Monday Moan 72

WE DON’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK

The press keep on telling us that they are the defenders of freedom in this country and, therefore, that there should be no shackles placed on them. They appear completely unmoved by Leveson, phone hacking, High Court trials, public disgust or anything else that suggests they should mend their ways.  They tell us they have changed, they have learned lessons from the past, they will be squeaky clean in the future and we should just trust them to do the right thing. 

Thus we have their furious reaction to Parliament’s endorsement of the Government’s new Royal Charter on Press Regulation and their determination to press ahead with their own, clearly more press-friendly, version. 

And thus we have the  The Spectator magazine joining with other press organisations to say they won’t take any notice of the Royal Charter,  with their Parliamentarian of the Year award, usually (as you’d imagine from the title) given to an individual single MP, being awarded this year to the 15 MPs who voted against Government plans.  And to top it all we have Bore-us Johnson, comical Mayor of London, urging all editors to follow the example of The Spectator and refuse to abide by the Government’s plans.   

Bare-faced, brazen disregard for anything other than their own views and self-interest.

 TALKING OF BARE-FACED AND BRAZEN ... 

Who should pop up on my screen on last week’s Question Time than Vicky Pryce, recently detained at HM’s pleasure in one of our most congenial of prisons.  Not content with trying to milk her illegal activity for all it’s worth through the publication of a book about her thoughts on prison, she sat and smirked her way through the TV programme in a bare-faced, brazen disregard for all that she had done, in a way that any editor of a UK newspaper would have been proud. 

Apparently there is absolutely no truth to the rumour that Chris Huhne was originally booked for this episode, but that Ms Pryce agreed to his request to do his time for him.

MOZART KNEW BEST

Music is one of the great joys of life to vast numbers of people.  It doesn’t matter what kind of music you like – there are so many to choose from and it is a dangerous path to tread to suggest that one form or style of music is better than another, no matter how firmly you may believe this to be the case.  That one form may be more complex, more difficult to play or sing, more varied in its dynamic range, etc. than another is unarguable – but whether it is “better” depends on too many things to make it worth arguing about. 

Having said that, we are all free to say what we like best and to choose not to listen to things we don’t like.  And we can all have an opinion on what works and what doesn’t, on  whether we think one version of a piece of music is better than another. Knowing a piece is a double-edged sword, because if the rendition you hear does not fit with your own view of how it should be performed, there is a danger you will be disappointed.   Of course, you can still enjoy it even if it isn't performed in exactly the way you hear it in your own mind, but if it strays too far either from what you like, or from what you consider to be a reasonable interpretation, then you will be disappointed.  You may even start to rant at the radio. 

So here goes.  I was listening to the radio the other day and smiled when the announcer said that the next piece would be the second movement of Mozart’s clarinet concerto.  One of the most well-known pieces of classical music, it is a favourite of mine for a whole host of reasons.  Unfortunately, the recording that then came over the airwaves just didn’t do it for me.  Far too fast and with so much embellishment,  improvisation or, as I see it, unnecessary extra notes, that the melody was sometimes almost indiscernible.  A bit like a Mariah Carey version of almost any song – you know the tune is in there somewhere, but it’s pretty difficult to work out where. 

Mozart is generally reckoned to be one of the greatest composers who ever lived.  I like to think he knew what he was doing when he wrote his music.  I’m OK with people interpreting in the sense of speed, volume, emphasis, emotion, etc. But unless he specifically invited people to improvise a section, I’d rather just hear the notes he wrote rather than those someone else has added because they think they know better than Mozart.  They don’t. 

OH JOY, IT’S CHRISTMAS ALREADY

The Christmas season has now started.  How do we know this?  Because it’s now impossible to watch the television (apart from on the advert-free BBC, free of adverts that is for anything other than its own programmes) without being bombarded with this year’s crop of cringeworthy Christmas adverts for the major retail stores. 

I blame John Lewis.  A few years ago they ran some ads that were actually quite entertaining and, possibly, quite successful in enticing people to think nice things about the store and maybe even spend more money there rather than elsewhere.  Unfortunately, every retailer now feels obliged to produce its own seasonal advertisement, which usually involves the viewer having to sit through some uninspiring footage of Christmas scenes and a few gifts, to the background of some seasonal music, with the only saving grace being the guessing game as to which store's name will come up at the end – “oh, that’s an ad for XXXX is it?”  

Apparently, some people have been heard to say that this year’s John Lewis ad has made them cry.  Really?  I can’t see why, unless it’s because of the realisation that you’ll never get that two minutes of your life back, having listened to Lily Allen try to ruin a perfectly good Keane song. 

Still, at least they haven’t made the same mistake as Tesco, and used a Rod Stewart track.  I wonder how many people will decide not to patronise Tesco this Christmas as a result? 

P.S.  A SUGGESTION POST-RUSSELL BRAND .....

A friend of mine was moved to comment on the Russell Brand article from last week  with the suggestion that “perhaps British Constitution could be introduced as a compulsory topic in our schools, not as an optional exam subject but just as an informative introduction to how the huddled masses have fought and won the right to help shape the way the country is run and why they can at least make a choice in who runs the country. It would, of course, have to be pointed out to them that the ballot paper does not carry a "Whatever" option. Yet.” 

Well said Sir!  Couldn’t agree more.  Perhaps my own interest in current affairs and in matters political and historical was developed during the time I spent mustering a low-grade A-level pass in British Constitution all those years ago.  At the risk of sounding like that old bloke who used to sit in the corner of the pub every night, it didn’t do me any harm.

Monday Moan 26

Lord Leveson – did he fail to read the script?
The Leveson Inquiry seems to have been going on for ever, but in the way these things work it did not actually take that much time.  The problem was that it was heavily featured on the television, mainly because there were so many high-profile witnesses (i.e. newsworthy people) and because the coverage provided a fabulous opportunity for the non-Murdoch owned media to gloat over the discomfort of Rupert and his empire.

Leveson published his report last week – all four volumes and around 2,000 pages of it – and within what seemed like minutes we had firm opinions on what it contained, including later the same day the Prime Minister saying that he was not minded to accept the fundamental recommendation of Lord Leveson for statutory under-pinning of a new system of self-regulation.

Nobody should be surprised at how quickly positions taken for or against the recommendations. Very few people ever bother to wait to read such a report, consider what it says and then form a view as to the merits of its proposals.  Unfortunately, life isn’t like that and so we cannot expect our politics to be any different.   People know what they want, what they agree with and what they oppose – very few of them are open to persuasion, let alone to taking a fresh look at their own views (prejudices) and seeing if they stand the test of independent analysis.

So, let me reveal one of my own prejudices.  Any time Shami Chakrabarti, Director of pressure group Liberty, speaks on a subject I am immediately likely to find what she says irritating.  I know, it shouldn’t be like that, but then she shouldn’t keep saying such irritating things, should she?  In this case, she was one of six Assessors appointed to the Leveson Inquiry but she has come out against the legal underpinning recommendation because, she says, it would violate the Human Rights Act (oh no, not that again!) - "A compulsory statute to regulate media ethics in the way the report suggests would violate the act, and I cannot support it." 

Now I confess that I have not read the whole document – one of the many benefits of having retired from my previous full-time employment.  But I cannot easily shake old habits and so I have read the Executive Summary of the Report.

So, for those who have neither the time nor the inclination to plough through the Leveson Report, what did it actually say on this subject?  Here’s the summary:-

The press, operating properly and in the public interest is one of the true safeguards of our democracy. As a result of this principle … the press is given significant and special rights in this country … with these rights, however, come responsibilities to the public interest: to respect the truth, to obey the law4 and to uphold the rights and liberties of individuals … principles  proclaimed and articulated by the industry itself (and to a large degree reflected in the Editors’ Code of Practice). (paras 5 and 6)

 … there have been far too many occasions … when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist. This has caused real hardship and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people. (para 7)

Not a single witness has proposed that the Government or Parliament should themselves be involved in the regulation of the press. I have not contemplated and do not make any such proposal. (para 12) I consider that what is needed is a genuinely independent and effective system of self-regulation. (para 51)  In order to give effect to the incentives that I have outlined, it is essential that there should be legislation to underpin the independent self-regulatory system and facilitate its recognition in legal processes. (para 70)

The legislation would not establish a body to regulate the press: it would be up to the press to come forward with their own body that meets the criteria laid down. The legislation would not give any rights to Parliament, to the Government, or to any regulatory (or other) body to prevent newspapers from publishing any material whatsoever. (para 71)

This is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press. What is proposed here is independent regulation of the press organised by the press, with a statutory verification process to ensure that the required levels of independence and effectiveness are met by the system in order for publishers to take advantage of the benefits arising as a result of membership. (para 73)

 

Now, if you think all that amounts to a proposal for Government control of the press and the end of democracy in the UK, then please line up behind the Tory part of the Coalition, the phalanx of Tory MPs who apparently still fear to cross Rupert Murdoch, Shami Chakrabarti and others.  If, on the other hand, you think that the press has had enough opportunities to put its house in order, that 8 inquiries in the last 70 years into the way the press operates in the UK suggests that leaving things as they are will mean we’ll be faced with another inquiry before too long, and that what Leveson proposes seems entirely logical, then please form another queue under the banner of ‘Bound to be disappointed’.

 

I won’t be able to avoid a moan for too much longer

After what seems like most of the last few editions,  various readers have asked me why there have been no moans about Arsenal and their decline from title contenders to also-rans.  My response has always been that I don’t like to jump on bandwagons and, anyway, everyone recognises that ‘Arsene Knows’ – he will wave his magic wand and all will be well again.

I still hope that this is true.  I am no longer utterly convinced, however, and so the time is coming ever closer when a moan will be inevitable.

Come on Arsene – get your collection of talented players to perform somewhere near to their abilities, give them a bit of fight to go with their ball-skills.  Beating Tottenham 5-2 every season is simply not enough, if you couple that with abject surrenders to the likes of (no insult intended) Norwich and Swansea.

There – that should be enough to galvanise him and them into action.

 

White legs and a full house

I have just had a fabulous weekend away in one of my favourite places in the UK.  I’m not going to tell you where, since then you’ll all want to go there, but I will say it’s by the coast and the sun shone all day yesterday.  Four hours of walking beside the sea in the cold, fresh and invigorating air made me feel very tired but full of the joy of living.

I managed to attend a concert the previous evening, given by the local choir who have the very great fortune of being able to sing in one of the best concert halls in the country.  The place was all but a sell-out and, from the comments I heard around me during the interval and at the end, everyone thought it was a wonderful evening.  Oh well, satisfy your audience and you’ve done well.  It was a throwback to the English tradition of community choral societies, only transferred to a fabulous concert hall.  Those who know me will perhaps be surprised to hear that my presence lowered the average age of the audience and would have significantly lowered the average age of the choir too, had I been on stage with them.  

I’m glad I went, though.  There was one star of the evening and that was the soprano soloist – her performance made the journey and the cost of the ticket worthwhile, absolutely brilliant.  I really can’t say the same about all the others, including one who seemed to think that having been on TV and been promoted as one of this year’s ‘young things in the classical world’ meant he had arrived.  He hadn’t, at least in any kind of musical sense.

There were other highlights too.  The energetic contribution of the orchestra leader was a constant source of interest.  The lilywhite legs of the cellist were a constant distraction – suggest she wears some black tights next time.  And I’ll never again think bad thoughts about the dress sense of our own choir’s conductor – at least he never tries to look like Gandalf.

 

p.s. to avoid confusion, I should add that the image above is not taken from the actual concert ...........

 

No need to rub it in!

One of the great delights of being out and about is the way that the smell of fresh bread or the look of a cream cake or Danish pastry can lure you into a café so you can then enjoy a relaxing time over a cup of coffee or tea whilst consuming the produce that enticed you there in the first place.

Unfortunately, I had the misfortune to be diagnosed as a coeliac sufferer just over a year ago.  So, no more fresh bread and mouth-watering cakes for me.   I think I have coped quite well, all things considered.  Obviously, I still go into places that sell such enticing foods because my wife needs to eat.  The chances of going somewhere and finding that they offer gluten-free cakes are very slim – and even then those cakes will never be able to compete with the real thing in terms of smell, looks and taste L  But worst of all is to go somewhere to be told by the waitress (also the owner in this case) that “oh yes, we normally do gluten-free cakes but we have run out today”. 

Cruel.  There ought to be a law against it.