1, 2, 3, reasons to be careful

My brother-in-law has been in the throes of a nasty divorce for a year or so. His now ex-wife has custody of their children and so I'm concerned that my children will lose touch with their cousins altogether. As it was, we barely saw them.

It's soon the eldest's birthday and so today I got the children to write her a letter to go with her present and printed out some pictures of them to put in. I'm really anxious to get this right.

The eldest has rejected all contact with her father and also with her granny, my mother-in-law. She made herself too clearly on Dad's team, I think, and alienated her. Poor child has found herself in the position of choosing between, which should never have happened. She does want to maintain contact with father-in-law (the two parents-in-law divorced many years ago).

I made the damn fool mistake of going along with mother-in-law regarding sending presents to where the dad is now living, because she wanted us all to show support to him and so he could provide super-duper birthday/Christmas times during access. But with eldest refusing to see him, that doesn't truck too well. I didn't want to rock the boat and upset mother or brother-in-law. And because she's a retired social worker, I assumed she knew what she was doing. But of course, she's too emotionally involved. I don't know why I didn't see it before.

So now, to put this right. Daughter will obviously want a reply from her cousin to this letter she wrote today, and ideally a penpal relationship if nothing else. I'm hoping that this will be acceptable to the mum and that we don't fall into the rejected pile of the child.

I don't want to cause a problem by just barging in and going straight to the daughter, possibly offending the mum who might not want us in their lives. And of course, she will likely pick up the post so it's not like sneaking is an option! I'm thinking that I should send the parcel with a covering letter to her, explaining that we'd like to keep in touch. It's a tricky one to write. I can't ignore the divorce, but I'm certainly not wanting to take sides or engage with the rights and wrongs of it all. So I thought I'd just acknowledge they've had a difficult year and voice the hope they'll have better times ahead.

Even if this goes well, and they respond, I'm worried that mother-in-law and brother-in-law will see it as disloyal. Should I tell them about it or just see what happens? Should I send presents to both places (can't afford it, so it's moot)?

Staying in touch with the children has to be more important than other considerations, hasn't it?

Bournemouth

I really like the trip to Bournemouth, east along the A35. This post consists of my Tweet-like responses to the journey.

• At Honiton there's this weird terracotta turret-house with battlements. You've got to wonder who designed it. At least their post shouldn't go astray.

• Later on a sign to 'Triffords' and thought perhaps it was a cunning mis-spelling to throw us off track while the homicidal plants gain strength and size.

• Past 'Deep Cut Farm' where the cows mysteriously commit 'suicide' with their own horns.

• The first view of Dorchester and it looks like Noddy's Toytown. I want to move in immediately.

• And then we find Troy Town where hopefully it's more Homeric than Star Trek, as Deanna was the most annoying character ever. My least favourite Star Trek series is TNG, and it was largely her (and Ryker's) fault. Not because of their on-off romance but his character's smugness and her character's wishy-washy, touchy-feely, hearts and flowers, new-age soppiness. "We come in peace, shoot to kill, Scotty beam me up!"
  

• And then there's Puddletown on the same sign as various Piddles, (which cause puddles) and hey, I'm easily amused.

Why was I on my way to Bournemouth (shortly changing its name to Jason Bournemouth for the extra tourism, hat-tip Eddie Izzard)? Well, the clue's in that last sentence there.

Yes, I went to see Jason Bourne. But I saw Eddie Izzard instead, which was a much more amusing experience and frankly what I'd paid for. I'd have been quite disappointed with some stressed out assassin-type bloke who doesn't even know his own name.

I came away with aching sides and a cake-or-death mug. Life doesn't get much better.

You and your racist friend

It took a good long while but me and an old friend started to interact more after several years of estrangement. We exchanged mobile numbers.

The first text she sent me was a racist joke.

The full weight of my PC gorn mad disapproval lumbered forth and sat po-faced on my mobile keypad. I didn't honestly know what to do about it, as changing hearts and minds ain't really likely in a text, is it? So I could have replied coldly and told her off, or pretended it was ok or funny (and racist content aside it wasn't funny), or not respond at all. Which is what I did.

Thing is, I sympathise in some ways with her, because I can point to and remember where her racism was either born or shored up. It was bad and it was a sexual assault. This doesn't mean to say she has a right to be racist: it's just I know where it was compounded.

It may be that she and I are on a road to nowhere. I think we all shove things we don't like about people (their little foibles or hobbyhorses) into little boxes that we don't inspect too closely for our convenience and social harmony, or at least we prioritise our family/friends' good points over their flaws - but where do you draw the line? Some things probably don't jam into boxes too well.

The cruelty factor

I watched some of I'm a celebrity - Get me out of here and was nonplussed by it.
They do it to themselves, it's true, and that's what really hurts.

You know how Tarrant's audiences gasp with shock when they're shown some types of Japanese gameshows and you can feel the pleasurable frisson & whispers of 'ooh those Japanese people they're so weird and not like us' palpably running through them? I bet they're the same people watching the jungle and I've news for them: they're exactly like 'that'.

On the whole, I prefer sleb versions of reality tv generally because at least the people involved know the industry and very likely have agents and advisors who will help them to make the best money & get most mileage out of it.

Britain's Got Talent and X-Factor make me uneasy, on a number of counts, particularly the early stages where the auditioning public often get thoroughly worked over by the likes of Simon Cowell. I think Matthew Wright used to refer to BGT as 'Laugh at the mentally challenged' or something like that and it does seem to be that way. Sure, once you reach the final stages it's supposedly about talent and performances winning out, but before that there's ritual humiliation for the majority of try-outs.

Of course the winners go on to high-profile careers (or most of them do) so there is that carrot and that hope for them in it. Big Brother doesn't appear to even have that going for it. One of the winners I think used to build for a DIY show and that screechy woman sometimes does talking head appearances for cheapo crappy "best 100 ___ of the year" clip shows. Otherwise they seem to tumble right back into obscurity. Which is no doubt a good thing for tv audiences everywhere, but presumably not what the contestants were looking for.

I suppose there used to be New Faces which was acceptable in the eighties. Iirc they had three judges sitting up in a box (like Statler and Waldorf from the muppets). I wonder if they were as scathing in New Faces as they are on these modern versions, I can't remember.




Reality tv is car-crash tv but this is where Strictly Come Dancing gets a big fat portion of win relatively, if you ask me. The worst humiliation a sleb gets there is if they just don't dance very well. The comments can be a bit cutting but being told (quite rightly) that you dance like my old dad isn't going to send anyone into a loony bin anytime soon.

Hitching

Christopher Hitchens: God is not great: how religion poisons everything.

I was not sure what to think about this book. I went into it as a relatively resisting reader, not expecting to enjoy it at all, but it was a brisk and easy read as it turned out. (I suspect that would not be the case at all for a theistic reader).

But at the end I'm not convinced. It was mostly because of the socio-political history that Hitchens refers to and uses that, well, I know I don't know enough about, but I felt fairly keenly that his biases are showing, and not necessarily just about theism.

I was uncomfortable with his reference material and would be a lot happier had there been the meticulous referencing you might find perhaps in Dawkins' works. Hitchens is an essayist and this was a polemic, but I felt there wasn't really enough substance to this book and that the reader was expected to know where he was coming from and have reached similar conclusions about recent historical/political machinations, and there wasn't a lot of room for diverting views.

What Hitchens and I can agree on is sort of the more we know the more we realise we don't know and that's really exciting and enthralling rather than frightening.

But I'm not entirely convinced he really believes he has much to learn.

Jedward

Forum bod on the subject of the twins from X-Factor's performance* this weekend:
"I just feel sorry for the people who have spent all that money on the large hadron collidor to get particles to spin round at the speed of light, when all they had to do was stand around poor Freddy Mercury's grave last Saturday night and watch him do it."


* Yes, I had the misfortune of seeing that bit. It was allegedly family-friendly** viewing while the children had some milk before bed to settle them after their exciting hallowe'en.
** I'm pretty sure it was unsuitable viewing. Should've come with a warning label: may cause headaches, dizziness, nausea and potential jaw-dislocation.

Arsey with my RC

I really loathe remote controls. I wish all tvs and digi-boxes and such had proper pressable buttons upon their very boxy bits. Why make me dependent on a small thing that can slip through undetectable interdimensional vortices and between cushions when a few buttons on the device itself could make me confident and self-assured and happy?

Losing remote controls in the living room makes me fiercely angry in a slightly worrying just within grips of insanity kind of a way. Where is it? Where is it?

Hallowe'en

I had a most pleasant hallowe'en, not having expected to enjoy it at all. But it worked out nicely.

Daughter was dying to go trick-or-treating, but I couldn't see it working in the village. Then son was invited to a hallowe'en party, (she was invited too), but because of the demographic of the party-goers (small boys) she didn't fancy it. I'd also agreed to do face-painting that afternoon, so that was a time constraint, and I was worried about inviting her friend over (it was our turn) only to have them running around at the venue while obviously I couldn't supervise them properly. It was all a bit hmm and a bit haw.

I was at a loss until she was invited by her friend to go trick-or-treating from theirs. Yay.

The face-painting went well and I was pretty happy with how my faces turned out. And everyone who had 'em done was complimentary.

The children's party held by a friend was fun for me as well as son. Loads of people came to their door trick-or-treating and there were some fantastic costumes: one was an amazing paper pumpkin head, which actually lit up. I wish I'd taken a picture.

Everything meshed well with timings so it wasn't this horrible stress of rushing about everywhere, despite having to go here and there for dropping off and all that. Ah, t'was good.

I was most bemused by this article when I got time to myself for internet trawling. Okaaay. Apparently hallowe'en's all abominations and curses, very exciting, very old testament... I have to admit to some concern over revel nights being so very wrong. The coffee ones taste good.

It's a bit of a worry

Redundancy at its best:

It's time for Wonko the sane to rebuild his asylum.

Groß in Deutschland

I feel a lot better now my library fines are paid off and I can borrow books again. I have been enjoying my re-readings of Terry Pratchett, don't get me wrong, but it's nice to have something new.

I don't know what it is about library books 'though: despite having the ability to renew them online I have this mental block about doing it, as if rabid librarians are about to leap out of the screen and savage me with their dictionaries. It's ridiculous to allow the fines to build up to a size of a cow.

Well, a calf with a limp.

It occurs to me that I ought to read some Rosamunde Pilcher as she is a. Cornish and b. I've been lucky enough to be on the periphery of the filming of one of her novels. Apparently she's very big in Germany. As more of a tv movie, it was nothing like as big & exciting as last year's major film production, (which I'm not allowed to talk about. Squeak "I'm the mascot of an evil corporation!"[/Simpsons]) but it was still interesting. At least until my feet were getting cold and they did the same scene for the nth time from a slightly different angle.

Pilcher is definitely not my usual sort of author, but I might give her a go, just to see: it might have been pure assumption and misplaced intellectual snobbery based on automatically disliking something that a certain person would read. Argh, the pettiness. Or is it just knowing my own taste compared to hers? Or somewhere in between?

If anyone reads Pilcher*, don't be shy, tell me why she's good or why she appeals to Germans or if I'll enjoy her.

Hasselhoff appeals to the Germans musically, I believe.




* And don't be concerned that it might have been you I was being petty about disliking the things that they liked, because a. I didn't know you read Pilcher or I'd have been more circumspect, and b. I wouldn't have been petty about it here if it was you I was being petty about. So neah.

Ghastly little man

I daresay I'm late to the party. Well, damned sure I'm late to the party about Question Time and the appearance of Nick Griffin, but I thought I'd write about it anyway before I look around and read other blogs and what have you online. (I'm not using the internet as much lately, which is probably a good thing, but means that I am a bit behind).

I thought he was a sweaty 'orrible little man and he was caught several times in outright lies & misdirections and felt quite satisfied that the man had made an utter tit of himself.

What worried me, however, is the idea that was suggested in the Andrew Neil prog afterwards that maybe some people would feel sorry for him as he seemed outnumbered.

This was borne out to me personally a few days later when some of the people I was working with, older middle-class people, were saying exactly that. They felt sorry for him and maybe he did have a point about immigration. They didn't seem to have noticed the stuff about holocaust-denial, nor where Griffin lied or fudged about holocaust-denial being illegal in this country, which it isn't.

I guess this is confirmation bias at work. When I see Nick Griffin's performance, I see a disgusting toad of a man, trying to weasel out of his own words. But when more right-leaning types see him they might see a much misunderstood, much beset fellow? Alarming. I hope no credibility was gained by him through the programme.

Petty little thing, let me light your candle

I like to take the moral highground when I can, but sometimes I indulge in reassuring fantasies of petty revenge. Or petty fantasies of reassuring revenge.

My boss who has done me wrong (you'll have to take my word for it and be on my side without knowing all facts as is meet and right on my very own blog, for I will explain no further) left his winkle-pickers unattended this morning and I amused myself well with notions of what to fill them with.

Would it be feasible that a squashed olive had managed to insert itself into the toe? A few crumbs might have crept in? Would he notice if a trampled chip were ground into the sole? What if the mop should drip by accident some bleachified dirty water? Would a stale drink seep out or slosh around inside? What if someone had mistaken them for a toilet brush? Could they mysteriously become ornament to the lamp-shades?

These musings kept me amused throughout my work and occasionally made me cackle out-loud like a lunatic. Fortunately shielded by the noise of the vacuum.

Alas, I contented myself with hanging them up out of the way (although in a manner that amused me mightily in my pathetic impotence) - and the fact that they are winkle-pickers and that's probably punishment enough.

Memories are made of this.

Ah, children. The first time they smile, the first time they laugh, their first steps. The first time they accuse you of treating them like a filthy slave, no less (for having the audacity to expect them to tidy their rooms).

These are the moments that make it all worthwhile and will raise a smile forever.

Never, without permission

There's a frankly terrifying shampoo advert on telly. I was too traumatised* to remember what the product was, but it was shampoo alright.

A woman is in a hairdresser's and some chappie is touching her silky tresses. Nothing so sinister about that, until you realise the frightening bit.

The frightening bit is that he turns out to be the water-delivery guy.

The mad woman smiles sexily as he pushes out his trolley, having been discovered, but that's because in stupid-fucking-advert-land women find it a compliment for weirdo strangers to pretend to work in their hairdresser's and rub one out** on their hair.

Eurgh.


* Hyperbole. And it turned out to be Head & Shoulders when I had misfortune to see it again.
**I may be overstating the case slightly: no actual masturbation going on as that would probably not pass the censors, haha. But it's still not a compliment and it's still not sexy for some strange man to help himself to parts of a woman's body. Gerroff.

Stop! This programme is getting far too silly... Attention director.... Wait for it!

I'm enjoying the new American series FlashForward so far, but the most recent episode I've seen, episode 3, **spoilers** features the FBI going over to Germany and releasing an ex-Nazi from prison.

Now this strained credulity beyond the stretchiest of stretchy-out things. What about German sovereignty? What about what Israel would have to say about it? What about internal American politics and lobbyists? What about an international stink kicked-up by the UN (and everywhere) surely? How come it takes a couple of phone calls, about five minutes and it's done?

Even given wide-spread devastation and fear, it wouldn't be a matter of 'let my Nazis go'. Extraordinary rendition when they sweep him off to Gitmo and water-board him til he squeaks maybe I could believe, but a bit of moralising from colleagues and yay, on with the plot?

Well, it was pushing it a bit, I felt.

Maybe all that'll come into play next episode. As it stands, it's a bit of jingoistic US arrogance in the plotting there.

Saturday night's alright for blighting

Saturday nights on the BBC are a masterwork of programming. The early evening contains possibly the most bizarre series ever, Hole in the Wall, where y*-list celebrities dress as tubes of toothpaste and attempt to form shapes before a polystyrene wall pushes them into a pool of water. When they add the piranhas, it'll attain a whole new level of joy to watch.

Hosted by Anton du Beke, a positive grinning machine of 'affectionate' racism, it features other Strictly people, notably Austin Healey's manhood. I mean, it features Austin Healey's package. I mean, it features Austin Healey's meat and two veg. I mean, it features Austin Healey's groin. I mean, it features Austin Healey's cock. You know, I just can't get that sentence out properly... It's mesmerising. You can't help but look, the eye is drawn... He might as well have an arrow painted on his chest pointing down there. It wouldn't damage the overall sartorial message.

Then there's Merlin, which is a reworking of Arthurian legend. It's interesting and good fun although historicity is probably not its strong point. Not that the legends belong reliably to any time period. But things like Arthur's interest in Guinevere (she is cast as a servant) which in those times (whenever they weren't) he'd probably have satiated by simply ordering her to his bed. I like the series in much the same way I liked Smallville initially, the taking of the material and making it their own rather than trying to remain faithful to what's gone before.

And then there's Strictly Come Dancing, which spawned the likes of Du Beke and Healey's package onto our screens, and for that it's hard to know what to feel. Oily pricks aside, I have to watch Strictly.

It's that or the X-factor and at least Strictly doesn't have those lousy 'heart-warming' sob-stories where I may throw up. I caught a bit of one episode where Cheryl Cole got up on stage to hug & comfort a competitor: it was the most awkward and faky looking thing. I don't think the fact that CC could barely walk in her high heels and had the tiniest tightest skirt on helped. She looked in need of the sea-witch to give her her tail back more than anything. Dressing impractically has its upsides no doubt, but walking naturally and being able to give a hug are not part of 'em.

Oh I enjoy Saturday nights viewing.

No, really, I do.


* As in "Whyyyyy?!" What have the poor British public done to deserve this? Apart from not bothering to vote and reading the Daily Fail, the bastards. And suffering Richard LittleJohn to live still. They deserve all they get.

Media and public health

I think it's very worrying the way that news about public health is handled in the media. In the last few days regarding Natalie Morton, the media were very quick to lash the HPV vaccine and her death together. Yet it seems today that the underlying medical condition she had was a tumour and the vaccination has been ruled out as a cause of death entirely.

This relieves my mind as a parent who has to make those vaccination decisions, although I can't imagine the grief of the bereaved family. How awful it must be for them to have her death (and then have it compounded by the attendant media interest).

I think the media should be more responsible and measured.

I think that the government could handle things better: with the MMR, they did these scary and patronising adverts of babies and cliff-tops and lions, irrc. Those made me quite angry. Their leaflets actually made me more distrustful because they didn't give me facts, it gave me spin, and I can recognise spin. I feel they would have been more successful in getting their message through if they had trusted people with the hard information. It's plain that they think poorly of their audience's comprehension, but if science is presented simply & well and isn't shrouded by a lot of patronising guff, I do think that most people would be able to weigh it up for themselves. Maybe I'm being naive, but then their cynicism about people doesn't work. An attitude of 'we need to bamboozle you' because you won't understand the facts backfired rather well I think, and the anti-vaxxers ended up sounding more genuine.

On the bright side, they now have Health News from NHS Choices, which tells you about the research papers and strengths/weaknesses of them that the Daily Fail et al fish out their striking 'facts' from, to help you put such stories into perspective. I urge you to pass on the url to anyone who swallows medical 'news' stories whole.

A few reviews

I notice that although I've kept my reading list post pretty much updated, I haven't actually blogged about any of the books I've read. This might be in part because I've been re-reading a lot of Georgette Heyer and therefore shy about discussing it, and partly because I have multiple places where I review books. But I think my reading post looks a bit unloved without links to rambles about the books themselves.



Georgette Heyer : The Conqueror

Now Georgette Heyer is a bit like a bar of chocolate concealed at the back of the art cupboard; her books are a bit of a treat and naughty self-indulgence. She's best-known for her Regency romances. Heyer's women and their relationships would not stand up particularly well to feminist critique, so I take care to remove that particular hat when I read her.

However, she was actually a better writer than you might think and her historical research was meticulous to the point of obsessive. One of her books that I've re-read recently was The Conqueror. For this book, apparently she re-traced William I's steps on his journey from Normandy to clash with Harold in 1066, as well as thoroughly researching the period and people. The Conqueror is a fascinating take on the time. Having read this, I picked up a book on the Bayeux Tapestry, something I wouldn't usually have much interest in and was gripped; I will hopefully get it out of the library soon (once I've paid off my fines, ahem).



Ben Elton: First Casualty

The storyline is of a conscientious objector policeman being sent into the frontline to investigate the murder of a prominent war hero/poet and aristocratic gay man, Viscount Abercrombie.

The depiction of the first world war trenches and frontline environment seemed realistic. But some of the scenes of the novel were rather far-fetched: such as performing forensics under fire in an enemy trench, which stretched credulity somewhat. Ahem.

Elton leans a little too much towards the didactic in his depiction of the history and politics of the time, which was a trap he fell into with his comedy too. There were aspects which felt squeezed in, so he could cover all the issues he wanted to talk about, such as the suffragette's justified hatred of policeman (the Cat & Mouse Act etc).

I also felt that although Elton tried to depict a free-loving feminist, there was some unfortunate slip-shod thinking in it: *spoilers in same colour as background* I didn't like her sudden and desperate falling for of the hero, which seemed to undermine her independence, nor the fact that to be raped she had to be anally raped. This I think played into issues about "rapability": ie. a woman who is sexually active loses credibility or the ability to say no, (tropes about which there is much discussion on The F-word and in feminism generally). The teenaged girl who is threatened with rape earlier in the book: she is naive and virginal, so threat of 'just' rape is enough for her, but the sexually confident suffragette, she has to actually be raped and sodomised. I think it was unnecessary and smacks somewhat of the virgin/whore construct.

I liked the self-conscious questioning of the investigation of one man's murder in the context of mass-slaughter in the trenches and the futility of war. But it was difficult to tell whether some of dialogue was meant to be funny or po-faced, so I felt the book didn't quite work as well as intended. The protagonist himself wasn't particularly likeable and the ending seemed a bit rushed and too neat.

Overall, it was a reasonable thriller/crime novel. A decent read.

Steven Poole: Unspeak

This book takes you through the language that politicians and the media use and explains how important that vocabulary is. Words can disguise, deflect and mislead in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. The book deals with what you probably already knew or suspected, but perhaps hadn't put into words. If you've ever listened to a politician or spokesperson and some of their wording just itched at you, this book may explain why.

To give an example from Poole's book, the insidious use of 'terrorist suspect' rather than 'suspected terrorist'. The two may seem interchangeable but the inflection and meanings which go with them are not. And a lot of time and thought is put into these matters of wording by the people introducing them. The problem with 'terrorist suspect' is that it begs the question and denies the principle of innocent until proven guilty. We can lock up 'terrorist suspects' without trial indefinitely and waterboard them because they're 'terrorists' first and 'suspects' a poor second. With 'suspected terrorists', you'd have to find out whether you could prove they'd done anything or not first, which would be mighty inconvenient.

I found it an eye-opening and thought-provoking read.

Something very simple made complex

There's a lot of debate over the arrest of Roman Polanski in Switzerland, but you know, it's startlingly simple. The man committed and admitted statutory rape 30 years ago then did a bunk, and has been avoiding answering for his crime ever since. A full-grown man plied a 13 year old child with alcohol & tranquillisers and raped her.

It's a no-brainer.

I find it disgusting that some in the film industry support him and are arguing he shouldn't be extradited. How confusing it must seem to them for someone in that industry to be held to account for the crime he has committed. My goodness, why don't the films he's made make it all ok? What's the rape of a child compared to 90 minutes of glorious inspiring celluloid? Surely if one's evaded the law for thirty years one should just be allowed to get away with it for pure persistence.

Perhaps it's living in those shiny gold cages of privilege that makes it difficult for them to see what's so blindingly obvious to me.

Body Williams

What is Robbie Williams blithering on about in his new single, Bodies?

There's god and Jesus and the Bodhi tree and chemistry sets* and Gok Wan** and reflection perfections. And did Jesus really die for him or not?

There he chants his rhythmic senseless sentences (or sings even) and all I can think is, get some proper lyrics in. Is he arguing with his choir at the end? Why has he borrowed Buddha's tree? Is there some meaning to his warblings? Or is he just rhyming randomly? Or hoping to court controversy by saying Jesus did/didn't/did/didn't die?

Make sense, man.



* Well, chemistry.
** Well, "look good naked". Leave me alone, it's funnier when it's inaccurate.