30 - Reviewing

I'm probably not the first to point this out, but I'm going to have a little mini-rant about it, but; Amazon's review system is, for the most part, rubbish.

I'm not talking here about the allegations of fake reviews (though if this is true, this is a problem), but about various practices that make reviews either completely pointless, or a chore to go through... I'm going to use Star Wars stuff as the examples here. There are two main problems. 

First problem is the inconsistency of allowing product to be reviewed before it's even been released. Take a look at the Blu-Ray release of Rise of Skywalker. There are currently 44 reviews. Not a single person actually owns a copy of the release. They're all reviewing the movie they saw at the cinema. Which is useless. It doesn't tell you about the quality of the Blu Ray, or how good the extras may be, or anything else. That's what I want to know about from the reviews. 

Second problem is combining reviews of different editions; say, for example I want to read a review of the Collectors Edition of The Force Awakens. Apparently there are currently 12,111 reviews of it... but no; a majority of these (I stopped after page 2) are reviewing other editions of the film, so there's a heck of a lot to wade through to read actual reviews of the collectors edition. 

A further example are the 2,020 (what a coincidence!) reviews of 3D version of Episode 4... Strewth, I thought, I didn't even know that had been released in 3D. Imagine watching the Tantive IV being pursued by the Star Destroyer in 3D... well, imagine is what you'll have to do as the 3D version was never released, and the reviews are for other editions of the movie. 

Now, I chose a high profile set of films to illustrate this problem, and I could have chosen anything else; it exists across all films and TV shows with multiple editions. And books. And it makes a mockery of the review system. 

Perhaps a solution would be to restrict all reviews to people who have purchased (and received) an item from Amazon, which would then link back to the specific edition purchased. That would stop the problems in one. It would mean fewer reviews, but they would be more meaningful and useful. 

29 - N-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-nineteen

I have been somewhat remiss in writing new content for this blog, but I hope this will change and it will become rather more active. I realise I may have said something similar before, and it's not happened. But this time it'll be different. Promise. 

I may have said that before, also...

...anyhow, on with the show;

I did think of doing something radical in this first post of 2020, but what the heck, let's do a boring, traditional, look back at the previous year. 

So, 2019, what a shitstorm of a year that was. The biggest thing politically remained that most divisive of subjects; Brexit. After having been postponed twice, from the end of March to the end of October (Halloween... how very appropriate) to the end of January it looked like there might be a chance to get it stopped with the December general election.

Hmm...

That was a bit of a balls up, wasn't it? 

Before going on I guess I should return to a couple of things I've said before;

Firstly I've often quoted something Nigel Farage said when he thought he was going to lose the referendum; "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." A stopped clock is right twice a day, and this was a rare occasion where Farage was right. That he backtracked on this comment when this result meant he won was neither here nor there. 

Secondly, I've mentioned that the 2016 referendum was a referendum on a theoretical version of Brexit. Over the time since then exactly what it will mean has been refined, and there is a deal in place. Shit deal, but it's there, and gives more clarity to things. Arguably, the December 2019 election, with Mr Johnson's key slogan, "Get Brexit Done", acted as a de-facto second referendum.

Mr Johnson's clear victory ends the parliamentary deadlock there has been since Mrs May's 2017 election. It puts in place enough MPs to vote for anything of a Brexit flavour Mr Johnson wishes to put through. There can be no more delays, we leave at the end of January. 

So, with no other route I can see to stop the folly that is Brexit, it is time to admit defeat. Well done, Brexiteers, you've finally (and this time, decisively), won. 

All you have to do now is prove me, and and everyone else like me, wrong. Make a success of Brexit. Ensure the United Kingdom thrives outside of the European Union. In a couple of years time I genuinely want to be able to say "I was wrong" as we go from strength to strength as a country. But it's on you Brexiteers to sort this, and ensure prosperity. I've no idea as to how this could happen, but I guess you must have a plan, and will carry it out. 

In the words of Ru-Paul; don't fuck it up. 

Speaking of whom; I did find myself very much enjoying the first season of the UK version of Ru-Paul's Drag Race. I'd seen bits of the US version before, but it never gelled with me, but there was something about this version that just seemed right. Maybe it was the familiar faces on the judging panel, or the queens themselves, but it was just great fun. Even though Baga Chipz was robbed. She was my favourite throughout, and I had her down as the winner. 

(Incidentally; was I the only one to think Davina Di Campio bore an uncanny resemblance to Alexander from Russell T Davies' breakthrough show, Queer as Folk?)

And of course (I'm digging these segues...) Russell was back this year with his scarily relevant drama Years and Years, which showed the world over the next 15 years descending in to a dystopian society. The thing is, though, it was all too believable. Looking at the world as it is now, most of what happens you can extrapolate from current events. Vivienne Rook is the logical step of populist, soundbite, politics. (See Mr Johnson's "Get Brexit Done" - how many other Tory policies from the election can you recall.) 

This was a family drama as an analogy for the world at large. Yes, the family ticked pretty much every diversity box, but that was the whole point of the thing. They were the springboard for each of the various plot strands, and it was a compact way of doing so without having to have ever straining ways to get the strands together. 

To my mind, there was one key moment of the series, which was when the matriarch of the family delivered her blistering speech where she blamed the family - and by extension the whole world - as being responsible for how things turned out. "This is the world we built." she concludes, and she was entirely correct. All too often we think we are just one person and as such are unable to make a difference. But all change starts with a single person, and you never can tell who that person will be. It could be you. Yes, you, reading this now. You might be the next person who could make a real change. You think you can't? Well, you've lost already. I mean, what chance an person could change the world... I mean, someone ordinary, could never do that...

...meanwhile, in Sweden, a 15 year old schoolgirl goes on strike from attending school. On her own. That could never grow in to something big, could it?

Greta Thunberg's rise to prominence over the last year has been blistering. She has probably raised more awareness of the climate emergency facing our planet than any other individual. Two years ago, you'd never heard of her. Her speech to Davos was one of the moments of the year, and gave hope that maybe this time there is a chance that things will be done to help reduce some of the damage we're doing to the planet. 

I say "this time" as I remember similar things being said about saving the planet when I was at school in the 80s - then the destruction of the ozone layer, and the overuse of CFCs would end up cooking the earth up due to the greenhouse effect. There was a sense of urgency then, too; it's still ongoing. 

Her speech ended with;

"Adults keep saying: “We owe it to the young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.

I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is."

Over the year we've seen protests about the climate emergency on a scale not seen before - the Extinction Rebellion action around Easter closing down roads in London for days on end was unprecedented. And I get the feeling it's only the beginning, and there will be much more in 2020, and on a bigger scale. 

And it is people like Greta who give me hope. Hope that there is a chance that the world won't end up like the one predicted in Years and Years. The word we build over the coming years is up to us. Every single one of us. We will all have our part to play, and all we can do is our best. 

Good luck, everyone.

28 - Brextreme.

Well, this Brexit malarkey is leaving us all in a right pickle, isn't it? Is there really anyone, on either side of the debate, that can genuinely say they are happy how things have turned out? I'd say probably very few indeed.

I'll be honest; back on referendum day I voted to remain, and I still think that's what we should do. But in the lead up to the referendum I actually paid much more attention to what the leave campaign said than the remain campaign. This was for the primary reason that I believe in a referendum whereby the choice is between "keeping things as they are" or "changing things" the onus is on the latter to prove their case. 

I put aside personalities, and focused on the issues, and the arguments for leaving. I listened, I read, I paid attention. I heard so many arguments. I was open to being convinced. And, despite all that, they never did convince me. 

Looking back at the hoo-ha of the last 33 months, it seems to me there were four potential outcomes by the end of the process. And, as close as we may be to the end, we're not quite there. 

As surely the whole point of a decision like this is to ensure the country is in the best possible position it could be, I'll rank them in order of how good they are for the country... 

...bearing in mind what I said above, Number 1 may surprise you...

1 - A Brexit deal that leaves us better off than we are. 

Yes. You read that right. Me, a Remoaner, saying this is the best possible outcome? Well, yes, clearly it would be. Had the Government managed to somehow negotiate a deal that leaves the country in a position whereby it would be better to leave Europe than remain in Europe this has to be the best possible outcome. That is entirely logical. Had the government managed to get us such a deal, I would willingly have conceded that I was wrong. The country would be in a stronger position. But, sadly, no such deal has been made. 

2 - Remaining in the EU.

In other words; just staying as we are. We would be neither better off, nor worse off, than we currently are. 

3 - a bad deal.

In other words, a deal that would leave us worse off than we currently are. This is, sadly, exactly what Theresa May's deal is. It would leave us locked in to many aspects of the EU, but as we would not be members of the EU we would get no say in to what happens when rules change. The EU would say to us "jump" and we would say "how high?". Pointless. The EU has also made it clear that this is the only deal on the table. Therefore, the deal at #1 is impossible. 

4 - no deal. 

Crashing out of the EU with no deal would be a complete disaster. Anyone that thinks it would be a good idea must have rocks in their heads. I've no desire to go in the the full whys and wherefores; there are plenty of articles out there on the web. Read them.

Conclusion.

Given the absence of a deal as described in #1, it is clear that the best option for the country is to just scrap the whole Brexit malarkey, and remain in the EU. It is the only option currently available to us that would mean that the country is not worse off than we are now. 

27 - Uniform

Okay. So I'm going to rant about school uniform. 

Now, I'm not against the actual concept of school uniform as it makes things easy for kids and parents in that there's no worry about what a child is to wear each day. Without a uniform, this can cause anxiety for children - especially teenagers - as then there's a pressure on them to ensure the outfit they wear complies with the ever-changing idea of what is "fashionable" today. With uniform everyone wear, essentially, the same things.

What twists my melon is the nature of much uniform these days, and the expense of it all. Especially given that one of the reasons often cited for uniform is that it means richer and poorer kids are wearing the same things, and don't have to worry about the costs of things.

But that's not true... so many schools - especially secondary school - insist you buy a blazer with the school's logo, jumpers with the school branding, specific school branded PE kits, the school tie, and so on. And these branded/logoed items are only available at a single store who therefore have a monopoly and can charge what they want. 

Back in the day when I was in secondary school the only things that we wore that were specific were the school tie, and a PE top; neither were branded as such. The rest of the uniform could be sourced from anywhere else as long as it was specific colours. This did lead to a bit of variety in style, but all were close enough to be recongnisably uniform. And we didn't have to wear an expensive blazer.

The sheer cost of so many branded/logoed items is ludicrous, and makes a mockery of the idea of uniform being a leveller between the well of and the less well off. 

We need a return to the old days. We do not need so many branded/logoed items of uniform; it's sheer ego and vanity on the part of the schools. And I wonder exactly what their cut of the cost of the uniform is? Must be a right little earner. The school tie is enough to identify a school. We don't need all the rest of the clothing to have so much corporacy on it. And kids don't need blazers. Simplify the uniform. Make it cheaper. 

Also; I guarantee that in the next week or so there'll be articles in the press about how kids have been sent home from school for minor uniform breaches, or some other spurious reason due to a lack of clarity in the specifications. Some of these are very badly worded and open to interpretation. Especially around things like hairstyles. 

For example, my daughter's secondary school says this about hair that it should be "Well-groomed hair (no extreme styles and not shorter than a grade 2). Long hair tied back."

Which at a first glance seems reasonable, until you look at that one word;  "extreme". Now, the problem is that what one person counts as "extreme" another may think is entirely normal. This is where ambiguity comes in to play, and where you'll get disagreements about whether something complies or does not, especially where the line between what is considered extreme, and what is not considered extreme is not clearly defined. 

And to my mind there should be no room for ambiguity in any such guidelines. But if there is ambiguity the benefit of the doubt should be given to the child/parent. 

This should apply to all elements of any uniform code. Clarity is good. Ambiguity is bad.

And uniform should be as simple as possible, with as little branding as possible...

26 - Context

I'm going to start this piece with a simple statement; context is everything. 

Specifically here I'm going to talk about context in respect of art - and I'm using the word in its broadest definition - and how evolving attitudes mean that over the years what is acceptable shifts and things that were once deemed okay are now deemed not to be when viewed with modern eyes.

A recent example of this is a 1970s Doctor Who story called The Talons of Weng-Chiang. The official Doctor Who Magazine has a feature called The Time Team where a group of young fans sit around and watch a few old episodes - many of whom are seeing these episodes for the first time - and discuss them. In the current issue, one of the episodes they watch is the first part of Talons...

Now, the thing about Talons is that one of the mmain supporting characters is a Chinese character called Li H'sen Chang; but he's not played by a Chinese actor, he's played by a white actor made up to look Chinese. Furthermore, there are many racial stereotypes in the story. 

Understandably, the Team take umbrage with this, and express their dislike for these elements of the story. One of the team - who has seen the story before - gives a bit more context to the background of the production of the story, and helps the rest of them get to grips with it a bit more. They eventuallly come to the conclusion that it's not wrong to enjoy the story, but to understand that elements of it would not be considered appropriate today.

The editor of the magazine then gave further context to why certain production decisions were made in his editorial, which expanded on the context of how things were done in those days, and made reasonable points. 

In fact, the whole thing in the maazine itself was quite reasonable indeed. And then an obscure academic took umbrage at the article and the editorial and called for the editor to be fired, as apparently it was wrong to show this story to the Time Team, and giving more context in an edirorial was selling them out. 

It all then exploded when a former DWM editor took umbrage at these words, and replied to them; which was apparently bad Twitter etiquette by quoting her words when he has 5 times as many followers as her. Which seems odd, as if you reply to a tweet it shouldn't matter if a person has 10, 100, 10,000, a million folowers if you're engaging in debate. It then got even messier with the academic essentially sugesting that every DWM editor was a "fuckhead". 

I could quote acres of the tweets that were said, but I think it's getting too far from the point of context. The thing is, looking at Talons from a 2018 perspective it is undoubdtedly racist. If you were viewing it in 1977 you would almost certainly not have thought it racist. Times change. Opinions change. What was acceptable then is not acceptable now. This all has to be borne in mind when looking at any art, be it painting, sculpture, books, movies, TV, whatever.

[As an interlude, whilst writing this I was watching an old episode of EastEnders and that had a scene where an old white lady said to a young black boy that "you all look the same" and that she can't help her upbringing any more than "you can't help being black". It was actually a really well written, and well acted, scene and served to make a point about the character of the old lady. You'd not see similar in a 2018 episode. But; is it racist to show such a scene. I would say no.]

This is shifting all the time. We all think that right about now were are more enlightened than at any point in history. Yet, I gurantee that there are some things happening right now that will be looked back upon in 10, 20 years or so and thought to be terrible. We all thouht it was great in the 90s. But look at some of the things that happened then - the rise of lad culture, and an increased objectification of the female body by the likes of Nuts and Zoo etc - and you realise that things hadn't changed much. 

I guess the key thing is that different people's tolerance to the things that were done "wrong" in the past varies. What some will overlook will be the thing that will make others reach for the off switch. Who is right? Both. Clearly. 

There are many other examples I could cite - some may even have isues with Mr Tojamura in my beloved Twin Peaks - but then this piece would go on for much longer, and I think I've waffled enough as it is. I guess I should just end this article by repeating the point I made right at the top;

Context is everything!

25 - Yerp

Okay. Who is the most influential UK politician of the last 20 years?

Think about it.

Depending on your political bent, I'd be willing to bet you'd be thinking of the likes of Tony Blairs, or David Cameron, or (oh) Jeremy Corbyn, or Nicola Sturgeon, or...

…well, whoever you say, you're probably wrong, as the answer to the question is someone that has never been a Member of Parliament, and has in fact failed to be elected about 57 times...

(That number might not strictly speaking be accurate, but my disdain for the person I speak of is such that I don't actually care if the number is correct or not; and hey, this whole piece is just a bit of opinion on a blog... I'm not trying to win a Purlitzer prize here...!)

...can you tell you it is yet?

The answer is that it's that moon faced poltroon, and hero to the UKIPs; Nigel Farage.

And the reason is this...

...seeing the increase in the popularity of the UKIPs, prior to the 2015 election, and after a couple of defections from the Tories to the UKIPs, in an effort to cling to power, Prime Minister David Cameron (hereafter referred to as “PMDC”) made a manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the UK.

Still, it didn't stave off an increase in the UKIPs vote, from 919,456 votes in the 2010 election (no MPs) to 3,081,099 in the 2015 election (one MP. But not called “Nigel”. I forget the name of the MP; the only other one of the UKIPs whose name springs to mind is Paul Nuttalls, and I know it wasn't him.)

(Curiously, in the 2017 election, the UKIPs vote collapsed to 549,068 (no MPs); anyone would think that was a resounding snub of the party and all it stood for... And these numbers are accurate. I checked them.)

So, with Farage getting the one thing he'd always wanted, a second referendum on UK membership of Europe...

...wait, what I hear you say; SECOND referendum? Yes. Second. The first was in 1975 in which the question asked was “Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?” The result was “Yes” 67.23%, “No” 32,77%

Yes! The will of the people was clear. Remainers got over 2/3 of the vote, so all those Leaver whingers should just respect the will of the people and the likes of Farage should just hut their cakehole and accept that the will of the people had been implemented.

But no, Farage and his ilk (I accidentally typed “elk” there; might have been interesting!) ignored the will of the people and constantly harped on about a second referendum, and PMDC gave it to them.

So.

I could write reams about how rubbish the referendum campaign went, and how things were rubbish on both sides, and how there were BIG WHOPPING LIES about the NHS written on the sides of buses, and how things that people said would happen didn't happen, but that's a whole other article.

Actually before I continue there's an interesting quote that someone said the the lead up to the vote. Read it, and see if you can work out who said it;

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the [the opposing] campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

I've edited one word so that it doesn't immediately make it obvious who said it.

I'll come back to the first sentence later, when I talk about the actual result. The second sentence is very interesting as it indicates that if there were such a result that would be an end to the matter... oh, wait... of course. That 1975 result... why didn't that end it?

So, there was the day of the vote, where the question asked was “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” 51.89% said “Leave”, 48.11 said “Remain”.

Then, surely the person who said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way” proudly repeated this assertion? Well. no. Because the person who said this was the moon faced poltroon himself, Nigel Farage. Curiously this result went from “unfinished business” to bein a clear mandate from the people, nay, it is THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and any attempt to frustrate Brexit is anti-democratic.

Within hours of the result PMDC had quit, leading to the chain of events that led to PMTM taking over, having a disastrous (well, for her) general election, and a chaotic series of negotiations over Brexit that, with only seven months until that fateful day we leave, has a Government that can't even agree what it wants over Brexit; how can they hope to negotiate with the EU and come to an agreement when they can't even reach a consensus amongst themselves.

And all this is because of the moon faced poltroon, who now just sits back and berates people on his radio show for not doing Brexit right. Which is why he is the most powerful politician of the last twenty years...

Postscript

Given that we now have had two EU referendums – referenda – maybe we should have just one more. Like a best of three to settle it?