Remeberance Day goes unremebered here at UCLan

First published at http://www.pluto-online.com/?p=948

Yes. There wasn’t a ceremony at the university on Tuesday to mark Remembrance Day.

It seems nobody thought, in a quasi-community of supposedly academic and intelligent people, of people working and learning, that we should have come together and held a ceremony to mark the 11th of the 11th, the 90th Anniversary of the day in 1918 when the First World War, the Great War, the war to end all wars came to an end. Surely, that’s not ok?

Melanie Mingas, a 20-year-old Journalism Student said: “I would have gone to one, but I didn’t see one advertised.” Sadly this may be true of many students, and it wasn’t advertised, because there wasn’t one.

So whose responsibility is it to organise ceremonies to mark events that really should be remembered, and shared with others?

Should the community have involved the university? Yes. But it is clear when the services are, is there more that they can do?

Is the community in any position to do this? An annual Remembrance Day walk in a village, Culcheth, near Warrington was only attended by 50 people, do people in the community even care enough? Possibly not, but in a City like Preston, more should be done to engage everyone in the community, even the visiting students. Otherwise how can you call it a society?

Should orders have come from the top? Arguably, yes. If something of importance to everyone at university is happening, then the easiest was to coordinate something is from the voice of authority. The kind of thing that happens at school.

But we aren’t children. As an organisation itself, couldn’t the Students’ Union have used its authority to organise something? Or even, as a group of people, students, in the community, shouldn’t we have organised something?

A certain detachment from others, the community, and even fellow students seems to come from the emphasis on independent learning at university. Often you have little contact with peers, tutors, and those who might be able to organise such an event. And that is a disappointment.

But there’s also a sense that in greater society people care less about things that were once so vital, the emphasis on the individual breaking down our sense of community.

But the enormity of such an emission cannot be overlooked. Remembrance Day is relevant. There are still people serving in the military and fighting overseas. There are still people dying. One might argue an ideological opposition to these wars but Remembrance Day doesn’t just honour them.

Remembrance Day commemorates all the people who have fought and died in all wars since World War 1. The people who we have to thank for being able to enjoy the lives we do. The millions who have died, those who have been injured, some irreparably, and those who didn’t have physical, but mental wounds.

For the wives, mothers and sisters whose families were torn apart. For the families still being torn apart. For those who enlisted, but also for those who were conscripted- those who fought for their country, because they had no choice, no matter how they truly felt. Even those conscientious objectors, who took the courage to make a stand, and the people who it just so happened were fighting for the opposite side.

The First World War, for all the bad things that happened, eventually brought equal voting rights between the sexes and ages. Women came out of the home and found a different purpose in the labour market and proved their worth. Surely these unprecedented social, political and economic changes could convince those who might argue their opposition to military intervention that Remembrance Day is a day to mark?

Sadly, this year was 90 years since the signing of the Armistice, a significant anniversary, and probably the last that the remaining WW1 veterans will get to see.
There isn’t any point in apportioning blame, because the whole university, probably even society, is at fault. It’s just sad that so many life-changing events are given just one, or two minutes in the whole year where everybody should remember, but can ultimately be forgotten.

Was ex-UClan’s input necessary in abortion debate? Is there a more pressing issue?

First published at http://www.pluto-online.com/?p=840

The changes to abortion laws are all but made. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is now in the ‘ping pong’ stage- their words not mine (www.parliament.uk) – between the two Houses of Parliament, before it is given Royal ascent- or the Queen’s big rubber stamp.

Some of the changes were supported in a letter to The Times by, amongst others, the former head of Professional Ethics here at UClan, Ruth Chadwick.

Their letter urged change to the current qualifying conditions held in the Abortion Act 1967 so that the consent of two doctors will no longer be needed for an abortion, and in medically sound circumstances, where and by whom abortions could now be performed. This is because with medical advances, abortions no longer have to be performed just by doctors, and could be given in GP Practices.

The letter was hardly one of defiance at a divisive time in the debate (it was only printed on 17th October) or necessarily on the more controversial provisions of the Bill. But the letter did highlight a rational debate that has been lost in the more sensationalised, moral objections in newspapers and from Parliament.

The letter said:

“As academic medical lawyers and ethicists, we believe that the current restrictions on women’s reproductive autonomy during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy are not justified.”

But, just how autonomous is or should a woman’s reproduction be?

On one hand, it is your body, and you should be able to do want you want with it. If you become pregnant, at any time, you should by some argument, be allowed to terminate it.

The BMA, RCN and other royal colleges support the present 24-week time limit for abortions, saying: “There has been no significant improvement in the survival of pre-term infants below 24 weeks gestation in the last 18 years.”

So women have autonomy under the law, until the given time where it is seen by medical professionals to become and inhumane procedure. It is also notable that most abortions are performed earlier rather than later.

But, women’s reproductive autonomy can often come into conflict with the rights of the father. Some would argue that they also come into conflict with the rights of the unborn child. Can or should provisions be given under the law to them?

Can the law or other people really measure other factors- feelings, the relationship itself, and the situation?

There is a moral argument… but morals are relative. Should it be someone else’s morals? What if you have incredibly lax morals yourself?

Religious people, particularly the Catholic Church, are very vocal on abortion issues and have been throughout the discussion of the Bill. Nadine Dorris, a Catholic MP still calls for the time limit for abortions to be reduced from 24 to 20 weeks, although this flies in the face of medical advances and advice from the BMA.

In an almost secular country, but one religiously governed by the Church of England, should the Catholic Church be allowed to decide the outcome of unwanted pregnancies for non-believers?

And should Members of Parliament bring their religious views into their jobs, governing people who are not religious? Although, is it fair to ask them to keep them separate?

But do women actually know how to self-govern their reproduction? The number of abortions is on the increase. Do some women have irresponsible pregnancies because they don’t know or don’t care about contraception or consequences?

There is often a very loud voice when it comes to the pro-life/pro-choice debate, but is there a loud enough voice, with a clear message on how to stop so many women needing to have abortions? Or is there anyone in authority questioning why so many young women decide to have many children, often by different and numerous partners?

I think this is a much more pressing and obvious problem and whether the government feels intervention in such issues is their place or not, a consensus on how to control under-age sex and helping people to form proper, loving relationships is necessary.

Maybe energies could have been better spent trying to solve this after the Bill had already gone so far?

Obama Wins Election

First published at http://www.pluto-online.com/?p=587

Watching BBC News Coverage of the US Election, I realised Obama’s victory was tangible, even imminent. And today, 634 days after his campaign began, Barack Obama was confirmed the victor, and the first ever African-American President of the United States.

This has been incredible. The most expensive campaign ever, using the internet in a never-before-seen way, and to the bemusement of his peers, has seen the candidate and voters alike cross the lines of age, ethnicity, background, and party, and it feels like an unprecedented opportunity for similar spirit around the world.

‘A new America starts tomorrow…’

…the sentiments of an excited Florida voter. And by around two-thirty, The Republicans had all but conceded.

This is a huge victory for Black people, many of whom, in their lifetimes had felt the racism and bigotry in a country where many laws giving racial equality were implemented less than 50 years ago. But despite this, 9 out of 10 voters said they had not cast their ballot on grounds of race.

Talk turned to a defining generation. Young people have come out and voted for change. Not only young, but open-minded, liberal people with good ideas who are willing to share them. Could this be an end to politics in America as we know it?

The conservative core that McCain was depending on, who actually felt the campaign energised by Sarah Palin, the Christian-right, the neo-Conservatives, are they all running scared? Will the White, middle-class, middle-aged, male conservative politics, slowly be replaced by anyone with dreams, ideas and hopes that people now know they share?

‘Hope…’

…a swing voter says. Obama has no doubt stirred up hope in voters that he can make a difference to their lives. People will have felt they’ve had a part in making a difference of huge historical importance. Will the masses be empowered as things start being done in a more practical, pragmatic, and inter-connected way?

And can this hope, and clear determination and commitment from Obama be transferred into action? In terrible economic conditions, that many feel hindered McCain’s attempt at the White House, will Obama be too restricted?

A Republican pundit claimed he would bring in old ‘protectionist’ economic policies. Was this just an old-school politician seeing that there are only so many ways of doing things? I am certain.

The pundit also said that jobs would be lost in old-industries, that many people wouldn’t be happy. But isn’t this just an inevitable progression? Are we still evolving after all? Will this pave the way for new, highly-skilled technical jobs for the young and bright? Obama clearly embraces the ethos of Silicon Valley.

Similarly will his commitment for change mean new and better alternative energy use and sources? Republicans and many politicians worldwide have been reluctant to seriously acknowledge the environment. Many Americans simply do not understand that oil and coal just won’t last forever. I think he has every opportunity to make some drastic but necessary changes here too.

And he will be more diplomatic. No matter whether critics said he was aloof, critics are bound to criticise! His speeches, particularly the acceptance speech for his candidacy, were poignant, captivating, and most of all believable. He seemed at ease and to be enjoying the race. And much of the world will have seen that too.

He has gained the White House. He has also gained endorsements from Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, although he and America are not easy bed-fellows. German and Dutch finance ministers have mirrored this international and professional admiration, support and belief in Obama.

I’d like to think Politics in the UK could be changed too. No more boring, tit-for-tat, ‘well if they’re all saying that then lets say the same’ (opposition) ‘or, well if they’re saying that, then we’ll say the opposite’ (3rd party). People should be interested, especially young people. Older people might be controlling it now, but not forever.

Fresh ideas, new types of people, listening and pragmatism could replace favour, nepotism, tradition and polticians seeming out of touch. People should feel they can make a difference, and difference will affect them. And most of all it should be engaging.

Because politics matters, just look at America.

Ross and Brand debate continues if the Daily Mail has their way

First published at http://www.pluto-online.com/?p=480

You’d be forgiven for thinking that "Satanic Slut-Gate" (coined that myself, hopefully before the Sun had chance to) was all but forgotten.

A brilliant, alternative comedian, Russell Brand has given up his show. Jonathan Ross has been suspended without pay for three months without pay. And Lesley Douglas, the BBC Radio 2 Controller credited with saving the station with her edgy ideas and devotion to the BBC and music, has stepped down.

That’s a whole lot of fall out. And you might think the neo-Mary Whitehouses would be happy with that. A radio show they don’t listen to, taken away from 2million people who do, along with a new understanding that an apology is no longer enough.

But apparently someone is baying for blood. The Daily Mail has turned its attentions to Mock the Week, and any other comedy aired by the BBC in a story entitled:

The BBC fills our living rooms with more smutty and degrading obscenities

…anyone feel a moral panic coming on?

Other offenders listed by the Mail included Chris Moyles, Graham Norton, David Mitchell and Webb. Where is this all going to end? You can’t sack all of them!

The very words smutty, degrading and obscenity are fluid. To whose standards? Who decides? Who is degraded (surely someone involved in the process, and therefore someone who has given their consent)?

One joke the Mail took offence to was by Hugh Dennis as he wiped his lips and said: ‘Yum yum, I’ve just eaten a swan’ after being asked to perform ‘things that you would not hear the Queen say in her Christmas message’.

To claim offence at joke- a work of fiction- is one thing, but a horse becomes much less high when you find a report in the Daily Mail- a presumed work of fact, and truth, in a publication with a responsibility to its audience- that claimed that the Luton Angling Club felt moved to produce a sign which communicated the message, “The swans are not for eating” in pictographic form to stop Eastern European immigrants from eating the swans.

There is no evidence that an eastern European has ever eaten a British swan, or indeed that these signs were ever posted anywhere.

Whether this article was maliciously aimed at immigrants or not, the facts should have been checked first, and it wasn’t going to do much for race relations if the right (right-wing) people had gotten their hands on it.

The Mock the Week shown last night, to which the Daily Mail was so shocked about that it had to give it it’s very own scornful article was actually a re-run.

So easily such a programme slips past the first time, when the hawk-eyed yet easy-to-blush licence payers amongst us aren’t staying up past their bedtimes looking for other things they don’t understand, wouldn’t usually watch, but definitely are not happy with.

Mock the Week, judging by its popularity, is liked by at least some bill payers- yes, those smut-loving, but equally tax-paying- and up to now silent bill payers.

Who, if they aren’t careful are going to be paying for a channel with a weekly line-up of Points of View, Songs of Praise and the Antiques Road Show on a loop. With repeats of Last of the Summer Wine and Birds of a Feather- just like in the old days!

This is utter lunacy! Fortunately many Daily Mail readers agreed with these sentiments in the comments at the bottom of the articles.

Brand and Ross debate- blown out of proportion?

First published at http://www.pluto-online.com/?m=200810&paged=2

“…just a storm in a teacup really…” famous words from his first DVD – Russell Brand Live – that he must now wish could be used to describe this incident.

But it seems many people aren’t going to forgive and forget quite as easily as Rod Stewart did in that anecdote after Brand claimed he’d “had a go on his daughter.”

Obviously, the incident to which I’m referring is Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross being reprimanded after leaving messages on the answering machine of Andrew Sachs- who played Manuel in Fawlty Towers- concerning the sexual exploits of his granddaughter and “legendary swordsman” Brand. A misjudged prank gone terribly wrong.

The pace has been pretty swift. As I write this, the number of complaints is over 35,000, Ross has been suspended for 3 months without pay, the BBC Radio 2 controller has resigned and even the Beeb’s Chief Executive’s post has been called into question. All after Brand quit the show yesterday.

But is this all really necessary? Much of the outrage has come from Sachs’ granddaughter, Georgina Baillie, the comments were about her after all. Although her grandfather has said he doesn’t want to take it any further, and that as an actor himself in the creative industry, he understands that a joke can go wrong.

But has her outrage been less about protecting her grandfather’s interests, and more about self-promotion? She is after all an aspiring model, and a member of a burlesque tropue called Satanic Sluts. Baillie has forfeited her privacy in an exclusive video with The Sun and has come out to say: “that despite his [Brand’s] ladies’ man reputation, he was a “disappointment” in bed.”

Let’s hope her assumed-rather-sensitive grandfather doesn’t read that then. So who is it that really believes they have been wronged by the broadcast? It can’t be those who actually listened to it, as, of the 2million listeners, they received only two complaints before it was taken off-air.

Is it Sachs’ ‘national treasure status’ that’s got 35,000 people who probably didn’t hear the broadcast outraged and on the phone? Because frankly, apart from playing Manuel in Fawlty Towers, which ran for two series of six episodes in the 1970s, I’m lost.

The show was pre-recorded. More than one person, the producer, the BBC Radio 2 Controller could have stopped the show airing if they’d thought it would be offensive. Conspiracy theorists have started to wonder whether the show was aired anyway to get higher ratings- any publicity is good publicity.

Intentional or not, all of those involved, the station and the stars have been thrown right into the spotlight.Other conspiracy theorists- oh yes, they do love a good counter-theory- might go so far as to say that a rival TV programmer or newspaper (not mentioning any names) might have paid the pair to bring the Big British Castle down from the inside out.

A little far-fetched? Or is this a bit of middle-England scare-mongering convincing as many people as possible that a) that society and particularly the youth of today is going to the dogs (still, again and more) and b) the BBC is some kind of supporter/purveyor of this and should have their ‘privilege’ of being funded by a licence fee taken away.

This comment was left on the telegraph website: “Ross and Brand and many useless celebrities reflect what is wrong with many of the youth of modern Britain. Obsessed with moronic pop music, poor discipline, know it all, foul mouthed, untidy and in pursuit of the easy life and easy sex.”

Bit of a sweeping statement? Ross and Brand are actually 47 and 35 respectively. Hardly representatives of British youth. They appeal to many ages, Brand particularly to those with a less-mainstream taste in comedy.

And I’d still almost consider myself, and a lot of people I know, as a part of the modern youth. I’d like to think that a lot of the accusations aren’t true. And if there are youths with these kind of problems, there is more than just pop music to blame.

As for the ‘ivory tower’ that is being the BBC. The BBC does not depend on advertising, which can be good, but as comedian Ricky Gervais has said, he wouldn’t have aired The Office on BBC One as it would be changed beyond recognition due to the constraints the BBC is under.

There is little room for diversity and creativity due to the remit, so viewers easily go elsewhere. Comedy is a particularly boundary-pushing- in this case crossing- area, so the BBC can have little dealing with it. And are about to have much less due to the latest developments.

So they aren’t always laughing all the way to the bank. The youth are not to blame, they barely have their say even on any network. And the BBC is by no means a maverick, especially in comedy.

We shouldn’t let this stupid joke, on the part of two edgier than some comedians, grow into something worse. It has gone too far already. A mistake, yes, but not the end of humanity.

Comedy is but a small part of what could shape who we are.