Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Birdsong
A post from Tedious Tandrums.
The BBC have been heavily advertising their new shiny two-episode Birdsong programme based on the book by Sebastian Faulkes. The adverts showed a few scenes and looked interesting but I wasn’t convinced. I’d hoped that Spielberg might have picked it up or Saul Zaentz the producer of films like The English Patient, One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest, The unbearable lightness of being etc.
Zaentz could produce a film, heavy on the romantic side and treated with respect and care. Spielberg could have brought the realism to it as he previously did in “Saving Private Ryan”. If that film was about anything it was about the true horror of war rather than the censored versions we’ve been spoon-fed.
I just wasn’t sure I should watch it. What if it was a poor reflection of the book? What if the story was diluted? What if, what if, what if? It’s one of my top ten favourite books and I have the greatest of respect for the men who fought and were slaughtered in action during the First World War.
I decided to watch it. I thought I could stop if it wasn’t to my liking. However, I was pleasantly surprised, it wasn’t bad. Not as “real’ and the romantic part wasn’t overdone. So far so good.
Having the Great War brought back to the fore as it were, has reminded me of two things; the poetry created by the likes of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Rupert Brook to name but three. I really must go and visit the War Poets Collection at the Craiglockhart Campus of Napier University. Owen and Sassoon were there during the war when it was a hospital.
The other thing it has reminded me of is that for all the cost in human terms that “the war to end all wars” was supposed to be we just haven’t learned the lesson. Here we are almost a hundred years down the road and there has rarely been a gap between conflicts. The recent Iraq and Afghanistan actions reinforced the incompetence of the MOD and the failings in the services procurement system. Soldiers lives have been lost as a consequence. Vehicles were inadequate in the protection they were supposed to provide, costing young men their lives. Body armour being shared rather than being available to all, again cost lives. The Americans do things slightly differently. They aim to send their forces out with the weapons and kit significantly better than the enemy. They’ve just started rolling out a gun which fires a grenade accurately over long distances and can then be detonated at a point chosen by the person firing it. They can now hit targets hiding behind walls barricades etc. A game changer apparently although war is only a game if it’s played on a Playstation or X-box.
Unfortunately our sabre-rattling politicians are lining up the next conflict. Iran. Like we need another conflict.
Men and women sign up to join the forces. When they join up and take the Queens shilling they can expect to see action but they should also be protected and only put in danger if it is the last resort. Even then they should have the best kit, if they don’t have the best kit or even appropriate kit for the job they should not be put in danger.
Most incriminating of all of our various governments over the years however, is that if our forces are injured they should get the best treatment possible and if their injury means they need care and support for the rest of their lives the state should pay, ending the reliance on charity which is an insulting way to treat our service men and women. The state should also provide a reasonable level of financial support to the partner and children left behind if a life is lost and this should continue as long as it is needed.
War, conflict or whatever name people wish to call it is disgusting and inhumane, the way our forces and their dependents are treated should never be disgusting and inhumane. When planning the Scotttish Defence Force Alex could do well to bear that in mind.
I don’t think the Scottish people want our forces involved in any conflicts, perhaps Alex should seek a mandate from the people. It’s far too important a decision for him or his government to take on their own.
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
BBC Biased? You Bet!
The much 'treasured' BBC Scotland - on the command of their London superiors no doubt - has decided to terminate the broadcasting of Newsweek Scotland after more than 30 years on air.
The unbiased presenter, Derek Bateman, announced this on his blog the other day and I hope he will receive much support against the decisions of his masters but I would think he is loyal enough to realise that if his programme is to be taken off the air, then what voice does BBC Scotland have, other than BBC Alba.
For those of you who cannot access Facebook (or have no wish to do so) Derek Bateman suggests the following is the best option for complaints:
Phone the BBC on 03700100222. Option 1 then 3 (I assume he means the keypad business) then complain. Vital to your complaint is asking for a written reply.
The BBC has a blatant objection to providing a balanced debate concerning Scottish independence and regardless of political affiliations, people should abhor their strategy.
If that wasn't enough evidence then Lesley Riddoch's latest tweet says it all:
Update. Newsnight Referendum Special 10.35pm BBC1 25th Jan & R Scotland MW & online. N Sturgeon (not Lec) M.Moore, J. Lamont & me #indyref
I presume she is chairing the event, she doesn't say and although she admits to being against independence for Scotland, as a chairperson she is always impartial. However, for the BBC to broadcast a programme about the referendum without having some person - or more - from the 'undecided' to be on her list, shows the BBC's contempt for Scotland.
My phone call wasn't well received - in fact the telephonist was surly and that's being polite. But don't let that deter you, phone them and don't forget to ask for a written reply. If my experience is anything to go by you may have to repeat your address several times (something with which I seldom have problems) but I don't be put off. I know you wasn't!
Update: Lesley says she's on the panel so it's a 4 to 1 debate. How insulting to Scotland.
The Welfare Bill
There was uproar in the Commons yesterday when MPs heard the Lords had voted against the Coalition's Welfare Bill to cap benefits at £26,000 per annum. Labour peers said they supported the principle of a cap but along with others they voted to change the legislation to exclude child benefit.
Listening to the debate over the weekend I was surprised to hear Iain Duncan Smith say:
‘The public thinks that homelessness is about not having any reasonable accommodation to go to.
‘That is not the definition. The definition inside government and places like Shelter is that children have to share rooms.
‘For most people who are working, their children share rooms. They would find that a strange definition.’
Shelter insist that is not the definition and it uses the same definition of homelessness as set out in the Housing Act 1996.
Officials later said that a house could be seen as 'overcrowded' if a girl and a boy, both older than ten, were sharing a room. Overcrowding can be a reason for giving a family a new home.
I support the benefits cap because I know families where the income is below £35,000 and they manage without claiming from the state. Benefits should be there to ensure those who fall on hard times do not suffer unduly, but work should always be more rewarding. There will always be the vulnerable in our society who require continual help and they must be given every assistance possible, but for those who don't work there has to be a limit to how much the taxpayer can provide.
People are correct when they say that the cap may price benefit recipients out of certain areas, but working people are priced out of those areas too. The state has a responsibility to ensure that people in need are housed, fed and clothed, but they don't have the right to live wherever they want.
If the Coalition is serious about helping people into work, upping the personal allowance for those at the lower end of the salary scale would help those currently in work and encourage others to enter the workplace. So often I hear 'there are no jobs' and there are those who think it's the government's responsibility to provide them with a job, but that is unrealistic. If thousands of economic migrants can find work then it is available. The work may be low paid but then it's usually unskilled.
In the UK there are plenty further education institutions that offer skill training and we also have the Open University which provides free courses to those on benefits. There's no reason why many long-term benefit claimants, who are fit for work, cannot upgrade their skills.
My sympathies at the moment are with those hard working families in which a parent has lost their job because of the continuing recession. Family income has been halved, or in one case I know reduced to a third, and because he is highly skilled in a specific area, there is little hope of him gaining similar employment in the near future. However he refuses to be defeated and recently purchased a trailer for his car because he intends to become a jobbing gardener until he can find a position within his own industry. Knowing how the weather can affect this type of work, he has registered for an OU course in order to show future employees he hasn't been idle. This family may well have to move house to a cheaper area but they're not complaining. "We have our health and that's what matters most," I was told.
Because of the unlimited benefits available here for so long, too many people have lost the ability of taking responsibility for themselves. We have a benefits culture, of that there is no doubt, and there have to be changes. Capping the system at £26,000 - with allowances for those who have complex needs - is a start. Raising the threshold of the personal tax allowance should be next in line.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
