Harry Potter and TERF war

I've just slogged through J K Rowling's incredibly long essay (see here) on why she's not a transphobe.  We could analyse all the arguments for and against young people transitions and the statistics on the number of people who detransition but I have to say of it all this is the bit I found most revealing...

"As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are."

That's a bit close to saying you were actually trans but didn't transition because the technology was not available at the time.  That's to say ...is it me or is J K coming out of the trans closet?  If there is such a place and that's not homophobic ...

Now this may be cherry picking by me or an ad hominem attack but I just don't understand why people get so fixated by this issue.  I wandered over to Graham Linehan's Facebook page the other day to find out what goes on and there was a Girl Guide leader complaining about transitioning boys joining the Girl Guides who unlike the Scouts have not decided to let both sexes in but do allow trans girls.  You listen to this stuff for a while and maybe I'm an old mysinogist but in the end you just think "get a life" or "it's not a hill of beans".  I've never really understood why single sex organisations need to exist.  This is probably because I resented going to a single sex school.  Mind you I don't think they shouldn't exist but if one man gets into a group of 20 women how is that the end of the world?  I see why people who are minorities or oppressed would want to form groups that are mutually supportive and I think there's probably little or no harm in such gatherings...

...but if you stop shopping in Marks and Spensors or Primark because there are unisex changing rooms you're a bit silly given that there are rows of completely private cubicals ... I can understand that there might be more problems in communal swimming bath changing rooms but...

I'll shut up forever now before I start a twitter war.

In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation...

Among the issues no one is interested in because it's not the virus ...I heard that the government is thinking of banning the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars by 2040. 

That's sooner than you think. 

How this is going to work I have no idea but I guess the plan is we're going to walk everywhere?

Anyways Mr Shapps is very keen on it so I suppose we have to get used to it.  There's a public consultation here (to consultation). 

So if you think your business will fail without wheels or ...you would prefer to live locally forever and pretend Zoom's the same ...or if you think electric motors will fix it all ...or you think that the luddites have it right ...or you think that it will stop gammons ruining the planet then follow the link and inflict your views on the government...

"In the long-term, widespread personal vehicle ownership does not appear to be compatible with significant decarbonisation..." sounds like something Greta would say but it isn't her or XR - it's the Transport Minister. 

Still, my father didn't complain when there were no cars he got on his bike ....and/or bus.

Gigging out of town might be difficult but it's been seeming to me the whole comedy lifestyle is unsustainable for a while even before Corona ... which is why I have turned instead into an internet bore...

Still, I thought I'd mention it as no one seems to have noticed...  I expect everyone's down the pub...

"On 4 February 2020, the Prime Minister announced that government is consulting on bringing forward the end to the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2040 to 2035, or earlier if a faster transition appears feasible, as well as including hybrids for the first time. This reflects the Independent Committee on Climate Change's advice on what is needed in order for the UK to end its contribution to climate change by 2050. The proposals relate to new cars and vans - owners of existing petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans will still be able to use these vehicles and buy and sell them on the used market."

Mr Right Silly writes...

From Ben Wally to Brian Damage of Pear Shaped in Nowhere for 5 Years

Dear Sirs

We act on behalf Mr Right Silly, a former director of Redacted Capital Limited, and write in connection with an online article of yours entitled “The Continuing Adventures of Someone Retired”.

Your article is essentially a humorous biography of Someone Retired, who was also a director of Redacted Capital Limited at the same time as our client. Our client has no connection whatsoever to Someone Retired apart from this.

As you explain in your webpage, Redacted Capital Limited went into liquidation 2008 as a result of the banking crisis. Since then our client has established a new firm called Stupid Investment. While our client’s business is finding it challenging (as many others are too) in the current economic climate, he understands that potential investors undertaking background searches on him and Redacted Capital Limited are identifying your webpage. While we acknowledge that your webpage does not name our client, the reference to Redacted Capital Limited, in the context of connecting it to Mr Barrow in a negative manner, is hurting our client’s business. The reference to Redacted Capital Limited is also placed closely to pictures of Bernie Madoff and Philip Green, who you will appreciate are seen in a very poor light by the general public and investors.

On behalf of our client, we are therefore writing to you to see whether you would be prepared to remove reference to Redacted Capital Limited from the webpage and replace it with a generic term of equivalence, such as "investment fund". This would assist our client insofar as potential business contacts would not be greeted with the webpage upon google searching the word "Redacted", yet it would maintain the integrity of your webpage. Indeed, if this change were made and if any person where to contact you requesting the name of the investment firm that Someone Retired previously worked at then my client would have no issue with you confirming that the company was Redacted Capital Limited

In finishing, our client’s firm is not a big company. He is not a stereotypical banker or hedge fund manager, but is rather an older man and founder and CEO of a small professional investment firm. The webpage in question is hurting his ability to earn revenue which, in turn, is having a detrimental effect on his personal and family finances. By extension, this is also hurting his staff and their families who depend on our client’s business being successful. There are only about 15 people at our client’s firm and we would ask you to consider this side of the equation when deciding whether to agree to our client’s request.

My client has no issue whatsoever with your webpage in general and understands that such articles and criticism of public figures, such as Someone Retired, is healthy for public debate. I’m afraid that in this specific case, an unintentioned and unfortunate side effect of the good work you provide to the public is that my client’s business prospects have suffered dramatically as a result.

In view of the above we look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Kind regards
Ben Wally
Partner
Very Posh Solicitors
W1




From Brian Damage to Anthony Miller
Mr Miller

For you I believe

If you can edit the page I can upload from here

Cheers

Mr D





From Mr Miller to Mr Wally and Mr Damage

Brian

It's old material - I can't be bothered to edit itand Right Silly has long retired
I think we can probably just take it down...

...as it is very very old now......besides which we don't want to be mistaken for the FT or I might end up working in the City again...

Been there.
Done that.
Got the pin striped suit.

I did ask Someone Retired if he was particularly bothered by the article but it seemed that he wasn't... or had an extremely thick skin...anyway, if someone feels victimised by it take it down.

That said one might venture the opinion that Mr Right Silly is more likely the architect of his own misfortunes than we are...?

At least I googled Redacted and all that came back were lovely pictures of Switzerland...
...but you never know. 

When I used to do stock market valuations we seldom used Comedy Club websites as research resources but you never know...

Anyway, take it down... keep life simple...

Cheers

Anthony Miller

PS It did occur to me that one might try asking the question "What's it worth?"
but I have resisted the temptation on the basis that that sounded a bit blackmaily.

However, if Mr Right Silly would like to thank us for our cooperation perhaps he could make some kind of charitable donation to the Comedians Benevolent Fund
http://www.comedysupportact.org.uk/
I believe there are a lot of drains on its resources at the moment...

14 days in May 33 years on...

In my extreme lockdown boredom I've been wading through all the BBC's old documentaries on iplayer.  And I came across "14 Days in May".  The film about the execution of Edward Earl Johnson made 33 years ago.  I remembered watching it at the time.  It's got more depressing with more time...

This is Dickens on public executions ...

"The horrors of the gibbet and of the crime which brought the wretched murderers to it, faded in my mind before the atrocious bearing, looks and language, of the assembled spectators. ... When the two miserable creatures who attracted all this ghastly sight about them were turned quivering into the air, there was no more emotion, no more pity, no more thought that two immortal souls had gone to judgment, no more restraint in any of the previous obscenities, than if the name of Christ had never been heard in this world, and there were no belief among men but that they perished like beasts.”

Of course we're too civilised for that these days so now we have the Death Row documentary where we are allowed to watch the psycological torture of souls to the very second before the plunger.... 

14 Days in May was one of the very first of these and it has the benefit of innocence and is far less knowing.  What's most memorable about it is that Edward Earl Johnson almost certainly didn't do it.  He was executed on the basis of a confession and the main witness denied it was him.  Worse after he was killed someone turned up to say they knew he couldn't have done it. 

The film starts with the boss of the penitentiary telling his minions that they shouldn't make any bad taste remarks or he will sack them.  You wonder what he's getting out of having the film crew there.  He seems to believe Johnson did it.  Almost everyone else believes he didn't.  Rabbits are used to test the gas chamber and undergo horrible rapid convulsions.  Black prisoners are shown doing work on farmland.  "They call it the farm but it's just a different name for plantation," says one inmate or words to that effect.  It's all very scarey and worse you feel that it could have happened yesterday rather than 33 years ago.

A memorable interviewee is Clive Stafford Smith - Johnson's attorney.  Full of enthusiasm he clearly believes right up to the last moment that he'll get Johnson a stay - it was not to be.

There's an interview with him on the Reprieve website copied from the TLS on the 18th of June this month.  In it he says:

"I hold myself responsible for Edward’s death. I’ve had plenty of opportunities to think about it. Paul Hamann filmed the two weeks running up to this catastrophic finale for his film, Fourteen Days in May (1987), so I have the dubious luxury of being able to replay the grandest failure of my life whenever I want.It was long after midnight and I had come from breaking the news to Edward’s family that he was dead. Now it was my chance to vent to the media.

“What was I meant to tell them?” I demanded of the journalists assembled before me, in their pecking order, from the TV crews with their tripods, down to the newspaper journalists sprawled on the cheap nylon carpet. “It’s a sick world. It’s a sick world.”

Worse still...

"It was a traumatic affair for everyone, all the more so for me when I talked to his friend Big Mary. She told me that Edward could not have done the crime, as she had been with him at the time.

“Why didn’t you tell someone that?” I blurted out.

“I did”, she replied. “I went to the po-lice and they told me to go home and mind my own business.”"

The rest of the interview is here.

Franco - The Pact of Forgetting Fascism's Third Man...

In the 1930s Fascism was a popular form of government.  In 1922 there was Mussolini who started it all, and later in 1933 there was Adolf Hitler and later still in 1936 then there was Francisco Franco in Spain who emulated them both…

In 1945 Hitler died by his own hand in a bunker and Mussolini was summarily shot and strung up in the Piazzale Loreto.  Franco however had the wisdom to stay on the side lines during WWII preferring to apathetically egg on the Axis powers and generally play them and the Allies off against each other. 

Why invade other countries when you have 30 million lives at home to ruin?  After all half a million had died in the Spanish civil war – no one was in a hurry in Spain for yet another war…

The result of this was that the third man of fascism lasted rather a long time - only really resigning in 1972 before dying in 1975.  And strangely he isn’t talked about very much…

Working my way through every Storyville documentary on BBC iplayer for something to do of a lockdown I started to discover that this lack of publicity is not an accident.  After Franco died of natural causes and Spain started to transition to democracy the politicians decided on a complete amnesty for anyone who wasn't very nice under Franco or during the civil war...

Basically the government came up with a “don’t talk about Franco” policy whereby no one could be brought to trial for crimes during the civil war or the White terror or later … From 1975 to 2000 Spain’s official Franco policy was literally a “Pact of Forgetting”.  This has led to young people not really knowing anything about the amnesty and a lot of old people either seething with anger or saying “there’s no good to come from going over all that again”. 

Gradually over time however survivors have banded together and tried to get Franco’s henchmen extradited to foreign jurisdictions to face trial – since they can’t be tried in Spain – and a campaign has grown up to end the amnesty laws.  However, it’s all a bit late as a lot of the important people who managed the transition from Generalissimo to General Elections and EU membership have, of course, naturally popped their clogs in the meantime… which was, of course, the whole point of the legislation.

So how did Franco survive so long?  Well, he certainly started as a fascist but he more flirted with the concepts.  The Opus Dei obsessed regime’s natural enemies were Jews, Freemasons, and Communists but he didn’t kill as many as Hitler.  He didn’t exactly suck up to the Allies but he didn’t go out of his way to annoy anyone.  He was aware that after the Civil War Spain wasn’t in any position for any more…  He made his government technocratic – a little like China?  To what degree his regime was truly fascist is a question that has been long debated.  Perhaps it is hard to see forcing people to go to bullfighting and flamenco rather than live comedy and theatre as extremely fascistic but it sort of is… and if Franco had come to power at a different time and in a different way it could have all ended very differently.  When all's said and done people who rule by decree and without parliaments are a bit right wing.  Strangely Franco or his technocrats seemed to do some good to Spain’s economy though and by 1977 they’d had a general election and....

Very soon everybody seemed to live happily ever after...

...if you disregard a lot of dead bodies hidden by the sides of motorways.

My philosophy is you can do what you like... but the outcome will be the same

Last night I watched David Lean’s A Passage to India again.  I watch it every year and every year I see something I didn’t before.  For example this time I felt a lot of empathy to Professor Godoble (Yes, I know it was Alec Guiness blacked up but this was 1984 – allow it) that I hadn’t felt before.

The first part of the film up to the incident in the Marabar Caves is played as a comedy … Afterwards when Adela Quested accuses Dr Aziz of rape it all turns dark. 

Dr Aziz’s friend Cyril Fielding turns to Professor Godbole for practical assistance but Godbole remains aloof stating that “My philosophy is you can do what you like... but the outcome will be the same.”

Watching the film in 1984 having queued around the block (and indeed having to come back a 2^nd time because the queue was so long we couldn’t get in the first) I saw Godbole as a cold indifferent and rather callous and irresponsible character.  Of course I understood his role in the eventual soothing of enmity between Dr Aziz and Ms Quested and Mr Fielding but I still thought he was – to use a British phrase – a bit of a smug git. 

However, watching it again I appreciated his character more.  For, the more times I watch it, the more I appreciate that Godbole is right.  Firstly, if there has been a rape or might have been – which there hasn’t (at least not in the film ...the book is more ambiguous) – then it isn’t wise to take sides but to let the Judicial process take its course.  Or at least it is wise to keep an open mind... let's not get into the #metoo debate... okay, do if you want but...  It is interesting in today's context that this is a situation where a woman IS believed unquestioningly... Although rape here is used as a metaphorical device... 

From a personal perspective the political farce that the trial becomes is not something it is wise for Professor Godbole to get involved in.  His life will continue whether or not Dr Aziz/Fielding win or not.  Looking at him as less inscrutable and more pragmatical - what's in it for him to get involved anyway?

Furthermore the trial is aborted when Ms Quested realises she has been brainwashed by the Major Callendar while under heavy sedation.  Indeed even Fielding knows that the trial is doomed.  “We're bound to win,... She will never be able to substantiate the charge,” says Mr Fielding.  If so why does he put so much effort into the defence?  Not that his effort isn’t needed but… it's actually Major Callendar's pigheadedness that does the heavy lifting.  Aziz's Indian defence lawyers - sought out by Fielding - spend most of the trial in futile displays of political showboating ...

Godbole sees his role as primarily spiritual.  He is there to guide the souls of the characters.  The events he sees as preordained but what happens to their souls isn’t.  He doesn’t care in a literal sense about what happens to the other characters because he feels he cannot alter the course of events..  But he cares about what happens to them in terms of their personal fulfilment, goals, feelings …that they live good lives.  That they grow as people. 

Godbole misses the trial for the same reason he misses the train.  He sees his religious duties as more important.  Actually Godbole doesn’t want to be involved in any of it at all.  He goes to Fielding’s house in the first place to meet Ms Quested and Mrs Moore because he is a government employee and Fielding is his boss.  Actually Fielding is trying to exert control over Godbole throughout the whole story.  Godbole knows that a visit to the caves is a bad idea which is why when asked to describe them he simply says “They have a reputation” but will not explain what the reputation means or is for…  Although Godbole and Fielding are friends it’s not an equal relationship and…

At the end of the day either Dr Aziz has raped Ms Quested or he hasn’t.  There is very little Godbole can do to resolve this situation.   After all no one can know except the two of them and one of them seems not to remember what happened because of the curious echo in the cave which represents the meaninglessness of existence...? 

Mrs Moore claims to know Dr Aziz is innocent by his character but as  Major Callendar points out what they think they know would not appear to be all there is.  Fielding accuses Callendar of digging up dirt … but then that is his job as the prosecution.  The fact that the prosecution is biased makes it all the more complicated.  But in the end…

…when the trial comes tumbling down to dust you kind of think… Well, actually… yes.  Godbole’s right – the outcome was more or less inevitable so is it actually the most important thing going on? – or are the characters personal journeys more important?

The film looks as beautiful as ever and does a brilliant job of skewering the Raj… we see roads that look as though they should be in England – only with bigger gardens …and names like “Trafalgar Road” etc …and then there is the scene with the temple and the sexual statues which represents the brief revival of Ms Quested and Ronny Heaslop the Magistrate’s relationship.  Everyone is in on the Raj but all to varying degrees.  Heaslop is a career civil servant who sees it as just another government post but is quickly in above his head.  Mrs Moore is on a meaningless search for adventure because she knows she will die soon.  The Callendars see the whole thing as just proof of their belief in racial segregation – they’re the completely and sincerely wrong but they have a certain honesty... unlike Fielding who knows what the Raj is and enjoys its benefits but is in denial about his own role - falling back on the position he's just out there to do his job as a teacher.  Everybody is just doing their job.  Mrs Turton is the snob turned super snob in an environment with no one to laugh at her…

Godbole is really E M Forster saying – look at these people trapped in their own system and yet for all their controlling they simultaneously control nothing…

Or that’s one way of looking at it…perhaps another time I'll look at it differently again.... 

National Emergency

I declare the increasing lack of single malt whisky

A national emergency

If something isn't done

We shall all have to drink bourbon