TTFN

Like I said earlier we are away for a couple of weeks. Normal service will resume after that, except with a tan.

Invitation only

Quick, go here to find out where the special people hang out.

The will of the what now?

You know, there is nothing quite like disaffection. That creeping realisation that, no matter what politicians and their buddies say, you actually don’t feel that they represent you very well at all. If life were an exam I would have started out marking their papers with a ludicrously high 6 out of 10 only to see the mark drop to 2 out of 10 a few years later. Where did they go so wrong? Too much time down the student bar? Got mixed up with the wrong sort? Do I dare mark them at a 1 out of 10 as I sometimes feel they deserve?

You know when you’re there, in the camp with the rest of us tired and cynical travellers of that long road named “experience”, when you read something like this…

"For the political reality to be changed would create a significant upheaval in the present legislative programme and present constitutional settlement on which ultimately the will of the people, represented through the House of Commons, rests."

…and your first reaction is don’t make me laugh.

War on terror unsafe!

Via Oliver Kamm comes this bit of nonsense spouted by The Stop the War Coalition after the terrorism in London:

It is clearer than ever that the "war on terror" in which Britain has been so heavily involved has not, in fact, made the world safer from terrorism.

A bit like saying that in 1942 the “war against the Nazis” had not, in fact, made the world safer from Nazis. One could hazard a guess that it also made the Nazis a bit, you know, miffed. Upset. Angry even. ”Look, they are dropping bombs on us! What did I tell you!”

The importance of shoes

I love this little quote from Harry Hutton over at Chase me ladies. When Harry asked his English language class of Italians "what's the first thing you look for in a woman" one response given was "shoes".

"When I see the woman, so beautiful, but is wearing the Doctor Martin, for me is finish." - Fabio

I can see the hand gestures.

What is more evil?

Unbelievable:

A primary school cancelled a Harry Potter day over complaints it could lead children into "areas of evil".

Pupils from The Holt Primary School in Skellingthorpe, Lincs, were planning to dress up as witches and wizards.

But the event - to mark the launch of the new JK Rowling book - was scrapped after parents and a local rector expressed concerns about witchcraft.

The obvious question to ask the local rector is "what has caused more death, destruction and evil throughout history; Christianity or witchcraft"? Come on, it's not a difficult question.

Fact is it would have been a fun day for the kiddies and no harm would have come of it. Now it's turned into a crap day and you are being ridiculed on the Internet. Nice one.

"British" Broadcasting Corporation - the spin and the reality

Andrew Sullivan notes that the spin from the BBC regarding the use of the word terrorism has begun:

Here's the spin today:

Then there has been a controversy about our use of language - particularly the question of whether the BBC banned the word "terrorist". There is no ban. It's true the word is contentious in some contexts on our international services, hence the recommendation that it be employed with care. But we have used and will continue to use the words terror, terrorism and terrorist - as we did in all our flagship bulletins from Thursday.

He then goes on to distinguish between the spin and the reality. Well, at the time of going to press here is a little more reality from the front of the BBC news page:

Subtle, but there. Yes, I am pointing to the use of quotes around the word. Yes, I know they would argue that they were quoting something the French president said. No, I don't think that is the reason why they used the quotes.

And a few minutes later it's changed:

Much better. That's the problem with having crappy guidelines though. People tend to follow them. I look forward to the BBC using the correct terminology when reporting on the terrorist activities in the Middle East.

I preferred the jets in the first picture.

Spread the word

There is going to be a Mass Act of Defiance For The Right To Protest on Sunday 7th August, starting at 12 noon, in Parliament Square. The people at Parliament Protest say more details are to come. Spread the word.

Another Grand Tour

We are about to go on another one of our grand tours. This one will take us across the channel to the mainland of Europe where, I understand, they speak different languages but use the same currency as each other . Fantastically quaint.

Like our previous tours there will be pictures taken (this time with my spanking new Nikon D70) but, unfortunately for you (trust me on this one), it is unlikely that these pictures will be available for your viewing pleasure. The reason is that this particular grand tour is to be a hedonistic one in as much as sight seeing and exploration will not even be on the menu. Instead I will be spending time in a rather large private dwelling with a very handy pool along with two extremely fine fillies. In almost unbearable heat.

There will be clothes, but not many.

Blogging will probably continue today and tomorrow and then there will be a pause.

Jagged edges

What is this article actually saying? That the tolerance and embracing of other cultures and cultural requirements is another root cause of terrorism? It’s an interesting point of view and one that I was about to lay into until the act of constructing a counter argument forced me to stop and think.

The author suggests that the French are less tolerant of certain aspects of other cultures and that the British have seemingly lost interest in their heritage and that this has led to Britain becoming a hapless nation in the war on terror and radical Islam. London is described as easily the most important jihadist hub in Western Europe and, apparently, one American security group has called for Britain to be listed as a terrorism-sponsoring state though the author fails to supply details on who or what this security group is (never a good sign).

The article mentions the ruling in 2004 allowing schoolgirls to wear a jilbab in state schools:

As a result, by law British schools must now accept the jilbab. Not only that, but Prime Minister Blair's wife, Cherie Booth, was Ms. Begum's lawyer at the appellate level. Ms. Booth called the ruling "a victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry."

The article uses this as an example of the ”myriad French-British differences in treatment of radical Islam”. Now, I suppose you could argue that the need or desire for girls to wear a covering religion based ‘uniform’ is an aspect of radical Islam but you would be stretching reality to suggest that this particular example of tolerance causes terrorism. However, the article does not really suggest that. It merely uses it as an example of wrong-way-round cultural dilution and I think that is the subtext of the article and, if that is the case, then I think that the author is not as barking as I first thought.

Cultural dilution is not just a single aspect of multiculturalism, it is the very key to its success. If multiculturalism is to be a policy (and arguments about whether it should be or not can, and will, go on for a long time) that policy must recognise that preservation of identity and of values is an extraordinary dangerous policy aim. It fails to smooth off the edges of radicalism and preserves the very things that cause cultural friction in the first place.

The great thing about mixing cultures over decades and over centuries is that there is a natural propensity for the best things about each culture in the mix to stand the test of time, the worst aspects having been diluted to the point of impotence. Decreeing that individual students can decide their own dress code on the basis of cultural identity so that they might maintain their own values and getting this recognised in case law is bad multiculturalism. Maintaining identity and values is exactly the opposite of what multiculturalism should be, if anything, trying to achieve.

Preventing cultural dilution is exactly where we are failing and jagged edges and tension will be the result.

(Article spotted via Blognorregis).

Some of you may be wondering about my position on this whole multiculturalism thing. Well, here it is. I disagree with a policy of multiculturalism whereby the cultures of immigrants are seen as being automatically equal to British culture.

Immigrants who come here, as my parents did, are striking a bargain with Britain. They take what Britain has to offer (and they find it attractive otherwise immigration would not be on the agenda) and they may have to give up something of their own.

The demands by the young Britain to wear a jilbab in a state school is, in my opinion, overstepping the mark and not appropriate. It breaks the bargain and leads to friction. Heaven knows there were many people at my old state school that wanted to wear their own style of clothing instead of the uniform but, fact of the matter is, no matter how much you believe in a supernatural deity, the devil, Iron Maiden or whatever, you wear the uniform. Taking the school to court is the same as saying "hey, I know this is Britain, but my culture is just as important and, therefore, I am special enough to be treated differently from the way millions of other students have been treated for decades".

No, you are not. And if you think you are you are not as British as you should be.

Boris Johnson has a few things to say about multicultural society and Britishness in his recent posting:

So we have drifted on over the intervening decades, and created a multi-cultural society that has many beauties and attractions, but in which too many Britons have absolutely no sense of allegiance to this country or its institutions. It is a cultural calamity that will take decades to reverse, and we must begin now with what I call in this morning's Spectator the re-Britannification of Britain.

We saw what they did...

”It’s because of all the outrages that are going on across the World” he said, ”I’ve seen what happened in Chechnya, Bosnia, Iraq and the occupied territories and this is just a reaction to that” he suggested. ”We live in this World context and people need to take responsibility for what is going on. That is why they did it. No one cares about these outrages and Bush, Blair and you are in many ways responsible.” Paraphrased from the radio programme this morning on Radio 5 Live as far as my memory can recall.

And utterly wrong.

People do care. We see what’s going on and we weep. We get angry. We care about the lives of people we have never met. Their children, husbands and wives. We try to understand difficult political and territorial situations. We take in what we can and sometimes our support swings from one camp to the other. It’s terrible what those Palestinian terrorists did on that bus, it’s terrible what that Israeli soldier did in that street. Yes, it’s terrible. Yes, we agree.

Yes, we recognise the wickedness that exists in the world context and no, we don’t get the urge to perpetrate exactly the kind of evil that we so abhor.Exactly the kind of evil the terrorists try to blame us for. They, like the other perpetrators of evil, will be judged in the same way we judge everything we see. Not by some particular ideal or perceived historical or current injustice. Not by some words written in some book somewhere. Not by what one or other of our leaders say but by the actions of the people we are judging.

We know why those four pawns of darkness did what they did. We know they felt aggrieved by world events. We know they really do believe that their religion is the one and only true religion. We know they offered nothing constructive to the world context. We know they did nothing to help themselves and those they believe they care about. We know that they had no tolerance for the faith or way of life of other people. We know that they benefited from living in a free Britain. That they took the education, freedom and opportunity that was offered to them and we know that they walked onto crowded trains and onto a crowded bus and detonated bombs.

There is no point in telling us that these men were aggrieved. Marginalized. Made by our own hand. At exactly the same time they blew up their fellow train and bus passengers they blew any chance they had to make any kind of a point. To improve anything. We saw what they did and we judged them.

BBSilly

It's funny, you know. I was listening to a phone-in on BBC radio 5 live this morning and the presenter started talking about anti-terror liegislation in the context of the recent 'bombings' in London. My question to the presenter and to the BBC is are they terrorists or not? If not then what the hell has anti-terror legislation got to do with anything? Obviously they can't answer that question without looking very silly and even more obviously they, well, just look very silly anyhow.

Please, leave it to the MSM of the World. They lap this kind of thing up

Bloggers and commentators suggesting that the Americans are scared due to the recent (but now rescinded) order to personnel to keep away from London are revealing a certain amount of anti-American prejudice.

The US military are stationed in many countries across the world and some of those countries have suffered at the hands of terrorists. No doubt similar orders were issued as a matter of procedure in the aftermath of those attacks and it is perfectly reasonable for a military officer to follow the same procedure this time round, particularly if he or she knows that other officers have issued similar orders in similar circumstances elsewhere on the globe.

It is not their place to make political decisions or alter usual procedure on the basis of political concerns. To be seen to be standing side by side the people of London in the eyes of the world and the world media is a political decision not a military one.

BBC tries to show balance again

Unbelievable. Remove barriers to 'understanding' the terrorists. Try to 'understand' the true 'interpretation' of the brave spirit of Londoners.

We 'understand' alright

Tom Gross rightly lays into the BBC for refusing to use the word 'terrorist' during its reporting of various attacks upon innocent people.

The reason why the BBC refuses to use the word is that it can, apparently, be a ”barrier to understanding. It is the duty of the BBC to ”try to avoid the term, while we report the facts as we know them.".

It’s an interesting policy. Interesting because it effectively states that the blanket BBC policy is that, you know, the terrorists might have a point and that it could potentially do their cause harm if the word terrorist or terrorism is used. That surely is the context that their guideline phrase ”barrier to understanding" must be taken in.

But the policy is flawed.

Flawed because the meaning of the words are clearly defined and flawed because it is inaccurate of the BBC to substitute less descriptive words:

Terrorist: - One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

There is nothing in those definitions that prevents any kind of ‘understanding’. They are crystal clear and they are accurately descriptive.

The BBC’s policy is flawed because it refuses to recognise that there is an end game to the process of ‘understanding’. It is not perpetual and cannot, therefore, be comfortably or accurately used within a policy statement. Flawed because ‘understanding’ has been achieved and, indeed, was achieved some time ago. We ‘understand’ what the terrorists are. We ‘understand’ that they think that the deliberate and cold blooded killing of innocent civilians will coerce our society and our government. We ‘understand’ that they revel in the blood and fire. We ‘understand’ everything we need to thank you very much.

The BBC policy is also flawed because it does not extend to other words and phrases that have a clear and accurate definition but that might be a barrier to ‘understanding’. Words and phrases like criminal, blood sport, fat cat, intimidation and any number of others that no one else on the planet has a problem with, including the BBC.

So why pick on terrorist? Again, it’s because, you know, they might have a point.

It is utterly reprehensible and made more so because we are forced to pay for the service that must abide by such a policy. Sickening. Pathetic.

Anything for the project

Can you believe this?

Welcoming the result of the European constitution referendum in Luxembourg yesterday, European Parliament president Josep Borrell of Spain jumped onto the bandwagon by saying “the people of Luxembourg had realised the need for "more of Europe to better guarantee the safety of Europeans".” And he hoped that the “"appalling" attacks in London would "have a positive political effect in making Europeans realise the importance of the European project to better guarantee their safety".

Better guarantee our safety? Who the hell does this idiot think he is? More to the point, who the hell does he think we are?

Here are a few things that I think have a better chance of improving our safety than the self loving European Project and its verbal masturbators:

1. Our police service.
2. Our security services.
3. Our doctors and nurses.
4. The British public.
5. Our soldiers.
6. Our silent assassins.
7. Our bus drivers.
8. Our train drivers.
9. Our flight crews.
10. Our tea ladies.
11. Our cats and dogs.
12. Those small crumbs you find at the bottom of cheesy wotsit packets.

Go here and read (via the BBC) and note the total absence of requests for help and for safety tips from the project.

My secret blog

It’s an odd feeling having friends that know I have a blog but who don’t know where it is. The tactics they have used over the past few weeks to try and find out the location of the blog have been a marvel to behold. Entertaining even, but ultimately lacking in the kind of sophistication required for success.

I, on the other hand, have been playing a marvellous game. ”Oh yes, I wrote about that a couple of days ago. No, I won’t tell you where it is but let us just assume that the very argument you are putting forward today has already been debunked as the ravings of a drunk soaked popinjay. No, we’re out of gin.”

One of my friends has started up his own blog in response which I have visited daily but to which I will not link. No point in giving away clues that easily and, perhaps, that is the very reason it was started. Pffft, saw that one coming.

I don’t know why I feel this peculiar need for secrecy but I do. It’s such an acute state of mind that I would seriously consider scrapping the blog and its contents were I to be “found out”.

Analyse that.

Reflections on a black day

I was at a funeral yesterday and, consequently, away from the keyboard. I was not very far away from the radio (travelling was involved which gave us the time to try and absorb some of what was going on in London) or from the mobile phone which I used to phone a number of friends who were due to be in London during yesterdays tragic events.

It was hard to keep a flurry of thoughts from entering my mind when I closed my eyes for the Lords prayer. It was hard to reflect upon a single life lost at the age of 95 when I knew that others were fighting for theirs right then in some hospital, on some pavement, in some dark and smoke filled tunnel. It was hard to keep my thoughts focused on the matter in hand when the curtains closed around that coffin towards the end of the service.

Sidney, farewell. You missed the tragedy by a week but no doubt the news of new arrivals will reach you soon.

And how we sang.

Jerusalem. Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold! Bring me my chariot of fire! I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land..

The whole congregation, loud and proud. And we meant it. Our spears, our swords, our chariots of fire. We will have peace in England and we will build our own Jerusalem but it will be a peace on our own terms and peace of our own choosing.

God bless the dead, the dying and the injured. God bless their families.

It's almost as if.....

Olympic win 'good for Scotland'.

Olympics perfect to 'sell' Wales.

London beats Paris to 2012 Games.

This proves absolutely nothing except that at the time of going to press the BBC page devoted to Scotland ran a story based upon what Scotland's First Minister Jack McConnel had to say with respect to the Olympics and Scotland. The BBC page devoted to Wales ran a story on what Welsh Secretary Peter Hain had to say with respect to the Olympics and Wales. The BBC page devoted to England ran a story about London beating Paris. Which minister felt that it was his or her duty to speak up about what the games meant for England? None. The reason why this is the case should be obvious to all.

Dr Sean Gabb on gun control

Dr Sean Gabb has publised an mp3 of his latest interview on the subject of guns and gun control. You can get it from this page (05/07/05 - BBC Radio Lancashire) and this is the direct link to the file.

I understand that some clever little so and so has transcribed the interview and that this document may become available some time soon.

The transcription is available in Free Life Commentary - Issue Number 137. Many thanks, Dr Gabb, for the link.

London does not represent the spirit of the games, rather the ghost of a sport

So the IOC have decided to give the olympics to a country that has banned its own sportsmen from taking part in some of the olympic sports in their own country. I can't imagine why, what with all this talk of the spirit of the olympics, this didn't turn out to be an insurmountable stumbling block.

Sport for all? Encourage our youth to embrace sport? Our sporting heritage? All fine and dandy if it's the right sport.

Liberty, the freedom of the individual, the right to do as you please as long as you do not harm anyone else....you cannot hold all these things as dearly as you might think if you support this decision.

Via Ian

Hehe.

Nope, sorry sunshine, not today...perhaps next week?

Whenever you hear phrases such as Police call off G8 protest march your senses should start to tingle. There's something not quite right with that sentence you might think. I can't quite put my finger on what it is you might fret. Then it will hit you in the face like a state sponsored night stick.

The police have called off a protest march. A phrase that passes virtually without comment with respect to what it fundamentally means.

And there it is. The real story behind the G8 summit. Marvel as no media agency even tries to get close enough to the ball to fumble it.

How dare they? How could they? Because they can.

When and where you protest for your rights and your beliefs is no longer your concern.

Another new blog

Here is another new blog that I'm going to keep an eye on.

This web blog has been set up as an information resource and discussion area (please be polite in the comments) to help organise resistance to the restrictions on peaceful democratic demonstrations and protests, which have been enacted by law, in a wide Designated Area around Parliament Square in London.

The Last Ditch

Here's a new one for the blogroll - The Last Ditch by Tom Paine, a Brit in Moscow, who started this particular blog up in March this year. Take a look.

One day French wine will prostrate itself at the feet of English wine

Jacques Chirac:

"The only thing they [the British] have ever done for European agriculture is mad cow disease"

Rothamsted Research:

Outlined below are a few examples of research at these historic laboratories which has had a significant impact on food, farming or environmental practices over the past 30 years. These examples represent only a small sample of our research spectrum and impacts. In addition we have provided a crucial contribution to the training of future scientific expertise for the UK and the world.

Of course, he was only joking and it is funny in a "what have the Romans ever done for us" kind of a way.

We're all ears minister

From the Guardian on the Home Secretaries' outburst against the LSE report on ID cards:

"It's a bit rich for a government minister to accuse a university department of spin and disinformation"

and:

Within days it became clear that only one person's reputation had taken a hit. The second reading of the ID card bill gave the home secretary the opportunity to itemise all the flaws in the LSE research. Clarke - and the combined ranks of the Home Office - failed to highlight a single factual error.

Their house of cards

COMPULSORY voting at general elections should be introduced as a way of breathing new life into the political process, Geoff Hoon will say today. The Leader of the Commons is the first serving member of the Cabinet to endorse publicly such a radical change in Britain’s democracy. In a speech to the left-wing Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank in London, Mr Hoon will say that the measure is necessary to counter the low level of voter turnout.

Erm, no. Presenting the voter with someone they think is worth voting for is a far better solution to the problem. Anyhow, to force me (or anyone) to comply with the political process will lead to three things.

Firstly it will lead to an increase in the number of people that are inclined to not vote. Forcing a man to do something he would, perhaps, have done anyway is likely to reap the kind of reward that the politicians are trying to prevent.

Secondly it will lead to an increase in spoiled ballots.

Thirdly it will lead to the end of anonymous voting OR the withdrawal of the forced voting scheme.

The suggestion is that if you do not vote you will be issued with a small fine.

All because …the spread of deliberate non-voting threatens “the long term legitimacy of our political system”. You bet your career it does and that is the point.

Here’s some advice. Don’t lie. Answer straight questions with straight answers. Stop trying to be seen to be doing something and actually do something instead. Attack the causes of crime rather than limiting the freedom of the law abiding. Generally try to keep out of peoples lives. Stop taking so much of our money in taxation (sack some government servants instead). Make individual votes count rather than trying to make people take part in a process that is often a waste of time. Tell the police to implement legislation rather than trying to make it. Give the English a parliament that represents them. Don’t do public consultations unless you intend to listen to the consulted public. Don’t say one thing then do another. Stop telling us how to live our lives and put your own house in order.

V for Vendetta

Via Citizen Stuart comes news of a film I am looking forward to seeing:

Incidentally, I found some news about another "V" that interests me on the internet tonight. It's not really related to the above story, except maybe in a tenuous philosophical sense, but being as Vs seem to be in the air at the moment, I thought I'd mention it. One of the best graphic novels of the Eighties - maybe the best - was "V for Vendetta" by Alan Moore. It features a mysterious (and morally questionable) character called V who fights against a near future Fascist regime - an outfit so extreme that they use video cameras to monitor the streets ("For your protection"), lock people up without trial and use computer databases to keep tabs on everyone, can you imagine that? Anyway, there's a film version currently in production, by the same guys who made "The Matrix". It's due for release in November (very appropriately, for anyone familiar with the story). I reckon it could be a good 'un, from what I understand it should be reasonably faithful to the original.

A rare victory and a rare consultation process

Here I wrote about a request by Royal Mail to Postcomm to allow them to ban the transportation of 'firearms' within their normal postal network. These were the reasons for the Royal Mail request:

Firearms cause significant disruption to Royal Mail and the police when they are found in the letters network.

Prohibiting the carriage of firearms in the post would help the police with firearms control.

The ease of access to Royal Mail’s pipeline and the anonymity of the senders make Royal Mail’s letters network the target for the transport of illegal firearms.

It would have been a disaster if Poscomm had allowed Royal Mail to go down this route.

There was a consultation period during which Postcomm invited people to make submissions in order that they could better understand the situation and come to a decision.

The result of this consultation process is that Postcomm has completely rubbished the Royal Mail request on the basis that there is no actual evidence to support the foundations on which the request was made.

Here is their report [pdf] and it is well worth reading if only to see how an organisation that bases its consultations and decision making on principle and evidence should work. This is just a small section:

The Gun Control Network’s (GCN) submission is lengthier and more concerned with the criminal element of Royal Mail’s application. They note increasing concern regarding the use of guns and imitation guns, argue that society as a whole would benefit from a reduction in the number of firearms transferred and traded for criminal use.

They further argue the interests of the few who shoot must be balanced against public safety and] the efficient running of the postal service’ and that the impact customers wishing to transport guns would be minimal.

Postcomm appreciates the GCN’s concerns, but still feels that it has been provided sufficient evidence to prohibit the carriage of firearms these grounds. There is little evidence as to how many illegal firearms transported and put to criminal use, so it is difficult to gauge the effects prohibition will have. What is certain is that for many firearm dealers individuals the prohibition would cause real hardship – in this Postcomm disagrees with the assessment by Postwatch, the DMA and the GCN -- that Postcomm cannot impose that hardship without evidence that prohibition on firearms would truly benefit a larger section of society.

This is a significant victory against those that would expect us to live our lives on the basis of knee jerk reactions made by those who would wish to be seen to be doing something instead of actually doing something.

Ruination! Ruination!

You know, there is always a ying for every yang. Many people allude to this truth when they say things like ”well, that backfired on us didn’t it?” and ”I didn’t see that coming”. And so it is with the government’s ban on unauthorised demonstrations outside Toad Hall.

You see the thing about spontaneous protests is that even the protesters don’t really know exactly when they will happen. They are spontaneous. A few friends get together socially, talk about this and that and inexorably the conversation turns to politics. Sporadically this can lead to a spontaneous decision to march on the capital of despotism in the UK to make ones feelings known.

The ruination of the government scheme lies in the common man recognising that this act of spontaneity is their right and, therefore, to deliberately and regularly apply for permission under the toadish scheme to practice these rights.

How many applications do you think it will take before the scheme is laughed out of the offices of ACPO as ”a drain on resources that we could otherwise be using to maintain the level of equality between the rights of criminals and their victims in modern Britain”?

Come on then bloggers, join the we regularly want to demonstrate outside Parliament for one thing or another application campaign. Get those forms off as soon as they leave the press and who’s to say, sometimes we may even turn up at the designated time and place.

Up and at ‘em.

Yes, science fiction is big and heavy rock is clever

Club Tropicana drinks are free.
Fun and sunshine - there's enough for everyone.
All that's missing is the sea.
But don't worry you can suntan.

A few days ago I was asked a few questions about books, which I answered. The same book question and answer session spread through the blogosphere like wildfire and what became all too apparent to me (and undoubtedly my panic stricken readers) was that most of the books I presented in the article seemed, how shall I put this, lacking in political and social calibre. It is true that I read these books purely for entertainment value but it is not true that all that lay within their pages was a desolate wasteland of trivial commentary.

And so it is with much of the music I listen to which has, on occasion, been subjected to criticism which I believe reveals more about the critic than it does about myself.

I am not constrained by any particular genre of music (though there is no question that I do favour some types over others) but my life long fondness for the heavier side of music has been a constant in my life from my early teen years.

At a time when my peers were keenly listening to and buying up as much chart music as their allowances would allow I was the skinny and slightly uncoordinated youth thumbing through the LP’s (LP stands for Long Play – a large flat disk pressed out of vinyl into which groves were cut that magically retained music which could be extracted and played back on demand using a device known as a Record Player) in the heavy rock or metal section. Sometimes I even wondered along to the progressive rock section.

It was a lonely time. That is until I went off to do a degree and discovered a group of kindred spirits who introduced me to the thrill of the open air rock concert. What fun. Often heart thumpingly so. And one of the enjoyable aspects of going to such a concert was the night before the paid minstrels did their thing. The camping in a field full of people who seemed oddly exciting. Hundreds of fires burning, hundreds and hundreds of motorbikes (some weaving in and out of tents), thousands upon thousands of people all drinking and making merry, many showing a keen desire to roam from one campfire to another like some leather clad nomad, sharing stories, telling jokes and generally being nice and sociable. Even the ones that looked terrifying.

So far from even the fringe of mainstream musical opinion these people were all there for the same reason I was. Shunned at school for not knowing the words to Club Tropicana. Chastised at parties for putting on the wrong kind of music and always being told to get our hair cut. The draw of the dark side was irresistible and for me, at the very heart of the compulsion, were the lyrics.

Don’t get me wrong; there are many, many songs in the genre that are embarrassments to their authors but a lyrically strong heavy metal or rock song delivered though high velocity speaker stacks that would not look out of place in a Disaster Area rock concert is simply enthralling. Like my books there is far more to my music than meets the eye.

New blood joins this earth and quickly he's subdued.
Through constant pain disgrace, the young boy learns their rules.
With time the child draws in this whipping boy done wrong.
Deprived of all his thoughts, the young man struggles on and on.
He knows, a vow unto his own that never from this day
His will they'll take away.