money-saving, and moneymaking in some cases. What is increasingly noticeable is that not only the government, but commerce is using well loved and highly respected TV personalities to put across unpalatable messages on TV. At the time when the hard-pressed, and particularly those with debts, are fearful of the current fiscal situation, I find it highly improper, and contrary to the advice of the Citizens Advice Bureau, that these people are promoting debt gathering agencies, when they themselves are not recognized as knowledgeable in that field.

I wish to quote commercial behaviour by those most of us might consider top shops, as being totally contrary to the Prime Minister’s aim, and worse still borrowing, to get us out of the credit crunch by spending on the high street. I see it as ‘Pull up the ladder Jack, I’m all right’. The other day Sophie and I had a sort of virus and our daughter kindly offered to pay our bill at Marks & Spencer’s. Unfortunately she had picked the day when M&S had decided to offer 20% off everything in the shop. As a result she found it impossible to park, and worse still having to queue to get into the shop. The bill was not paid. It has been suggested that Marks & Spencer’s reduction extravaganza, was a reply to Debenham’s offer of 25% off for three days. About 40 years ago I knew a man who ran a number of shops selling high-quality ladies clothing, and suitable accessories. About a month before sale time he would go to the wholesalers and purchase a large quantity of articles that were below the quality of his normal stock, and sell this off as loss leaders. I just cynically mentioned this in passing. Shopkeepers of course, have the freedom to do as they like, without let or hindrance, providing it is lawful. I remember as a child, with little or no pocket money, at Christmastime, breathing on copious toyshop windows, wanting without hope. The sudden, short-lived sale policy, I believe is cynical. At a time when people are considering reducing spending for fear of the future, taking such a large cut across the board, is giving a level of temptation that many would find irresistible, and a high percentage of those will be people whose credit cards should be left at home. There is no shadow of doubt that most of the shops, large or small, are going to have to offload stock to improve their cash-flow, and so before and after Christmas we will see offers and sales, but I hope not to the level of these two referred to above. In their case, some people who were forced to be at work will feel aggrieved, because in particular, by the speed with which it was promoted, and in the M&S’s case because it was only for a one-day, it has been selective of those who could take advantage, midweek.

With people losing their jobs, and in another six months, hundreds of youngsters coming on to the labour market, it made me think back over the years of careers that I have had, and how most of them were derived through circumstance rather than any careful choice. In all, I have had seven careers, and three part-time jobs. We, adults and children, were totally disrupted as a result of Hitler’s rapacious appetite. When I had completed my education while evacuated to the country, I had to think about finding work. My aunt wanted me to go to Lever Brothers, then a very big soap manufacturer, to join, and learn from, their advertising team, but I had been a guinea pig used to test out a psychological means of job selection, and the result came out that I should be an architect. I had an aunt who was a renowned hairdresser and she tried to train me in her footsteps. I learned Marcel waving, the rudiments of wig making, and did all the rubbish jobs that those at the bottom of the ladder have to do, and as I hated it, I did not become a ladies hairdresser. The heat, the fact that the hairdresser has also to be an entertainer, and the long hours and poor pay made the decision simple. One member of the family had influence with a surveying firm in London, and I became articled as a valuation surveyor – circumstance, not choice. I enjoyed the work and proposed to make it my career after my war service. I then became a sailor, again chance, and while doing so became a teacher. Being a sailor in wartime is totally different from being one in peacetime, but strangely many years later, working under heavy stress, I would have given anything to do six months as a deckhand on a tanker, where I would do as I was told, and didn’t have to think. As to teaching, again teaching in the Navy was not comparable to teaching in school, and tended to be more repetitive because the courses were shorter, but I did decide that if I had to I could be a reasonable teacher, but the work didn’t attract me, any more than remaining in the Navy. When I came out of the Navy and discovered that there was no vacancy for me in the surveying firm, I had to choose yet again. I had the possibility of a university place, and as they didn’t do surveying or architecture I blindly chose civil engineering. Between leaving the Navy and becoming a student I had a period where I had to study to pass the entrance exam, during which I was unemployed, so at the time I helped out behind the counter in a small newsagent’s and tobacconist’s shop, long enough to learn that it takes a very special type of personality to deal with the public, politely and with good humour at all times, irrespective of your inner thoughts. I was not suited! For a short time I worked as a clerk in the civil service. My problem is that I have a strong propensity for lateral thinking, with the result that if I consider something could be done in a better way, I have to try it, and this is totally disruptive in a clerical environment, which in general has arrived where it has through years of trial and error to the final resolution – again I was not suited.

Engineering, like many of the professions, whether you are at the top or the bottom, has constantly changing aspects often in location, often through development, and nearly always because of the demands of the client. Even at the bottom of the ladder, the level of the labourer, there is sufficient variety to retain one’s interest. Some are more fortunate than others, they can be in the right place at the right time, in which case the variety is almost endless. Another career I had was to do with inventions, where I tried to promote my own, and acted as a consultant to others in the same process. I discovered that national financial conditions are one of the factors which influence whether the product will succeed or not, irrespective of its quality. I also discovered that the inventor/designer should either take professional advice, or take his own true evaluation, but never that of friends and relatives, as a guide to the possibility of success. During the Blitz I was a part-time soldier with the Guards which was not totally rewarding, but in the short term interesting and an eye opener. Having also been a part-time constable during the Northern Ireland troubles, I am fully aware that while you may have spasms of interest if not excitement, the general run of the mill in the lower grades in the services can in peacetime be very tedious.

Finally, we in our day, had no Internet. My advice to the young people starting out, or someone unemployed thinking of changing his work ethic, is that they should read up and take careful note before making a decision. I was very lucky, but I could equally have been deeply disappointed if I’d gone in other directions suggested by friends and relatives.

It is not so long ago that Eire, for some reason, which I never clearly understood, and with a population of only 4.1 million, were contributing to the United Kingdom’s finances for some reason or other, by subsidising some project in the North. Yet here we are, a little more than a year further on, finding that they are reducing the subsidies on non-catholic, denominational students in segregated education, by 30%.

Recently I lost my hearing aid, with the result I tend to miss chunks of almost every conversation, and so, I doubted that I had heard correctly, that Gordon Brown was proposing legislating that the removal of any or all body parts of a cadaver for transplant, would be totally legal and an irrefutable right. It was only when my daughter came into the house complaining about this edict, that I was prepared to reassess it. My daughter was complaining that the government had no right on any grounds for making this removal of organs compulsory if required. Both she and I feel that it is a step too far, a rejection of the rights of the individual, and in my case, I find it totally inconsistent, because the individual is not allowed to do away with himself, even in the most dire circumstances, and if all necessary responsible conditions would be fulfilled.

There are a lot of us who in our wills have donated our bodies to universities, and or, filled in those forms for allowing removal of organs for transplant. It appears that the offers are too low so the uptake is also too low for the system to function for everybody who needs a spare part. What I really suspect is that laziness, forgetfulness, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, has caused a large proportion of the population not to fill in a form, which in most cases would neither matter to the individual once he is dead, nor to the average relatives. If I am right, a campaign to make the public more aware, would seem to be the logical way forward. I am friendly with a Jewish family, and I remember at one point there was considerable discussion, either about an operation, or a death, because at the time it appeared that in the Jewish religion a person must be buried whole. I found this interesting when you consider the Israelis, with their running battles, how impossible it would be to collect up all the bits if someone happened to be in the path of a cannonball. On the basis of the Jewish religion, they would have to be made exempt on religious grounds, and this could seriously open up another can of worms, which might be hard to stop.

I shall soon be approaching the point where, with help from my grandson, I shall be rehashing the blog and removing a lot of the articles. It will then be divided into two parts, the biographical information which I believe is what interests most people, together with essays on things that interest me, and less on political carping. This change has come about because I have repeated myself a number of times, and said the same thing in different contexts, to little effect. It seems to me that people, especially in responsible positions, don’t seem to learn from past experience. Obviously, if I see some outstandingly stupid or an unreasonable occurrence, I don’t think a ball and chain and iron mask would keep me silent.

This is the last time I shall write an essay on the subject of euthanasia. This 90th celebration of one of the greatest massacres of all time, together with the repeated interest in the second greatest massacre, World War II, together with the daily recording of killing going on round the world, represents annihilation so obscene, so unnecessary, so unproductive and so useless, yet is repeatedly perpetrated at the behest of some individual or individuals. While at the same time those in dire need of relief from indignity, incredible agony, and mental distress, even if some actually have some mentality left, are allowed to continue unabated, because governments will not grasp the nettle of euthanasia. Caring for the elderly is causing governments considerable concern with respect to cost, as articsles in the press point out. This I believe is one of the reasons that euthanasia is on the backburner because governments are afraid that if they introduce it, some will see it, as a money-saving exercise. This is not a valid reason.

At my age, whether we like it are not, we are forced to face our demise, because death has caught up with relatives and friends of a similar age. It is not so much the act of dying that perturbs me, it is the prior conditions that occur, as a result of illness, general deterioration, and above all the loss of a mental capacity, and the indignities one can be subjected to, and the problems this makes for others. There is an excellent American website, euthanasia.com, which includes British information, giving all the pros and cons, and the fact that the medical profession is split. It mentions a slippery slope, implying that deregulation can in time, cause the moral values to be watered down. We need regulation of a rigorous kind. The word kind is important not only for selection, but for the relatives, and for the individual who finds his condition, either physically, mentally, or both, to be unbearable, to a degree that all will agree to a cessation. The problem is that no one will give this agreement, and the end result, of not having done so, can be a disaster to the individual, if he doesn’t succeed, and the family in either case. After all, forewarned is forearmed. If you were to be interested enough to cherry pick from the information given on euthanasia.com, you would realise a lot of these problems should not be laid at the door of the doctors, who are currently understandably refusing to take them on. Governments should, universally, set up strongly structured advice centres, legally based assessment centres, and some type of form, which enables an individual to arrange for his own termination under circumstances that are acceptable to the authorities, the family and the individual, in every respect.

We, the very old, just by visiting friends and relatives incarcerated in so-called ‘homes’, which by no stretch of the imagination, and the efforts of those running them, could be called home, dread the possibility, that we too are destined for this sterile existence.

I am neither an economist, nor have I got a financial background, and perhaps that is the reason why I find our current financial situation to be surreal. I have now seen the future I referred to in ‘Crazy Mathematics’ and I still don’t understand it, but feel that, as I, and my family, will be helping to foot the bill in our taxes for the payment of interest and capital on these colossal loans, I’m entitled to some explanation that I can understand.

As I see it, millions borrowed money they couldn’t pay back, and thousands speculated rashly on the stock exchanges round the world. During that period money was flowing around the world and between banks, as tangible currency. Suddenly, virtually overnight, in a high proportion of the more wealthy countries, the money seemed to disappear down a black hole, irretrievably. There are two things about this that defeat me logically, the first is how it could go as it did, so suddenly, and apparently without trace, and without any prior indication that this was a possibility. The second imponderable is where the hell has it gone? I don’t know; you probably don’t know, even if you are the manager of a local bank, you don’t know, because if you did, you would have been bound to tell somebody, and then we all would ultimately know, because it would be on TV remorselessly. You would think at least at the Treasury, the Bank of England, and the chancellors in all these countries would know, and somebody would spill the beans. I cannot help but believe, because all these eminent financiers seem to be running around like chickens with their heads cut off, that they don’t know either, but how can that be?

Our taxes are maintaining the governments which allowed this debacle to take place, despite all the warnings that they must have been getting with reasons explained, but chose to ignore them, across the world. We trusted the banks with our savings as shares, some companies trusted financiers with their workforces’ pensions, and yet nobody has told us where all this money, that we personally have lost, has gone, and how come we lost it? This raises the burning question of what are the chances of these trillions going the same way? If the system in the past was wrong, why is what is now being perpetrated so okay? People are losing their jobs mainly because the banks are hanging on to the money that we allegedly have loaned them, instead of supporting the small and medium-sized commercial enterprises that have a legitimate case for borrowing, and a high potential for repayment and thus save jobs. It is our money over the years that is going to be required to pay back the interest and capital, not the banks, as they are totally dependent on us. One aspect of this that I also find impossible to understand, is why the leaders of the parties in Westminster are now talking about reducing the very taxes that I would have assumed were necessary to maintain the repayments that I have mentioned, and to prevent our standard of living being whittled away with time.