Robin Hood Tax

Having recently moved to John Leech MP (Lib Dem)'s Withington constituency, I hope to be as impressed by his level of engagement with his constituents as I was with that of Kate Green (Labour, MP for Stretford and Urmston). Today, encouraged by Robin Hood Tax, I wrote him the following letter:

I would like to raise the issue of a Tobin Tax (financial transaction tax or 'Robin Hood Tax') on private banking institutions. Following the banking crisis, and the disbursement of public funds to banks, to shore up those which were judged 'too big to fail', risky financial practices have continued behind closed doors and beyond public scrutiny (and often beyond public comprehension).

Project Merlin's ambition of a ring-fence (or 'firewall') between commercial operations and high-street operations is a welcome initiative to reduce risk in the banking sector, but in my considered opinion, Project Merlin will not be implemented soon enough, nor will it go far enough to prevent the problem of 'too big to fail' and nor does it fully address the high-risk trading methods still being practised by banks in their often irresponsible search for profit.

A Tobin tax of 0.05% would, in all probability, contribute billions of pounds to the UK treasury's coffers, from institutions who often pay very little in direct taxation due to complex relationships with off-shore entities as well as tax avoidance schemes of various natures. This could be used to support the UK's 'green bank', to hedge against future bank failure (in schemes similar to the EFSF) or to contribute directly to vital front-line services such as the NHS which are currently being cut - in no small part due to the recession created by the credit crunch and banking crisis.

While it is true that the Tobin tax may well cause some harm to the financial sector (a significant tranche of Britain's economic activity), this harm will be specifically targeted at those trading high volumes in the most short-term and volatile markets. This is another up-side of this particular form of tax, as financial institutions would be encouraged to seek more long-term and stable investments for their portfolios (and by proxy for ordinary people's pension funds and savings), rather than engaging in such potentially harmful trades as 'short-selling' (vigorously criticised by US President Barack Obama). The potential negative effects on our economy are, in most projections, far outweighed by the increased stability in the financial sector, and most significantly by the vast revenues which such a tax would bring to the public purse.

Compared to the estimated £14,000 for every British Taxpayer which was paid to bail out the banks, a Tobin Tax is likely to have a vastly less significant effect on our economy than the bank bail-out, even without factoring in the huge amounts of tax revenue. The tax will also go a long way to preventing the types of risky financial practice which have caused so much damage to our pensions, savings and our economy at large.

South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, France and Germany all support a Tobin Tax. These countries would use the money raised to fund vital advances in sustainable development, to help reduce poverty and to tackle climate change. As you may well know, many ordinary British voters are behind this scheme, and have registered their support in various ways, including at RobinHoodTax

It’s wrong that the UK is finding obstacles instead of taking the lead. Will you please write to the Prime Minister and ask him to stop blocking the Robin Hood Tax at a European level? Will you vote for such a tax if the issue is raised in parliament?

A short video, which you may have seen, featuring Bill Nighy is available on youtube, and presents a strong case (though a less in depth one than presented above). A link to the video on ITV News's youtube channel, is here

Thank you for your time.

Feel free to copy and paste this to your MP - or to go to https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/robin-hood-email-your-MP to automatically find out who your MP is and email them.

Ham for Heroes

I bought a packet of ham at the shops yesterday, and when I came to open the packet this morning, I found it was 'endorsed by Help for Heroes' - and all of the company's [Red Lion Foods] post-tax profits go to UK armed forces charities. In many ways, I think that this is a fantastic example of corporate behaviour, and that our society would be unrecognizably improved if more businesses did it (although British Farmers may disagree with Red Lion's use of foreign pork). On the other hand, why have we had this recent wave of media-led eulogising about the armed forces? 'Help for Heroes'? I don't think so.

First of all, let me make this very clear - I am not a hero - and nor would I ever claim to be. Second of all, if our government is going to pay people a pittance to fight and die on foreign soil (or sand), then the very least they can do is to equip them properly, and to look after them when they suffer injuries and trauma in the course of their day-to-day work. But now that's out of the way...

I really oppose this implication that soldiers are heroes by definition. I know there are soldiers who who are heroes, but just signing up does not suddenly make you heroic - it doesn't even necessarily make you a good person.

I know that there are many people out there who hold up nurses, firemen and even teachers as examples of 'everyday heroes', but I don't think there are enough of them. In many respects, anyone who choses a life of public service - especially at this time of cutbacks in pensions and salaries is doing a good deed. To me, there's a case that most public servants - even bin men - are more heroic than soldiers.

Bin men? Yes, bin men. "How is it heroic to collect other people's rubbish?" well, firstly: would you do it? For the paltry wage that bin men receive? Secondly, and most significantly: "How is it heroic to kill people for money?" because that's what regular soldiers do. It wouldn't be such a tough job if they hit each other with foam pugil sticks, and went home bruised but content after a hard day's work. Soldiers are paid killers. The fact of being a soldier is not particularly heroic in my eyes. As I said, some are heroes, but not just by virtue of being a soldier.

For me, a real hero is someone who gets out of bed and says 'you know what, I'm not concerned with my own gain today, I am going to put my energy in to helping other people'. That's heroism - not doing your job, but doing more, and sacrificing yourself to help people.

For those reasons, I see people who volunteer to join the army when their country (and family) is under threat as a different matter - that in itself is an act of heroism, but there's a big difference between your family being under threat, and your way of life being under threat. Our way of life is to consume prodigiously - and we fight wars to preserve our ability to do so - and for the ability of 'our' private companies to profit from it - but we are not under any military threat, and our soldiers are not sent to war in order to help people or protect their human rights - even though that is something that they may do in the course of their duties. Regardless of what the government say, the army is deployed to protect and secure our interests - and that rarely ever includes the well-being of foreign citizens.

Muammar Qaddafi had threatened to nationalise Lybia's oil industry. Of course, that may be a co-incidence at a time when peak oil may already have passed and oil companies are making record profits. It's no secret that Saddam Hussein kicked out the major oil companies and nationalised Iraq's oil industry, before being subjected to sanctions and subsequently abusing the Oil-for-Food Programme. And it may also be a coincidence that the regime in Afghanistan refused to allow the construction of a certain pipeline - before our heroes invaded, that is - although the Taliban are still a spanner in the works as far as that project goes. Good thing we are working hard to bring our Heroes home, eh?

So Red Lion Foods - why not give some of those profits to real heroes: our teachers, firemen, nurses and even our bin men - or better still, be a hero and give ham to the needy, the homeless and the hungry.

News

A few unconnected things this week:

I quit Facebook, so I haven't been splurging an endless torrent of random guff on to the internet with all the quality control of a cow's rear end. It's been good. I kind of miss FB, but the only thing I can put my finger on is the ease of contacting people, and the organising of events, so I don't know whether that's really a price worth paying for all the hours (literally) that I spent on there.

Beech Road Festival was great, we (Electromotive) played a decent set, although it was a bit earlier in the afternoon that we had hoped. The only other gig we have lined up at the moment is Wizzafest, so hopefully we will get some new songs written in time to do some autumnal showmanry.

I went to see John Butler Trio last Thursday. It was pretty good - for what my mate described as 'Kings of Leon honky wigga rock'. If you want to know what I thought, my review is here.

Finally, what the hell is with Star Trek since they re-invented it in the '80s? I just realised, when watching the beginning of Star Trek Generations that there are practically no 'normal' black or women characters in the series(es). Not a great legacy for the show whose original was highly praised for its inclusion of Uhura, and broke controversial ground by featuring the first televised inter-racial kiss.

Most black men since 1994's The Next Generation have been aliens, usually with weird make up. Geordi wears a weird visor that makes him look like some designer's wet dream of the sunglasses of the future - the only exception being the Sisko family in Deep Space 9. There are few 'normal' women either - Tasha Yar, Dr Crusher and Captain Janeway are the exceptions here, but again, the series didn't seem to be able to include many women without giving them psychic powers or funny make-up although the same certainly doesn't apply to white men. That's pretty screwed-up, right there - especially for the utopian, enlightened society or the 24th century :D

Slutwalk

This evening, Manchester city centre will host a 'Slutwalk'. There has been some pretty ridiculous commentary about the phenomenon - but I am personally quite firmly behind the movement.

This Newsnight debate on the topic ended up missing the point somewhat and some of the debate was ridiculous. Conservative MP Louise Bagshaw claimed that the marches are "lionising promiscuity", which isn't the aim of anyone I know of; she suggested that promiscuity per se is damaging to physical health - which it simply isn't; she even started labelling people based on how they dress - and suggesting that exhibitionist dress is somehow 'harmful'. The main failing of the piece and the debate, for me, was the focus on the fact that some commentators have claimed that, for them, Slutwalking is 'about re-claiming the word slut'.

Trying to move the debate in to the field of semantics - making the whole thing about the word 'slut' is disingenuous, and it's another move to avoid talking about and dealing with the problem. I don't particularly mind if women move to reclaim the word 'slut' in the same way that I don't mind that young Black Americans have attempted to 'reclaim' the word 'nigger'. It is not something that I think has worked or will ever work - but I have also never been on the end of either slur, so I have no idea how hurtful it is. While reclaiming the word 'slut' may be a goal of some, I don't think that it is the main reason why people are turning out in numbers to demonstrate.

In the Newsnight debate, Bagshaw's most ridiculous moment came when she railed against 'sexual aggressiveness' among women, as if Slutwalking were somehow encouraging women to go out and rape men. But that is what Slutwalking is really about - rape. Not by women on men - that accounts for only 2-3% of rape - but the rape of women by men. I don't think that anybody who is marching today would disagree that they are marching for many of the same reasons that are behind the Reclaim the Night movement. Slutwalking was sparked by a Canadian policeman's comments, directing women to alter their dress in order to protect them from rape, just as Britain's Reclaim the Night marches grew out of police attitudes towards women in Yorkshire at the time of the Yorkshire Ripper.

I think the Slutwalk movement is really about institutional attitudes to rape - and most significantly of all, about (not) blaming rape victims for rape. There is a lack of understanding from police and other authorities about how to deal with the crime, and how to treat victims and potential victims of crime, and there is an unwillingness to discuss this problem in mainstream society, as well as in mainstream media. The very fact that Newsnight - usually one of Britain's best news programmes - tried their best to side-step talking about what's really wrong is very indicative.

Britain's conviction rate for rape is less than 6%, and although there is a suggested minimum sentence of 5 years, many rapists serve considerably less time than that. In my opinion, rape is probably the most injurious crime to the victim - and don't some people know it. Evidence has emerged that rape is being used as a weapon of war in Lybia and was one of many brutal tools widely used by the secret police in Egypt. I see no reason why rapists shouldn't be looking at similar sentences to people who commit manslaughter or attempted murder.

For many years, I was part of a group who regularly attended nights at a club called 'Rock World' - where many people dressed somewhat provocatively (there was enough fishnet there to catch a whale - and all its bones might just have gone in to making all the corsetry on show). In that setting, I never once heard of an incident of sexual violence, but I was shocked today, when I realised that, in the 'real world', where people dress conservatively, and stick to well-lit streets, I know at least three girls who have been raped - I may well know more who have never talked about it with me. None of these incidents were otherwise violent, and two were by people the victim knew very well. None were reported to the police. Unfortunately, that is all fairly typical. Considering that in my whole life, of all the people I have known well, only three have died, and only five have had cancer, that is a seriously disturbing balance.

There are many reasons why rape goes unreported, and there are also many misconceptions about rape; for example, somebody could have told our Canadian police officer friend that the majority of female rape victims are wearing jeans at the time of their assault. Slutwalking is a good opportunity to bring to people's attention that many of their ideas about rape and many of the ways that society seeks to deal with it are wrong - and it's an opportunity I am glad to take. Now, where did I leave my fishnets?

Tonnight's Manchester Slutwalk will begin congregating outside the Town Hall at 6.30pm, when BBC cameras will be filming live for Northwest Tonight.

Journalistic Integrity

In their recent article, Spanish national newspaper AS apologised after they featured a doctored info-graphic in their newspaper in a match report of Barcelona vs Athletic Bilbao. AS, in my, and many others' opinions has a very heavy pro-Real Madrid bias - which essentially entails an anti-Barcelona bias, because the Spanish league is a two-horse race. Their apology translates as follows:


"Because of an error, the graphic in the print edition of the daily AS on Monday illustrating [Dani] Alves' possible offside in the [build-up to the David] Villa goal against Athletic, does not feature a Bilbao defender who could have been in line with [Alves]. We apologize for that."

To be frank, I can't see any other scenario other than that an AS journallist doctored the photo, knowingly printed it, and that the paper issued the most terse of apologies when they got found out.

So what does it matter? It's only football!

Well, yes and no - I know football isn't important in the grand scale of things, but
1. Barcelona (and Real Madrid) are a multi-million dollar international businesses, and this is an attempt to undermine the Barcelona team, and by extension, the fairness of the Primera Liga (again, multi-million dollars involved).
2. More importantly, regardless of what it's about, it's just wholly unacceptable for journalists to so fragrantly distort the truth. What if that had been a picture of David Cameron punching a child, passed off as real? George Galloway meeting Saddam Hussein? It's the worst type of lies, and should be met with serious penalty against the newspaper and the journalists involved.

Not that I expect it will be - the Spanish authorities simply brushed allegations of Hercules' promotion-deciding match fixing scandal under the carpet last year. At the time, match fixing was not even illegal in Spain, and a judge refused to release critical evidence to an investigation [see here].

Now, without implying that media barons like Silvio Berlusconi are criminals, who use their media outlets to support their own personal interests and agendas, I would like to point out an extreme example of the same practice from history which may have lessons to teach us about which type of journalist behaves in this way - here it is.

This blog was inspired and informed by the ever-funny mediawatch column on football365.com, which rarely, if ever mentions Stalin.

Letter to my MP

In response to government plans to privatise Britain's forests, I wrote a letter to my MP, through the excellent 38 Degrees.

I am even more worried after reading that this could end up as little more than a welcome opportunity to the richest among (or above) us to dodge a bit of inheritance tax, while they fail to look after these invaluable assets.

"Dear Ms Green

First of all, I would like to thank you for forwarding the copy of the letter [see previous blog] which you received from Jeremy Culture Secretary. It is sad to see that you as an MP are fobbed off just as inconsiderately as the rest of the public.

Second of all, I would like to let you know that it is very important to me to have such a good MP, and that you have my support - and I often say as much when talk turns to politics.

Unfortunately, there is a thirdly, and it's as simple as this: I am fairly confident that you share my opinions (especially as someone living in an inner city) that our forests are an important asset, not to be disposed of lightly.

This is why I am very worried about the government's plans to privatise our national forests. Sell-offs and privatisations - though multifarious, and seemingly the stock-in-trade of Conservative governments - simply are not good for the people of this country. Selling off (or to a lesser extent, leasing) our publicly owned forests is not going to lead to anything other than the loss of irreplaceable land, biodiversity and beauty in exchange for the short-term gains of a small few companies (and/or individuals).

If the sell-off goes ahead, apparently we will be only developed country not to have a significant number of publicly owned forests. What was recently a proud, world-leading nation seems destined to become the small-holding of a few multinational corporations.

As you know, on Wednesday afternoon you'll have the opportunity to call for a rethink of these plans. I hope you continue to impress me by calling on the government to preserve our forests.

I look forward to hearing from you,
Chris Oliver"

Letter from Jeremy Cu-..lture Secretary

For complicated reasons, I am still registered to vote at the flat I rent in Manchester.

I have been corresponding with the excellent Kate Green MP over various matters, including the proposed Newscorp take-over of BSkyB.

She forwarded me a copy of a letter (attached) from Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt (careful!), which I found to be wholly unsatisfactory. Not only is it brusque, but it totally fails to address the issues raised - and it also suggests that Jeremy Cu-...lture Secretary feels that it would be appropriate for him to make his own decisions on Ofcom's unequivocal recommendation that he refer the matter to the Competition Commision.

In reality he published the report over three weeks later - see this story - and still has not made a decision regarding the  referral, citing the never-before-used Enterprise Act to allow him to grant NewsCorp more time to make him happy about Ofcom's concern's. Why he doesn't just take the advice of the groups of experts who we (the public) pay so much money for is beyond me.

That's what you get for electing the Tories, I suppose - oh, that and some good old-fashioned sleaze. Considering the co-allition stripped Vince Cable of his responsibility for the matter over perceived impartiality issues, the whole thing is a bit rich. Just like the government. I'm here all week.

On a lighter note - Rapper P Diddy (Sean Combs) is being sued for $900 billion. And I thought England was mental...

Thankfully, no-one is in danger of becoming the new Melanie Phillips...

This is the third part in what is rapidly becoming a treatise on discrimination. Parts 1 and 2 linked.

In an 'article' in the Daily Mail (Britain's printed equivalent of Nick Griffin), Melanie Phillips essentially reveals her views. To me it sounds like: "I don't have anything against gays, unless I have to acknowledge that they are human beings".

It includes the line "The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two homosexuals who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding ­Christian values." Hmm... 'Upholding Christian values', eh? Would Phillips be so keen to defend them if Peter and Hazelmary Bull were in court for murdering a couple who they found out were adulterers? After all, the Bible says "If a man shall be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die" [Deuteronomy 22:22, Webster's Bible Translation].

While she might well argue that those parts of the Bible 'don't apply any more, because the new testament rescinded Mosaic law', the same revocation applies to the passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuality. You can't have your shellfish and eat it, Melanie... (Want more about abominations? Read this Amusing Letter). Would Ms Phillips defend people who were 'merely upholding Muslim values'? Certain Muslim countries (seven of them, in fact) condone the death penalty for homosexuality, but I insist to you that equality of people is universal, and should not in any circumstances take precedence over human rights.

Here's the thing Ms Phillips - society is taking a stand against the ridiculously bigoted views of religion, and telling people that they simply aren't acceptable. People (especially religious people) have long ignored the parts of their holy books which tell them to do things which are no longer acceptable in society (see the abominations above). We pick and choose our own morals, predominantly based on the times we live in, and our own experiences. Religions have lots of good parts - but so do atheists. The good comes from the person, and not the religion.

Phillips continues: "Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships". What if it's someone's belief that all Christians should be wiped out? How do square that with your totalitarian analogy? Clearly you believe that Christians have a God-given right to hang around, discriminating against whoever God tells them to. In fact, Melanie Phillips couldn't be more wrong: penalising people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs (when they harm others) is called the law, and it applies to religious people the same as anybody else.

Unless, of course, you want to claim that religious people deserve an exception because of the nature of their beliefs. I can live with that. If you believe that there's a person who listens to your thoughts, and who is going to punish you if you don't do what he says, then I can accept that you're insane, and you need to be in an asylum, not a prison. Your choice.

At the end, Phillips does raise the issue of free speech (one of few things that we all agree on, so safe ground to imply that a pro-gay initiative is bad because it's anti-free speech); this is not entirely without merit. I think there is a balance to be struck. Phillips should be allowed to air her ridiculous views, just as I should be allowed to air mine. She is free to argue that homosexuality is wrong, and I am free to argue that homosexuality is NOT wrong, and discrimination IS. However - I should not have the right to impose my beliefs upon her, and she should be free from the negative consequences of my actions. The reverse is true, and Christians should treat all people as equals - like their brothers, perhaps. I wonder why that sounds familiar.

Free speech as an individual - but not without the consequences. That's the line that needs to be drawn. Free speech is the freedom to say what you like without being imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned by the government and its agencies. It's not the freedom to say what you like and have everyone else (especially your employer) put up with it. It's certainly not the freedom to treat people like crap because you don't like their life-choices.

The Times, They Are a-Changin'

Instead of editing my previous blog to mention that Andy Gray has been sacked for more sexist behaviour that has been uncovered, I thought I would develop on it a little, and look at a few issues around discrimination. Certainly the major factor in the two cases I mentioned yesterday was that these people are employed in the media - both fell foul of microphones which they thought were switched off. However, just because we don't often hear this type of comment, doesn't mean it isn't rife. Being caught is not what makes it wrong.

The main point I wish to make, though, is that times move faster than people. Have you ever wondered why you can't work your new electronics? People slow down as they grow older - and we are growing ever older in this age of 'modern' medicine. Our attitudes and personalities are shaped by our upbringing and our surroundings, and the ideas and words of people around us. The older we get, the less we are able to change this shape and integrate new ideas; we become stuck in our ways. I would also suggest that the more we are brought up to respect traditional values, the more we are left behind by changing attitudes to morality.

I talked yesterday about Ron Atkinson, and I think he provides an interesting example of this.When Atkinson was born, there had been three UK General Elections in which women had voted on equal terms to men. He had been playing football at senior level for five years by the time the US Senate passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which essentially marked the first time black people had equal voting rights in the largest economy on the planet.

His behaviour towards black people was perfectly normal, even for our time - with the exception of the language he used. He recalls buying 'nigger-brown' trousers and shoes - which to him was just a colour. Conversely, as a football manager he bought and managed three players (Brendan Batson, Cyrille Regis and Laurie Cunningham) who are now seen as trailblazers for black players in the game. He treated them as the equals of all of his other players, and (though I don't know him) I sincerely doubt he has ever called a black person a 'nigger'. Is he racist then?

Looking at what I have written, I do wonder whether, should I reach 70, it will no longer be acceptable to refer to people as 'black people'. Would using the word make me racist, in 2050 or would I just be a product of another time? I don't think anyone could reasonably refer to me as a racist in our current times - because I treat people as people, and not as black or asian or white. Ron Atkinson did the same, but fell foul of his upbringing, I would suggest.

If you are interested in learning more about Ron Atkinson, in terms of racism, I recommend this excellent and insightful piece from the Guardian.

Keys and Gray are worse than Atkinson

The recent controversy over comments made by Richard Keys and Andy Gray, highlights a real discrepancy about how we treat discrimination in society. Since Ron Atkinson resigned for making an off-air racist comment about a player, should we expect the same from Richard Keys and Andy Gray? Since the pair clearly won't lose their jobs, yet Atkinson lost his career, does this mean that sexism is somewhat acceptable, whereas racism is not?

In some respects, I think that what Keys and Gray said is far more damaging - it seems to me that the implication of their exchange was that if they were in charge, Sian Massey wouldn't be doing a job she's perfectly good at - simply because she is a woman. What Atkinson said about Marcel Desailly was unacceptable, but it's quite clear that, during his time as a football manager (especially at WBA) Atkinson actually helped to advance the standing of black players in the British game - an invaluable legacy. For me, actions speak louder than words, and it would seem to me that Keys and Gray's comment epitomise the type of attitude which prevents women from progressing in football (and so many other male-dominated professions).

Don't get me wrong here - I don't think there is a place for discrimination of any kind (apart from Liverpool fans - I hate them all) - but I think that it's people like Ron Atkinson who have helped the game in our country to be relatively open to all - and it's attitudes like Keys' and Gray's which need to be changed. Congratulations to Sian Massey for achieving that this weekend.

I'm only joking about Liverpool fans - but it is interesting that my perceptions of football fanatics is that they are more likely to be racist than the average monke-sorry person. I don't know whether this is because from a young age, football teaches you that it's ok to hate people simply because of the colour of their shirt. Is that the place where we have to start?

The great Catfish hoax?

  In her most recent blog post, film-maker Louisa Mayman gives her opinion that she appreciates short film 'Catfish' even more because of questions about whether it is a "hoax" or not.

  For me, this brings up the question of whether anything put down on film is really "true". By nature, a ninety minute film (let alone a five minute short) has to leave out huge amounts of background, and documentary makers are often confounded by real life not happening in easy-to-cut two minute tableaus.

  A 'real-life' documentary is not necessarily any more representative of reality than a biopic, for example. In fact, because of the constraints of time and the imperative of using real footage in documentaries, matched with the ability of screenwriters to composite characters and significant events, and also to distil emotion, I would say it's possible that a biopic could, in theory, be more representative of real life than a documentary. I am not saying there actually ARE any examples of such films being more real, but Hollywood has certainly latched on to the idea that the phrase 'based on a true story' adds something to a film.

  Personally I dread those words when watching films (I won't be going to see '127 Hours', for example), however, I did find 'Into the Wild' to be a very good example of how Hollywood can transform real life in to something truly poignant and moving. Before I watched it, I didn't know that it was based on a true story, and I was genuinely moved by the end - which was compounded by knowing that this had happened to a real person.

  But that's the thing about Hollywood's 'based-on' products - they tend to over-simplify; they tend to have an over-arching theme or moral, and they are essentially geared to come to an emotional climax. One simply doesn't get the background and context in the film that you do even from a short newspaper report, for example. In truth, 'Into the Wild' didn't happen to a real person. The true story of protagonist Chris McCandless is perhaps even more tragic, but certainly less moving. The film is the story of the tragic death of a glittering individual. The true story is somewhat more ambiguous - and suggestions have been made that far from the romance of Hollywood, that this is, in reality, a tale of a young man who caused his own death through recklessness, and lack of any form of preparation - who could have lived had he only carried such things as map and compass, or some tinned food. McCandless' actions were described by an Alaskan Park Ranger as "[not] even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic and inconsiderate."

  So while 'Catfish' may or may not be a "hoax", I'd rather enjoy it as a film - because I know the reality wouldn't match up anyway.