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.