The face of the present government is a nasty one. It acts like a bully, anyone who does not agree with it's austerity measures and fiscal policy is chastised. There is no room to listen because it thinks it knows best. An icon of this warped attitude is Michael Gove. He has been on news programs voicing his opinion all day to the strike action taken. When I see him I see a man who can not string an argument together, a man who should not be in a ministerial post by any means. He has like all those other minsters a self righteous attitude and I can't help but feel the urge to throttle him. Mild mannered moi.
Maybe it is something to do with his body language and the way he looks. There is this false sense of sincerity all Tory MPs give off. They are in the middle of a storm and haven't got the faintest notion of their own hubris about to hit them full in the face. Unfortunately, they can easily turn the other cheek being they are financially better off than most of the population. Millionaires the lot of them. Gove, Osbourne and Cameron, they all ooze this slimy better than thou attitude. They love the blame game, they love to shower their hard words of depravity upon the rest of us. They have no sense beyond their own world how other people survive and empathy is not a word they perceive. Just take any video of Gove and see for yourself, hold back from shouting out "idiot" followed by some other obscenity because this will only increase your blood pressure.
Gove, Gove, Gove, when will you be gone?
Wednesday 30 November 2011
Saturday 13 August 2011
Riots in England - reactive justice has it's own consequencies
It is truly unbelievable how an epetition has developed over the last few days. A petition to parliament so MPs discuss the issue of penalising those convicted rioters by stopping their welfare benefits or by evicting them from social housing. This petition is one which does not have my vote. Because someone is in a riot and has committed criminal damage or theft it does not mean they should be stigmatised for the rest of their life or given a judicial kicking. Yes they should pay for the crime, but not for the rest of their life and not the rest of their family. Individuals are individually responsible for their actions. If a man for example is convicted of rioting, and then loses his home, his wife and children may also become homeless. In order to make ends meet how could this person not now descend lower in the social scale? Rather than become reformed, to then descend into further crime, street robbery you name it. There must be consequences of actions, but on a second level, justice dished out in this way will have a new set of consequences. It is short sighted, blinkered and it is reactive.
The riots arose in part because the mob mentality took over. Le Bon's book The Crowd would teach and give anyone reasons why crowds work in this way. Even those with criminality. Forethought of consequences has nothing to do with it. Like being at a football match. A feeling of the crowd takes over. Supporters shout, scream and swear the atmosphere is infectious. They follow it and are part of it. It is difficult to stand away from it and be individualistic. A voice of descent would be pounced upon and shredded up into little pieces.
The big questions really have to be asked on the issue of rioting, and again we have an inept parliament who can not be bothered to see beyond their noses. Inner cities have unique problems, poverty, racism, education, health, crime, there are sociological issues beyond comprehension. There are housing issues, ergonomic issues, religious issues. If you have never suffered from poverty how can you make a judgement of the effects it has on a society and on each individual's mental make up. How important is their self-esteem and self-worth are, how important a job is and with work which helps combat some of these issues. Having an income which is enough to live off and not resort to crime.
It was Nelson Mandela who said:
"there can be no keener revelation of a society's soul, than in the way it treats its children."
The news report of those arrested for rioting has stated over 50 per cent of them were under the age of 17 years. Something would seem to be pretty wrong with society in these circumstances. David Cameron in his agenda of getting the country to sort itself out has used references to British society in a pretty flippant way. Suggesting he can create the "big society" but he is just a lone person and it seems very alone and ignorant with such a comment. Further he has used the term "broken society" to describe events over the last week. It's a pity he hasn't come up with a different term more along the lines of lets "fix society." Of course fixing it involves more than could ever be contemplated by one individual. Certainly not by a politician suffering from myopia.. Only society can fix itself, but some times it needs a little help. Help that would inspire not judge. Where's our Nelson Mandela, that's what I say.
The riots arose in part because the mob mentality took over. Le Bon's book The Crowd would teach and give anyone reasons why crowds work in this way. Even those with criminality. Forethought of consequences has nothing to do with it. Like being at a football match. A feeling of the crowd takes over. Supporters shout, scream and swear the atmosphere is infectious. They follow it and are part of it. It is difficult to stand away from it and be individualistic. A voice of descent would be pounced upon and shredded up into little pieces.
The big questions really have to be asked on the issue of rioting, and again we have an inept parliament who can not be bothered to see beyond their noses. Inner cities have unique problems, poverty, racism, education, health, crime, there are sociological issues beyond comprehension. There are housing issues, ergonomic issues, religious issues. If you have never suffered from poverty how can you make a judgement of the effects it has on a society and on each individual's mental make up. How important is their self-esteem and self-worth are, how important a job is and with work which helps combat some of these issues. Having an income which is enough to live off and not resort to crime.
It was Nelson Mandela who said:
"there can be no keener revelation of a society's soul, than in the way it treats its children."
The news report of those arrested for rioting has stated over 50 per cent of them were under the age of 17 years. Something would seem to be pretty wrong with society in these circumstances. David Cameron in his agenda of getting the country to sort itself out has used references to British society in a pretty flippant way. Suggesting he can create the "big society" but he is just a lone person and it seems very alone and ignorant with such a comment. Further he has used the term "broken society" to describe events over the last week. It's a pity he hasn't come up with a different term more along the lines of lets "fix society." Of course fixing it involves more than could ever be contemplated by one individual. Certainly not by a politician suffering from myopia.. Only society can fix itself, but some times it needs a little help. Help that would inspire not judge. Where's our Nelson Mandela, that's what I say.
Saturday 23 July 2011
Rich media chick Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdock's nasty politics
Politics is a captivating thing to watch, especially when it involves the richest people on the planet. The Murdocks, very powerful right wing politicians such as Cameron and a perceived to be sexy woman, Rebekah Brooks. The beauty factor for Mrs Brooks and the fact she is reported to be the 5th most loved nearly but not daughter to Rupert (doddering-old-codger) Murdock. Maybe it is something to do with her outdated flowing curly red hair, hair which now resembles rusted heavy chains, pulling her down into the depths of deception, which is a place I believe she is quite comfortable to be in.
So out of a desire to be in the know I searched the BBC web site and managed to find the two hour culture select committee interview with Mrs Brooks. I am now think this woman is the most irritating woman I have heard. On three occasions I nearly nodded off to sleep as she droned away, answering questions not with acute journalistic style but more of dithering, struggling and I-will-not-implicate-myself-here format. I saw her prevaricate, I watched her body language closely, how she excessively blinked her eyes, trying to avoid her questioner. I could hear in the tone of her voice and her slow meandering she was holding back facts. She denied knowing things which she must of known. Strike me down if I am wrong but I can only come to the conclusion the performance I saw was of a liar, a manipulator and someone who was not undergoing the same forensic, accusatory tone of questioning she would give were she doing her journalistic role. The select committee were not quite there. They were not on the ball enough or offensive enough. She was there for the breaking but it needed a tenacious rottweiler to do it, and the were not up to the job. More of tenacious collie than rotty. I so wanted one of them to say explicitly "I don't believe what you are saying." She came out of it but that is as far as I would go. Her performance was not impressive, it was defensive and meandering. She avoided questions by her own confusing semantics of what the questions were about, trying to pretend she was answering them. After her performance she is now tarred and nearly feathered. Not quite, nearly. But absolutely one hundred percent the most irritating woman ever.
In the parts of the Murdocks interview I have seen, it is obvious they live on the deferral of responsibility. They dress it up in this ethereal cloud and tell the world it is made of concrete. They are inextricably linked to Mrs Brooks and they know it. Just as they know the world is now examining them under the microscope, except of course Fox News. Of course not, they own Fox. A good a reason as any to say such people should never be allowed a foot in the door way of impartial news, for it is so tainted impartial is a forgotten word. They will support Mrs B, for the reason Rupert loves her as his own. With any luck she will never work in the media again, but maybe in a year or two after the dust has settled her surrogate father will find her something nice, cushy and well paid to land in. Then she can brush all this investigation lark under the carpet shine off her Most Irritation Woman World Cup and start counting her rich fan famous friends in the Chipping Norton Set. Anyone for a party?
So out of a desire to be in the know I searched the BBC web site and managed to find the two hour culture select committee interview with Mrs Brooks. I am now think this woman is the most irritating woman I have heard. On three occasions I nearly nodded off to sleep as she droned away, answering questions not with acute journalistic style but more of dithering, struggling and I-will-not-implicate-myself-here format. I saw her prevaricate, I watched her body language closely, how she excessively blinked her eyes, trying to avoid her questioner. I could hear in the tone of her voice and her slow meandering she was holding back facts. She denied knowing things which she must of known. Strike me down if I am wrong but I can only come to the conclusion the performance I saw was of a liar, a manipulator and someone who was not undergoing the same forensic, accusatory tone of questioning she would give were she doing her journalistic role. The select committee were not quite there. They were not on the ball enough or offensive enough. She was there for the breaking but it needed a tenacious rottweiler to do it, and the were not up to the job. More of tenacious collie than rotty. I so wanted one of them to say explicitly "I don't believe what you are saying." She came out of it but that is as far as I would go. Her performance was not impressive, it was defensive and meandering. She avoided questions by her own confusing semantics of what the questions were about, trying to pretend she was answering them. After her performance she is now tarred and nearly feathered. Not quite, nearly. But absolutely one hundred percent the most irritating woman ever.
In the parts of the Murdocks interview I have seen, it is obvious they live on the deferral of responsibility. They dress it up in this ethereal cloud and tell the world it is made of concrete. They are inextricably linked to Mrs Brooks and they know it. Just as they know the world is now examining them under the microscope, except of course Fox News. Of course not, they own Fox. A good a reason as any to say such people should never be allowed a foot in the door way of impartial news, for it is so tainted impartial is a forgotten word. They will support Mrs B, for the reason Rupert loves her as his own. With any luck she will never work in the media again, but maybe in a year or two after the dust has settled her surrogate father will find her something nice, cushy and well paid to land in. Then she can brush all this investigation lark under the carpet shine off her Most Irritation Woman World Cup and start counting her rich fan famous friends in the Chipping Norton Set. Anyone for a party?
Tuesday 28 June 2011
Question Time's new low with Fern Brittan
"I can not believe it" was a phrase often quoted by TV character Victor Meldew. The same words crossed my lips when I saw the panelists for the last Question Time (23/06/11), one of which was Fern Brittan, a soft TV presenter of daytime TV who in order to lose weight had tummy reduction surgery and said it was down to dieting. Who has never in her years of TV presentation ever asked a political question. Who quite frankly on this program could only make a sours ear of it. The producer of QT should of gone to a children's nursery to have got a guest rather than ask Fern to turn up. Not to mention comedian David Mitchel. It can only be someone has had a quite word in the producer's ear to get her on there. She must be suffering from her less than normal 8 hours TV coverage. Within five minutes of the start her ignorance belows out like Sarah Palin commenting on any political issue in the US. A question on Greece and whether they can be saved, all Fern can do is refer to a conversation she had with an John Redwood MP (Tory) on the panel earlier (not during the program airing) and gave no viewpoint. In ignorance she states troops should come out of war torn countries such as Afghanistan, but she doesn't present any justifiable reason why those countries would then be allowed to run amok in a self genocidal manner. It is as though Fern wishes the word "ignorant" be replaced in the dictionary with her own name. Her view is talking should of taken place first. Weird, all the while the talking would of taken place she doesn't care about the many more thousands of innocent people dying at the hands of tyrants. Talk about lost it.
So it seems, the producer of this program must of lost it because he bloody well could not of been in his right mind when he put the panel members together.
So it seems, the producer of this program must of lost it because he bloody well could not of been in his right mind when he put the panel members together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
