The Blog That Peter Wrote

Place Names (and Coughing up Fur Balls)

2012-02-28T03:46:00.003-08:00

I'm off on Friday morning to Munich, Prague and Cracow, so it's time for a quick blog before my trip.

Yes, I'm going to Cracow: not to Krakow, as my EasyJet ticket would have me believe. The thing is, you see, this is the spelling of the town in English. It's Cracowie in French, it's Krakau in German, it's Kraków in Polish - and as far as I'm aware it's "Krakow" only in the language known as EasyJet.

Ever wondered why we have multiple spellings of place names in different languages? Well it's very simple. In years gone by merchants or other travellers would visit and find it difficult to pronounce the local variant of the place name. If the place was significant enough different spellings or versions would occur in different languages. Cities like Brussels literally have dozens of variants, it being on an international cross-road.

Kraków (the Polish spelling) is pronounced with a cross between an "u" and an "ooh" like sound in the last vowel because of the accent. It's a bit like "ooh err missus". It became easier for English visitors and those talking about the place to adopt their own spelling and pronunciation. It's pretty hard for an English person to pronounce the German "ü" properly, or indeed to do the German "ch" (just listen to Classic FM presenters trying to say "Bach"). Therefore München becomes Munich in English. The Italians call it "Monaco" incidentally. One Monaco does Bier, the other Monaco does Casinos.

Brunswick, Germany: how lovely

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and actually quite a lot right with it. These different place names and spellings are usually hundreds of years old. There's such a charm for me to see something like the above. English people really genuinely cannot pronounce Braunschweig properly: stick to "Brunswick" and we don't have a problem. Remember the opening to Browning's wonderful poem? "Hamelin Town's in Brunswick, by famous Hanover city" - not "Hameln Town's in Braunschweig, by famous Hannover city". Shame "Brunswick" has virtually vanished from any map or atlas nowadays.

I love reading Koblenz as "Coblentz" (used right up to World War 2) - it gets the "tz" sound of the German "z" across. "C" is a much more used letter in English than K is. On my Becherovka bottle it says "Original since 1807: Carlsbad, Czech Republic". I can't pronounce the Czech version Karlovy Vary half as well, nor its neighbouring spa town. The historic English use of "Marienbad" works a lot better for me, ta, and probably for you too if you don't know your way round Czech's 42 letters and how to pronounce them. These old fashioned names or spellings seem somehow romantic to me: they conjure up a past that has vanished.

No, I can't even try it either

A Dying Thing

So why is this type of usage dying out? Well for some cities it's not. The big ones are still Florence (Firenze), Cologne (Köln), Warsaw (Warszava), Lisbon (Lisboa) etc in English, rather than the local version. We have an inevitable dumbing down and standardisation going on for the smaller places though. The UN, quite surprisingly to me, actually has a 50 year old body called UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names) which meets every now and then to discuss standardising place names. Last time they met in Vienna, which henceforth presumably may only be referred to as "Wien". (Never mind, by the way, this is pronounced Vee-en with in the local dialect, but Veen (i.e with a dipthong) by other Austrians). It's a fruitless, impossible, needless task.

Place names can of course be political statements. Ayers Rock is no longer considered acceptable by many Australians, whereas Uluru is. This is a sacred place with special meaning for Aboriginals and Ayers Rock has strong colonial undertones. The Poles call Dantzig (yes, the old English name!) Gdansk. The Germans call it Danzig. The use of one variant can definitely be used as a tool to imply ownership and it's not hard to think of examples when this was the case.

Nazi Propaganda from the 1930s

Interestingly, the incredibly politically correct (in this respect) and anxious Germans have not today sought to impose local Polish and Czech name usage on their former towns. You still see "Posen", "Danzig" and "Breslau" flashing up in German airports on arrival boards. Just as Britain is not laying claim to the capital of Italy by calling it Rome, rather than Roma, I quite agree with this. These are simply the German names and their usage should imply nothing more than that. This is not 1939 and there is no politics behind it.

English usage in this respect is a little different and more nuanced. Breslau, for example, is the name you will find in history books for the Silesian town right up until 1945; Wrocław refers only and specifically to the post-1945 town with its new Polish population.

Kate Adie Coughing up Fur Balls

So then finally we come to Kate Adie. Bless her: she's an amazing, outstanding journalist. She's been everywhere. And she STILL effing well insists on calling Bahrain Bar-chhhhhhh-rain. It literally sounds like she's gagging on a fur ball. No Katie, it's "bar-rain" in English. We don't say "Par-eeee" with a nice rolled French R do we? We say "Paris" when we're speaking our own language. She did it on Radio 4 recently and as great as she is, this strikes me as the most silly, pretentious, and actually wrong use of language.

Kate Adie on BBC Radio 4, 12 February 2012

When a Place Name Change *might* be a Good Idea

Okay, so we've established that I'm off to Munich, Prague and Cracow. As long as I'm speaking English, I'm not off to München, Praha and Kraków.

Whilst I'm in Munich, I may pop over the border into Austria. There's a charming little village of 104 people there in the middle of the countryside, not too far from Salzburg. It has a very old place name. Here's a photo I took of my pal Jörg there on a previous visit. Click on this link if you want a real giggle about something which actually has absolutely nothing to do with this blog entry at all. I just wanted to share it :-)

Gay Marriage

2012-02-21T14:44:00.003-08:00

Gay marriage has certainly been in the headlines recently with Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, joining a coalition of Christian groups to oppose David Cameron's plans to introduce same-sex marriage by 2015.

Lord Carey has said "This matter is so serious and so important for our nation – we cannot allow this act of cultural and theological vandalism to happen."

The first thing to say in this debate is that I'm amazed how many straight people assume that gays have the right to marry in this country. They don't. They never have had. Civil partnership was introduced under Tony Blair in 2004. It accords an almost identical set of rights as marriage to same sex partners who wish to enter into one. There are a few very minor differences to marriage: civil partners cannot enter a legally binding union in a church and then there's the name. This is a CP, not a marriage.

What's All The Fuss About Then?

Well in many respects the battle has been won. Civil Partnerships were passed with remarkably little debate in 2004. The vast bulk of other European countries (such as France and Germany) also have same-sex civil unions, but there are differences that may mean a same-sex couple doesn't get the same tax treatment as a married couple, or can't adopt etc. That is not the case in the UK: the rights are identical. Huzzah.

However, there are two important little points to be made. The first is a practical one. When you tick the "Marital Status" box on an application, PR, bank or mortgage form, you do not tick "Married" you tick "Civil Partnered". Instantly you are disclosing your sexuality to whoever reads the form. I regard that as a completely irrelevant and intrusive disclosure of fact about someone's private life that, reflecting the prejudices that still exist in Britain in 2012, might lead to discrimination.

Get ready to reveal your sexuality when you reach 3

The second is a rather more fundamental point. Up until 1967 many States in the USA prevented inter-racial marriages. The Supreme Court struck this down in the landmark civil rights case Loving v Virginia. Whites and Blacks were able to marry one another on absolutely equal terms as uni-racial couples. They had not previously been able to. Now, imagine instead of this landmark ruling, a separate institution had been created that accorded exactly the same rights as marriage but it had been called "inter-racial partnerships". What would the fuss have been about? A black/white mixed couple would have got the same rights. It's just a different name! Okay they have to tick a different box on a form, but so what?

Hopefully you get the point. This is about equality. As long as society is saying that same-sex couples do not deserve to have their unions accepted on the same terms as straight couples, it is making a distinction between the two unions. It is the State saying the two institutions are not equal. It is that simple.

But Marriage is a Traditional Institution!

The "tradition" argument is used time and time again to try to stop things from changing. There have been many traditions in this country. Until 1833 Slavery was permitted in the British Empire. It was tradition and had been the case for ever such a long time. Until 1882 married women could not own property. Until 1918 only men could vote in parliamentary elections. Until 1967 gay sex between consenting adults was punishable with prison. I could go on and on.... The point is that society changes, develops and moves on.

Nothing would ever change if the argument "it has always been this way" is applied: it is a silly non-argument. There can of course be very sound reasons not to change something, but simply to say "it's tradition and therefore by definition must not change" is wholly unconvincing.

It is also quite interesting to consider exactly what the tradition of marriage is in history and around the world. Hinduism and Buddhism for centuries permitted marriages between one man and multiple women. Judaism allowed them until 1000AD: under the Sephardic tradition this continued longer. Only one of the 22 Islamic Arab League countries prohibits them today. It is actually public policy under English private international law broadly to uphold polygamous marriages.

Queen Isabella: Married (13) to King John (33)

European Christian society permitted marriage with pre- or barely pubescent children for centuries for royals and nobles. The Old Testament details the incestuous marriage of Abraham with his sister Sarah, and that of Lot and his daughters. Marriage between first cousins was par for the course throughout Europe for centuries and is still permitted in many US States. Same-sex marriage itself existed as a legal institution in Ancient Rome and was around before the first straight Christian couple wed. It was only prohibited in Ancient Rome in 342 AD by a clause in the Theodosian Code. It was practised in China throughout the Ming Period. I've already touched on marriage until quite recently as being defined as only between people of the same race in some places. The same applies to defining it only to people of the same religion, which applies today in many societies.

If you are surprised or indeed shocked by some of these examples you are proving the point. The goal posts of the institution of marriage have changed repeatedly through the centuries, and in all likelihood will continue to do so. This is how society works: things change to reflect the views and norms of the people at the time. People once accepted these norms: they do not now. Homophobic hatred, promoted by the Church, was the norm: it now no longer is. Society has changed and so will the goalposts of marriage.

What Is Marriage Then?

Like it or not, those trying to "defend traditional marriage", you cannot simplify the argument to the institution always having been a fixed unbending concept of the union of one adult man and one non-related adult woman. Even today marriage is still not a homogenous concept around the world. It does not belong to one faith and has not originated from one single faith either.

Let's also be absolutely clear, Lord Carey, this is not a Christian institution that belongs to bishops to decide on: it belongs to humanity, to us, to society, to people around the world. It always has done.

What is then the core element that defines marriage, if it is not what the "traditionalists" say? In my view it is very simply the desire to declare a public bond about your union. The State allowing a same-sex couple to marry is not about creating a new institution (click here for that rather off the point argument). It is about extending this long-standing human institution to reflect a truly massive change in how society relates to same-sex unions today. The very point here is that couples will not say "I'm same-sex married" (as they would if it were a new institution, like CPs) - they will simply say "I'm married". It is the same institution that has existed for thousands of years - marriage - being extended to a group who could not previously marry.

Even if it were about creating a new institution (the logic of which I refute) that is also irrelevant. Was allowing women to vote creating a new thing, or extending an old thing? Actually I doubt too many women went to the poll box saying "I'm going to cast my woman's vote" but who cares: the argument is not relevant to the argument about granting equality regarding men and women being allowed to vote. Nor is it here.

It's All About Children

It is true that marriage often provides a framework for raising children, but it cannot be argued that marriage only exists to bring up children. There have been millions of childless marriages. Lots of children have been appallingly and miserably brought up within the context of marriage; equally children have been successfully raised in all sorts of different situations not involving marriage. The survival of humanity does not depend on a fixed view of marriage that has in fact varied through history.

If marriage is only about children, why should society permit infertile couples, those who do not want children, or post-menopausal women to marry? If permitting them to marry does not weaken the institution of marriage on a macro level, I fail to see how allowing a likely total of 75,000 same sex marriages in this country would do so.

"An Act of Cultural Vandalism"

Lord Carey claims this is an issue "so serious and so important for our nation". He said in his recent article in the Daily Mail that the Government has "no right to change marriage" and that "marriage will only remain the bedrock of a society if it is between a man and a woman." He continues that marriage is the "glue that holds this country together" and somberly adds that if the plans go ahead this will be "one of the greatest political power grabs in history." His article gives us the warning that "such communions would jeopardise the stability of our country."

How is that for hyperbole? One third of the population has not just been wiped out by the Black Death. Opposing forces are not meeting in battle during the bloody Civil War. In a true political power grab, the King has not just broken from Rome, nor has Parliament just signed the death warrant of the Monarch. The workers are not on General Strike. This is not June 1940: hundreds of thousands of Nazis are not about to invade. Yet this change of name from "civil partnership" to "marriage" jeopardises the stability of our great nation. Stop and think about this claim for a moment.

Note the caption on the Mail photo, taken directly from his article. Two gay women, who remember can already enter into a civil partnership, dress however they wish, and believe it or not are already allowed to kiss in public, are a "threat" to the stability of our nation... all because the name of their partnership might be changed to "marriage" by means of a democratically voted on, perfectly legal, Act of Parliament. What an actual drama queen that man is.

In 2001 The Netherlands became the first nation in the world in modern times to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Society immediately collapsed. (Oh, sorry, no it didn't actually). Next came Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina. None of them is a perfect society: such a thing does not exist. However many are much further up the list than the UK in terms the UN Human Development Index (Norway is at the very top).

I should love to hear George Carey for one moment define how "traditional marriage" in these countries has been undermined by the extension of marriage to same sex couples. I would like him to explain exactly what the wider damage to these countries is and how their societies have been destabilised in such a fundamental way. Cultural vandalism is a phenomenally strong term to use. I would like him to explain what it means in this context.

I want to know exactly what the harm is to the institution of marriage in allowing same sex couples to call their civil partnerships marriage. I have yet to hear one cogent argument that can prove any harm, or likelihood of harm. If your heterosexual marriage is somehow weakened by a gay couple marrying, you have the problem with your relationship. There is no cost to this name change: the financial rights accorded by marriage are available already to civil partnerships.

To be absolutely clear: we are talking about the institution of civil marriage here. 500 years after Henry VIII shifted the goalposts for marriage by allowing divorce, the Catholic Church is still not forced to marry divorced couples: they can make their own rules. There is no suggestion that churches would be forced to open their doors to same-sex partners if it conflicted with their own beliefs (it doesn't, of course with all faiths: see Reform Judaism, the Lutheran Church of Sweden, the Mennonite Church of the Netherlands, Metropolitan Community Churches, Unitarian Universalists etc. etc.). If you're a divorced Catholic and your church won't accept you, come to a registry office. The law of this country will allow your union (as long as you're heterosexual, of course.)

Further, as Ben Summerskill put it "If you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex." Straight people are not somehow being converted here. No-one is forcing gay people to enter into these unions: it is simply giving gay people the same right as straight people to make that choice or not.

Sweden: a morally bankrupt nation on verge of collapse

One thing that the introduction of same-sex marriages in these countries has of course already done is to destroy the "tradition" argument: an 20 year old alive in Holland has spent more than half his or her life with the tradition of same-sex marriage around them. Many of these countries are our close neighbours: gay marriage is a reality all around us. Marriage has been redefined once more. If history is anything to go by, it won't be the last time.

Mimicking a Straight Institution

There are plenty of individual gays who reject the idea of marriage as a failed example that they would not want to copy. I understand where they are coming from. As a woman friend on Twitter put it to me "Heterosexuals have undermined the institution of marriage far better than gays ever could". Why would anyone want to copy it?

I do not have a partner, I do not currently want or expect to get married to another man. I do want to extend this basic element of equality, though, to those who men and women who do. As long as kids use the term "gay" as an insult in school playgrounds, as long as gay teenagers self-harm because of their sexuality, as long as society sees homosexuality as something wrong, different, or not equal to heterosexuality, I will take this position.

Why should they be "separate, but equal"? What's wrong with equal?

To go back to my fictional example of "inter-racial partnerships" you can hopefully see why it is simply not good enough to have "marriage" for one group and separately to have "civil partnerships" for another. It is State defined discrimination and it is wrong. To equalise the two institutions would send out a huge message. Names matter; signals matter. This is a small, but symbolically highly important step on the path to equality. When kids grow up seeing same-sex people and couples on equal terms society will change. It is already happening, thank God - despite the best efforts of particular elements within society for decades now to prevent it.

Conclusion

I used to feel quite relaxed about this subject: kinda "meh". The more I think about it, and the more I see the hysterical utterances of the likes of Lord Carey, as expressed in the Mail and Telegraph, the more irritated I become. We live in a largely secular country. The definition of marriage does not belong to a minority group (traditionalist Anglican or Roman Catholic churchgoers and their leaders).

Once again, marriage does not derive from and belong to the Christian Bible, it is not a fixed concept, and it belongs to society to define. Lord Carey is being perverse when he attacks David Cameron and says law-makers have no right to extend the institution. It in fact very much belongs to us, society, and not to the bishops. It is our elected representatives that make laws on our behalf in Britain. All I can see is spite and prejudice coming from anyone seeking to deny this change. I have yet to see a cogent argument against it not based on "it's tradition" and "I don't want to give this to you".

A sign of how far our society has changed is the fact that the leader of the Conservative Party is apparently pushing for this harmless, just, and simple change. I really hope that the pressure of these mean-spirited, hysterical, reactionary groups does not lead him to waiver in this.

Trolls and Tweeting About Politics

2012-02-18T12:11:00.002-08:00

You hear a lot about "Trolls" on the Internet. What exactly are they? There are various definitions: they invariably centre around someone whose behaviour is intended to cause upset to another online. At their most extreme they can be someone who post offensive messages on a tribute site to cause grief to a bereaved family. I've heard of trolls who pretend they are young mothers who spend weeks making friends on things on Mumsnet, only to troll message boards and be offensive. Hilarious, yeah.

On Twitter my general understanding of a troll (there is also a verb, to troll) is someone who generally you do not follow, but who sees a tweet of yours through a search or a retweet, and who sends you an uninvited message that is either simply offensive, or that is intended to start an argument. It's not simply someone you disagree with: it's someone who is purposely goading of offending you for the fun of it. You will often never have seen their avatar or name before.

Why Do We Feed the Trolls?

Trolls are a regular feature of the medium and probably one of the things that upsets people the most. There is of course a simple mechanism to stop them "don't feed the trolls" - don't engage and/or block them. Would that it were that simple, however. First it takes some restraint if you've just been called a "fucking idiot" or similar not to respond. Secondly, the troll may appear semi-reasonable and you may think you are being drawn into a civilised conversation and want to defend your viewpoint. After a few exchanges your blood pressure goes up a notch and it takes even more effort just to walk away. You're drawn in and it rarely ends pleasantly.

Having a Temporary Break from His Keyboard

What Is The Point of Arguing?

A huge strength of Twitter is of course that it facilitates an exchange of ideas. It is perfectly possible to have a conversation with someone of a different viewpoint that can make you think again about something. Perhaps this is why we engage: we want to listen. Perhaps, if we're really honest, it's just because we want to feel we are "right" and convince the other person and anyone else who sees the conversation of our position. From my experience a genuine reflection and revision of your own position is far more likely to happen when discussing something politely with someone you actually follow and know. Very rarely, you might meet someone new whom you disagree with, but nonetheless like and respect, and then decide to follow from one of these discussions.

Let's face it, though, someone who has strong personal views that abortion should be illegal, that gays are evil, who describes the European Union as the EUSSR, or that my being vegetarian is a lifestyle choice that makes me "an economic burden" (oh yes, I was told this for real over the course of 3 hours one evening recently) is not going to be able to convince me of their viewpoint. Nor am I going to be able to influence them of my diametrically opposed opinion. What *is* the point, unless the act of arguing from your keyboard makes you feel happy about yourself?

Personal Abuse

My last blog was a set of observations on what happens when a celebrity dies. It led to accusations that I was trying to censor people, lecture them, was being authoritarian, and these lovely unsolicited personal messages:

From someone I'd not spoken to before

From someone I blocked 9 months ago

Why do people send stuff like this? More importantly, why can't they get their syntax and grammar correct (at least in the case of the first one)? Why don't they have to courage to put their faces on their avatars? These two are in fact members of a special little group of ghoulish right wingers and libertarians who always hide behind faceless anonymous profiles, who make lots of noise on Twitter, and who are quite well known for their unpleasant online behaviour. I'm still amazed to see people I know and like corresponding with the likes of them.

I've also had the head-ghoul, @Old_Holborn message me with the type of thing below. This isn't trolling, it's just sending pretty grotesque personal homophobic abuse. If I see anyone RTing the man I'm quite likely to unfollow them as a result. Why am I in effect naming and shaming these people? Do I have an axe to grind? Yes, I guess I do. I don't see why these people who have sent me abuse in public should not be named here for others to see so they can make their own judgements and steer clear of them if they wish.

From Someone Who is Quite Sick

On a philosophical level, I don't believe there's such a thing as inherently nasty or evil people: only people who in some situations behave in a bad way. I'm sure these guys have friends and family to whom they are pleasant, and often no doubt loving. All I know is that I've experienced them being pretty vile to me and to others, and it's not what I come on Twitter for. I'm able to shake it off better than some I know: if they caught the attention of a few of my friends I know they would leave the medium for good. They can create a stink that lasts months. I hope they feel good about doing this.

Politics

Now we come to politics. I used to enjoy tweeting about politics on Twitter. One of the things I love about Twitter is the flow of news, current affairs and the comments and reactions of an intelligent, engaged group of people I've found on here. I barely do it now for the reasons set out in this blog.

I have found that my enjoyment of Twitter has in some ways had an inverse relationship to the number of my followers. The more people who follow you, the more an RT will reach the likes of someone who wants to pick a fight. It's amazing that tweeting about being vegetarian will do this, or making some simple observations about the death of a celebrity. I really don't know how people with really large numbers of followers cope: I saw Sally Bercow tweet "Is it odd that when I hear an Amy Winehouse song I still feel sad?" and just watched the abuse pouring in at her. No wonder she doesn't seem to tweet half as much as she used to. Get into party politics and just wait for the really argumentative reactions. It's exhausting.

I guess I should man up, just ignore the crap, and say what I want to. I've chosen to shut up instead, because I've found a group of people to follow whom I largely agree with on politics, and prefer to listen to their reactions and discuss them with them one on one, rather than tweet openly in my timeline. There's less chance of an RT and hostile arguments that way. If Twitter is about encouraging free speech and open discussion, then this is a bit of a sad indictment of the way the medium can go. I do have stuff to say about current affairs: instead weariness with the arguments has led me to tweet about my dog, my socks, and what I'm having for breakfast. Great :S

Troll Guidelines

To conclude, and in the true spirit of lecturing people, being authoritarian, and being sanctimonious (thanks again guys!), here are some suggestions I have on the subject of Trolls. I shall endeavour to apply them myself:

1) If you don't want a lot of potential grief, simply don't engage with someone you don't know, who has sent you an unsolicited tweet disagreeing with you. It will very likely, unless you have super-human control and perception in knowing when to get out of the conversation before it heads to aggression, end up in your wasting an evening arguing, and ending up upset or angry. You will convince them of nothing. You may feel "right" at the end of it. So what? Do NOT feed the trolls.

2) Trolling, at least in its mild manifestation, is often a question of perception according to where you are sitting. All the trolls I know are right-wingers. I'm sure there are Tories out there who know a whole bunch of lefty trolls. The same people who behave reasonably to me may pick fights and behave very differently with others. Think about whether a response of yours to someone you don't know could be seen as "trolling". Honestly, why are you sending the message? To be mischievous, to pick a fight?

I'm not above admitting that I've done it on occasion, not that I'm proud of it. I sent a tweet to a random Christian this week who was being homophobic to some friends, who went on to call me a "liar" and rather bizarrely told me to "get a job". I ended up sending a deliberately offensive tweet as as result, when really I shouldn't have got involved. They could have blocked this person themselves if they were upset and are really quite able to look after themselves. Apart from the utter dickheads I've mentioned above, I'm sure no one would revel in the description of being called a troll. Don't inadvertently do anything to deserve the label yourself.

3) To put 2. in a nutshell, the best tweet I read all week was from @Yorkdid. I think he's 18 or 19. I understand it might not be original, but who cares. It is brilliant advice and I'd never heard it before formulated like this. It simply said the following:

There's a real person reading your tweet or message. Put simply, just run anything you're about to send past this simple test: how would I feel to receive this myself? Rocket science it is not.

4) Put the trolling in context. I follow 1100 people. I must have interacted with well over 5000 since I've been on Twitter. I've sent over 60,000 tweets and have probably received at least 20,000 @ mentions, given how much I interact. Of these around exchanges maybe 50, tops, have been nasty, aggressive and have stuck in my head. That's 0.25%. I actively dislike and seek to avoid perhaps 10 people of the 5000 tweeple I've spoken to. That's 0.2%.

It is so easy to get upset and to forget about all the "good guys" and what makes Twitter so enjoyable. Concentrate on the 99.75% and the 99.8%. I know it's not human to do so, but they really do deserve your attention more.

There we go. I feel better for having written this anyway, which I guess is the whole point of blogging. I hope you've enjoyed reading it. I'm now off to "make like a tree and wobble off". Yes, what the *actual* fuck <does> that mean...?

A Celebrity Dies

2012-02-12T03:19:00.000-08:00

I woke up this morning, just as you probably did, to the news that Whitney Houston had died, aged 48. It's one of those days when frankly I'd rather not be on Twitter. We follow the same pattern we've seen on recent events.

Initial Responses

First come the people announcing the news. Many people wake up and tweet it as if they are breaking some news. Look at your timeline first and you'll realise that 1/3 of the tweets probably relate to it.

People then express their upset. It's often heartfelt if they are fans. For this to be a big story it means that the person involved had or used to have a major fan base. Even if you haven't bought the person's records recently, or seen a film they've been in, or watched the sport they played, you'll have seen their name and know who they are. For me in this case the news brought back memories of my 15th birthday and a song that was in the charts. Like it or not, "celebrity" forms a big part of our every day existence.

The RIPs flood in. I guess this is just a way of people expressing their sorrow, but there is very little can be said and when you've seen the 18th in a row, you wonder a little what it is adding, even if it harms no one.

The Worthies

Next we have the "worthies". These are mainly people on the left who attack the "cult of celebrity". Yes, you have a point. Children were killed in Gaza, people were murdered by their government in Syria, homeless people will be freezing to death in this weather. Thanks for pointing this out. Does it mean though that someone expressing their upset about an artist they liked cannot feel upset and outrage about this too? Why is it one or the other? Is emotion like a pie that has to be shared out in a limited number of pieces? Do you think for one moment that the press will change its ways because you've got on your soapbox? In any case, the news *is* actually full of stories about Syria and it's a sickening upsetting sight we're all to familiar with. My timeline has been full of discussion about it. Do you feel better, more intelligent, or that you've somehow proved your moral integrity for having tweeted about this?

You're also missing an important point: we have a "relationship" with celebrities that we do not with the people involved in these other matters. I can feel horror and pain at the sight of a nameless child on my TV, but he or she has not formed part of my memory and day to day life in the way a celebrity has. I know who Whitney Houston, Amy Winehouse or Gary Speed "was": it is only natural I will a degree of association I cannot with the other victims unless I've family or friends in the place affected. That in no way means the death of the individuals elsewhere is less important (and it's a bit idiotic that I have to add this sentence for the avoidance of doubt.)

The Jokes

Next we have the sick jokes. They're not even original. The one below appeared six times in a row on a search. People aren't even crediting it, they're stealing it from one another. I like to think I have quite a good sense of humour (who doesn't) - but frankly, just fuck off.

I've got no time for anyone in my timeline who thinks it's amusing to joke about the recent death of a mother and to compare that to a load of murdered teenagers.

Moral Lessons

Next come the moral lessons. In some cases, for example Gary Speed, Twitter served arguably a good function in getting people to talk about the issue of suicide. I found that day personally a bit overwhelming and had to get out. Anyone who has thought about suicide is well aware of the issues and I do have some residual doubts that his tragic death will have "served the greater good" in any way, but the intentions are no doubt good.

With Whitney Houston, we've already had people falling over themselves to warn of the dangers of drugs. The first point here is no one knows if her death was drugs related. People did exactly the same with Amy Winehouse, and it looks like it was actually alcohol that killed her. The next point is that I remember well when River Phoenix died. Did his death have the slightest bearing on me in my twenties as to my own behaviour? Of course it bloody didn't. WE ALL KNOW drugs are a bad thing that can and do cause deaths. You'd have to be an utter moron not to. I really don't think that my tweeting "now kids, remember, don't do drugs" is going to have any effect on any of my followers.

Into the moral lessons come the snide remarks about someone's life. Yes, Whitney Houston apparently had major substance issues. How about feeling compassion, rather than judging her when she has not even been dead 12 hours? Again what does that do? Make you feel oh so smug? Well good for you.

Saying Nothing

Twitter is about saying things. It is Camus in action: it wouldn't exist if we didn't say things: we'd be looking at a big blank screen with nothing going on. I tweet, therefore I am. The same can be said about this blog: why am I even bothering to blog this? It's not about dictating how people should react or tweet, it's about thinking a little bit more about things. You can agree or disagree, but at least you've considered the issue.

It really is the biggest cliché but I do think the saying "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all" could applied a bit more frequently. An event like this brings out the worst of people. Worthiness, smugness, judgement, sick jokes. Someone has died: I can see the arguments breaking out already on my timeline and people taking objection to things others have said. Isn't that a bit sad?

I didn't know Whitney Houston: I didn't particularly like her music. I didn't feel the need to tweet anything about her this morning: Bren (above) just said it perfectly for me. I'm so glad Twitter wasn't around when Princess Diana died: it would literally have been unbearable. When Mrs Thatcher dies it will be the same. You don't have to worship someone, agree with them, or even like them at all to realise a death is a genuinely sad thing for many people. In my view it's not hard just to see it in those simple terms and to respect that.

Twitchforks and Twitterstorms

2012-02-02T11:50:00.000-08:00

We've all seen it. It can happen on a macro or a micro level. Twitter, with the power of the RT at its disposal can have a phenomenally effect, in both positive and negative ways.

The Little Tweeting Bird has Real Power

On a macro scale people get upset about something on Twitter and it becomes the latest thing: a Twitter Storm. Outrage is expressed about a video of a woman mouthing off on a tram that leads to a criminal prosecution, a tidal wave of support ("I am Spartacus!") is expressed about a joke that has led to a criminal prosecution, or a international gym chain backs down of the way it has behaved with its 24 month contracts.

On a micro level the same of course applies. You may be going through a tough time: having lost your dog, having an operation in front of you, or being worried about your job. 20 messages of support from a group of people, even if you don't know them terribly well, are wonderful and touching. When you're feeling down or lonely this can really matter.

The flip side of all this is when the Twitchforks come out and the 20 messages are ones of abuse, or when the Twitterstorm is actually completely misguided.

Twitterstorm: Photography banned in Trafalgar Square

A couple of days ago a blog by a photographer was circulating and some quite intelligent people were expressing outrage at the fact that new bye-laws would mean photography, using a mobile phone, camping, flying a kite and feeding birds in Trafalgar Square would now be banned. The blog was RTd repeatedly, with people adding comments like "totally unbelievable!"

PHOTOGRAPHY TO BE BANNED: CUE OUTRAGE!

The reason the blog was unbelievable was that it was wrong. Every one of the restrictions contained in the new bye-laws were not "new" - they had been in place either since 2000 or since 2002. Ordinary photography is not banned in Trafalgar Square, nor will it be. Commercial photography without a permit (which are available from the Mayor's office) has not been allowed there for the past 12 years. This is nothing new at all. The fact that only commercial photography is involved was entirely clear from the short bye-law that was published in full on the blog. You only had to read it to realise the blogger had made a mistake that led to the screaming headline - the whole blog was wrong.

Did people read the blog before RTing it? Presumably not. The storm went on all day. It annoyed the shit out of me because there was actually an important story here. There is a downloadable file where you can compare the old and new bye-laws: they are almost entirely identical, down to the language used. This is a tidying up exercise by Boris Johnson of Ken Livingstone measures - with one very important difference. That relates to enforcement. Where previously you had to provide your name/address to an "authorised person", now that person can legally order you to leave the Square with hefty punishments if you do not.

These measures are, in fact, about the Mayor of London putting in place fairly draconian powers to allow the Square to be kept clear of people during the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations: that was brought out far better in @SturdyAlex's blog. The measures are in my view illiberal, and completely objectionable. What they are not are new laws stopping tourists from taking a photo. Because people have got the wrong end of the stick, Boris has got off the hook on this: how easy for his supporters to undermine the claims. That pisses me right off too.

The beauty of blogging is expressing an opinion; getting a viewpoint out there and seeing what others think. That is completely impossible when the entire factual basis of what you are writing is wrong. The ethics of blogging are being discussed before the Leveson Inquiry at the moment: I would say every blogger owes a critical duty to ensure that his/her facts are as solid as possible before pressing publish. If there is a mistake, which of course happens, you should bloody well fess up, correct or take your blog down and make an apology.

Read before you RT?

From the perspective of the Twitter user pressing RT and adding outraged comments, I'd also suggest it's pretty important to actually read whatever you are sending on to your own followers. An RT doesn't imply agreement, but surely we should bother to look at the item rather than reading its headline? If you had read the blog in question you would have seen the commercial photography element glaring at you, without needing to do any more research.

Twitchforks: an example

Now, the micro level. Back in November I saw an example of Twitchforks that really troubled me. A gay man announced to his 900 followers that another gay man, whose photo and real name appears on his profile is a "cunt" who is HIV positive and is sleeping around, having unprotected sex with other men.

I'm sure you'll agree this is a pretty serious allegation. A posse was soon formed, the twitchforks came out, and there were screams of condemnation and disgust. It is also an extremely problematical claim. We were not told if the man had disclosed his status to his partners or not, how many guys were involved, if they knew their own status, why these men were agreeing to engage in a highly unsafe activity (regardless of the information in their possession) etc. We had no idea what the motivation of the accuser was - looking at his timeline that day he said nothing more substantive than the first allegation. The only thing that did become clear was that the accuser had not slept with the man. His ex-boyfriend apparently had, so this was a word of mouth allegation the accuser had then decided to publish on Twitter.

This was Twitter at its most brutal, bullying and basic: people believing what they read without any critical thought or other knowledge. Amongst the outrage a few isolated people stopped and asked the critical question: was any evidence for the allegations? The accuser admitted there was none and said people had to believe him. The allegations were in fact flatly denied by the accused, who had not been open about his HIV status before, and was effectively "outed" by them. At the end of the day the tweeter thanked his "loyal followers" for the shit storm that had happened, and their reactions.

Like you, I simply cannot judge the veracity of the claims, nor is it my place to. SURELY if the accuser seriously believes this man is a danger, the place to go is to the Police? Why were people joining in with this? If you want to support an online friend, should that extend blindly to reaching for the Twitchfork, on the basis of zero evidence, with the knowledge that this behaviour could drive someone off Twitter and/or have a much more serious "real life" effect on them?

Twitchforks: an ugly feature of the Medium

I'd also ask whether Twitter is really here for making accusations about personal aspects of someone's life? It's tangential, but the accusation was not that the man was using Twitter to meet people to sleep with: this was just about outing him as being HIV+ and making an accusation about his life completely off Twitter. He wasn't being accused of being a bully, or lying about himself, or being a fraud on Twitter: this was about his sex life and medical condition.

Think about this: how would you feel if someone revealed you had an abortion years back, that you enjoy visiting sex workers, or are having an affair. It could be potentially horrendous for you if true: imagine if it were a lie and people started RTing it? Even if denied, how many people would think "ooooh there's no smoke without fire!"?

There is literally nothing to stop anyone making an accusation about anyone on here and that not spreading like wildfire. This frankly terrifies me. Most of us aren't that well known or interesting to warrant this type of treatment: but you must know how much one nasty comment can hurt during an evening on Twitter. It sticks with you for days. Imagine being on the end of a Twitter Posse. This may "just be Twitter", but I sent the man involved in the HIV allegations (whom I had recently started following at the time) a DM to ask if he was okay. His reply simply said "I want to die". Having a vague idea of the other things that are going on his life at the moment, I fully believe he meant that.

COME ON GUYS: is this right? Twitter as a place that acts as a posse, judge, jury and potential destroyer of someone's life, operating with no evidence regarding deeply private aspects of someone's life. I don't care how how serious or "juicy" the claims are, I will not join in with it. I can't judge the HIV+ man's actions because I do not know the facts, but I can judge what I saw that day on Twitter. The people who engaged it in were pretty ugly. The accuser came across as the vindictive bully and those who reached for the Twitchforks were at best deeply misguided.

The Power of Twitter

Twitter is just a mirror of people. We find many good souls, and many good things can take place on here. We find a few bad apples, and we find lots of people who don't mean to harm but still can. Twitter's power is its speed and ability to reach many. The RT button is the key to this.

This (once again) has been a long rambling blog but it contains a simple message. Think before you tweet, and most of all, think critically before you RT. Twitchforks hurt. In extreme circumstances they can push someone over the edge. Twitterstorms can bring about a pleasant change in the weather, but please, please check your facts as far as you are able.

Veggiephobia

2012-01-29T07:11:00.000-08:00

Something odd happened last night. Having no friends and having run out of conversation with the collie, I decided to blog. I wanted to write about why I was vegetarian. I got four paragraphs in and ground to a halt. I've never not been able to blog before. What stopped me? Veggiephobia!

VEGGIEPHOBIA (n): 1) Irrational fear of vegetarians; 2) State of being a total arse when in the company of those decide not to eat meat. Manifests itself in the churning out of a series of clichéd jokes or passive aggression and usually culminates in an observation such as "Ah but you wear leather shoes!"; 3) Longstanding provocation defence in English common law. Reduces a murder charge to manslaughter when the vegetarian clobbers the meat-eater to death in complete exasperation (R v Vegetarian Society [1974 AC 217[1]).

What on earth am I talking about? I just knew that if I blogged about why I'm vegetarian, I would get a whole set of snide, defensive and frankly really quite unfunny responses. When I tweeted that observation it led to a flurry of exchanges. Most meat eaters seemed amazed and genuinely didn't have any idea this type of thing existed. A series of resigned tweets from vegetarians led me to think I was far from alone.

I think Matthijs puts it pretty well. He is 26. Early retirement indeed.

A Personal Choice

Being vegetarian is an intensely personal choice. People have a whole series of reasons for it and it covers a whole range of choices about what you eat. You can have "vegetarians" who eat fish (technically they're pescetarians) through to vegans who don't eat any animal products at all. Most people are like me: lacto-ovo-vegetarians. The way I explain it is "if it had a face, then no thanks". We eat eggs, cheese, drink milk but don't eat a dead creature's flesh.

Some people are part time vegetarians, frequently choosing the non-meat option when they eat out in restaurants. It doesn't have to be a black and white choice. Many people were vegetarian for at least some time in their lives and then for whatever reason go back to eating meat, or perhaps just fish and fowl.

Some Examples

So what is the fuss about? I can't imagine hostility and jokes about a decision not to eat ice-cream for example. Yet hostility there is, without question. I've been veggie since I was 25 (I'm now 40) and the range of negative reactions range from the patronising through to quite unpleasant outright taunting. Here are a few I've encountered:

"If we weren't supposed to eat them, why are animals made out of meat?"
"Carrots scream when they're pulled out of the ground you know"
"It's not natural to be vegetarian" (yup, just like antibiotics and central heating. We should all in fact live in caves and die at 30)
"If we didn't eat cows they'd be extinct" (erm yeah, just like giraffes, for example)
"But bacon tastes soooooo good" (ideally accompanied by picking up a piece of it on your fork and dangling it in front of the vegetarian's nose)
"Any vegetarian who eats eggs is SO hypocritical" (having pronounced this you can smugly go back to eating your lump of steak)
"Wasn't Hitler vegetarian? Haha - but look at what he did to the Jews... " (no he wasn't: his favourite food was sausage. He suffered from stomach cramps and so ate heavily, but not exclusively vegetarian meals)
"Oh I could never give up [insert: bacon, Big Mac etc.]" Fascinating. Ever thought I MIGHT NOT CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO EAT? Are you interested to know I don't like grapefruit? And also is not giving up the odd bacon sandwich *really* your reason for you to continue eating lamb, beef, pork etc up to 3 times a day?
"How ridiculous you eat meat substitutes - I just don't get that" (for many it's an ethical not a taste decision. The thought of Wienerschnitzel makes me whimper and salivate. If I can find a tasty meat substitute I will eat and enjoy it: mung beans and tofu are not everyone's idea of fun)
And our absolute and utterly original favourite: "Ahhh, but you wear leather shoes/ belt" followed by raised eyebrows. This is where the provocation defence mentioned in the definition above kicks in.

My best friend was once told at a dinner party by a Tory MP "Suffolk may accept your homosexuality, but it will never accept your vegetarianism". Cue guffaws from all the guests. Hmm, hysterical.

An interesting observation is that most of the negativity (dressed up frequently as "humour") comes from men. Many women say "Oh I could quite easily be a vegetarian". A good few men seem to retreat to some weird caveman position that unless you're shoving bleeding bison down your gullet, you're a huge poof. It genuinely seems to threaten the masculinity of a few guys. I find this utterly bizarre.

Back to the "jokes"... guess what - you're never going to come out with an original or amusing quip to a vegetarian - we've heard it all. Many, many, many times before. This is a large part of why we don't find it funny. When a joke is heard the 80th time, it's just not amusing. It's not to do with a lack of sense of humour. I also bet if you've made comments like this, you don't see it as being hostile, passive-aggressive or just plain boring at all. For the most part, we do, though.

Evangelical, dull, worthy vegetarians

I don't seek to impose my dietary choices on anyone. If you want to eat meat in front of me, you're welcome to. If we're out on a date and I'm paying, I'll pay for your meal whatever you order. What I won't do, personally, is cook meat for you in my house. I know plenty of veggies who would though. They just choose not to eat it themselves. I'm not evangelical and have a "live and let live attitude". I think most of us do: as I said, this is an intensely personal decision.

Ahhh you say - but what about all those evangelical, worthy vegetarians? Why do they have ram their views down our throat and get all superior? I'm sure these people exist. I literally can't say I've ever met one though. What I think is much more likely to be the case is that there is a big dollop of projection going on here from the meat-eater and it's linked to an inherent unease that some have about their diets.

Some might call this guilt. All I can speak about is myself; and before I became veggie it definitely was guilt for me. I could only eat meat if I didn't associate the cute brown eyed animal in the field with what was served up on my plate. I certainly didn't want to think about the process in the middle (or indeed the millions of animals that never see the light of day or a field at all).

Paul McCartney is right: I didn't inform myself and just wouldn't "go there" even in my own head. I therefore was naturally quite defensive in respect of anyone who had thought about this a bit more and made the decision to be veggie.

Now here's something interesting about evangelical, worthy veggies: Fiona Laird whose tweet appears above, is a friend of mine in real life. We've had dinner together in restaurants. I'd never even registered she was vegetarian until our discussion last night. She's not running around making a big fuss about it, forcing her views down people's throats. I didn't even know - and why should I, as I've never cooked for her? Many other people whom I follow tweeted me and are veggie, unbeknown to me.

So why are people veggie?

The range of reasons is huge. For me I looked down at a ham sandwich and a cheese sandwich on 20 August 1996. I simply realised I'd never made the decision to eat meat: I'd done it since a kid without thinking about it because my parents gave it to me. When I did think about it, it repulsed me. Not the taste of the stuff: but what it actually is. I know the intelligence and amazing range of emotions my dog has. I wouldn't eat @LassieOscar, so why eat any other animal? It just seemed unnecessary for me to choose the ham when I could have the cheese. I can nourish myself perfectly well without meat.

For other people it's about the environment. I can dish out the numbers: one tonne of beef production takes up 45 tonnes of crop production that could be used to feed the world. The millions of cows we breed to eat let out methane, which is 25 times more damaging to the ozone layer than carbon dioxide. Visit Uluru (Ayers Rock) in Australia and the desert for miles around under Aboriginal control is beautiful and full of flowers and wild life. Get back to cattle producing Australia and the land is red dust. One single cow guzzles over 70 gallons of water every week. A herd of 1000 is a disaster for the environment. When we ate meat once or twice a week it was better. Now as people demand meat up to three times a day, and countries with heavily vegetarian diets move to "Western" diets (e.g. China) it is massively and frighteningly unsustainable.

My best friend has been veggie for 25 years. He does not believe it is morally wrong to kill animals; he simply fundamentally objects to the industrialised factory nature of farming today. There are meat eaters like him of course: they eat little carefully sourced organic free range food (at least that's what they buy for eating at home; what's served up in restaurants is mainly out of their control). My position is that I believe killing is inherently wrong: again, this is a very personal viewpoint and you (and he) don't have to agree with it. A couple of total dimwits from the past have however taken a similar position...

The point is there are masses of reasons for any decision we make: for vegetarians it can be sentimental, ethical, pragmatic, taste, health or environmental factors.... or a combination of some or all of them that lead them to eat what they do. Why people have to be so snarky about this decision, I really don't get - other than coming back to the fact that it's because of an inherent unease they have about what they themselves are eating.

What ABOUT wearing leather?!

Live and let live. For me that means respecting that if you want to eat meat and enjoy it, fine. But drop your silly comments, please, and leave me to eat what I wish to, without making me feel like a pariah when you invite me over to dinner. Please don't ask me to justify or explain myself. I don't ask you to justify why you eat meat.

If you do push and push me, and I end up pointing out that what you are putting in your mouth is the antibiotic laden corpse of a tortured animal, you're not going to take it too kindly, are you? No, even though you brought the subject up, I'll just be one of those evangelical, dull, worthy vegetarians...

As for (many) egg and (especially) dairy products, yes - you're quite right. Only a vegan can take the moral high ground in this area. Most vegans I know are quiet, thoughtful, gentle souls - they actually don't get all aggressive and moralistic, funny enough. I respect and admire them, and I know the huge problems they have in eating, other than in their own homes. The same point about the moral ground goes for wearing leather: I've tried plastic shoes: they don't work for me and it's a compromise I have made to wear leather shoes that clearly cannot be justified if I'm consistent.

There is however the rather obvious question of degree. If someone drives their car at 34 mph once a year in a 30mph speed limit, this is not great. I think most people would agree, though, that there's a qualitative difference between that and someone who speeds at 70mph every time they drive through the village. Yes, better that no one speeds: but don't pretend we are the same qualitatively. We are not. I've apparently saved the lives of around 1500 animals in the time I've been veggie. If I reach 80, then 5500 animals will not have died because of my dietary choices. Yes, my shoes are leather and an animal died to produce them. However, I'm undeniably doing my bit, however imperfect.

Ending Thoughts

If reading this has brought up issues that make you uncomfortable, sorry. If you're making a conscious informed choice to eat meat, enjoy it. If you're doing it blindly (as I was) though there is no inevitability about your continued choice. I'm not a black/white person: if you do feel uncomfortable, just cut down. Try some veggie substitutes. You can make a huge difference to animal suffering, the environment or your own health just by eating less meat rather than stopping it entirely.

There was genuine amazement last night when I tweeted about hostility to veggies. Some of it came from people who themselves had made comments such as "yummmm bacon!" to me in the past. I guess you're just not aware of it. We are and I'd ask you please have a bit of sensitivity about this. If someone has made a personal decision actively not to eat meat (which is not the default setting in this country) they've done it for a reason. Taunting them, no matter how amusing you find it, really isn't that big or clever.

Over and out: it's time for a quorn sausage!

UPDATE: Was sent this by commentator "Forty Shades of Grey" below - Priceless :-)

Twitter Jail

2012-01-23T07:20:00.000-08:00

This is the fourth in a series of utterly unimportant ramblings and observations about the way that Twitter works. The others are (click on links):

How to Use Twitter (a guide for beginners and non-beginners alike)
The Language of Twitter (some fluffy reflections on the English used on it)
Conceptualising Twitter (trying to explain what on earth it is to non-users)

What is Twitter Jail?

So this post is about being in Twitter Jail - it's also known as Twitter Prison, Twitter Gaol (classy spelling!), Twitter Slammer. Well, what is it? I've had a surprising number of people ask me that question, seemingly unaware of its existence.

It's essentially a special circle of hell reserved for those who tweet "too much". Here's what the Urban Dictionary says:

Twitter makes no mention of the specific 100 tweets per hour limit on its support page, though it does confirm the 1000 tweets per day limit that is "broken down into smaller limits for semi-hour intervals". Tweets includes retweets. The support page also mentions a separate daily limit of 250 direct messages. You'd have to be going some to hit 250 DMs in a day, unless those rumours are true that this is where it all actually happens on Twitter and all the rude stuff goes on? Ahem.

100 tweets in a hour sounds like an awful lot. If you're posting 100 general tweets in an hour this is indeed a huge amount. The chances you'd have no followers after a very short time, because you'd be flooding their timelines so much. (The exception is during something like X-Factor, where 100 tweets and RTs are quite possible and often amusing from the very quick-witted). But 100 messages to people that are in fact multiple conversations, not general tweets? That's actually quite easily hit. I know. For I am a Twitter Jail Bird :o))

What happens when you get chucked behind the metaphorical bars, is that you receive an error message as you try to post a tweet. You receive no warning: you are just cut off. There is no trial. There is no judge or jury. This is summary "justice". Appeals to the ECtHR in Strassbourg are not possible. You have no way of telling people you've been carted off.

What can you do in Twitter Jail?

When you're in Twitter Jail, you can read your feed and look at your @ mentions. If you haven't gone over the DM limit you can also still direct message. What you cannot do is tweet yourself. It's very, very frustrating, as you're frequently cut off mid conversation and unable to respond to anything. I always like to respond to people, promptly - I just find it good Twitterquette. For example a couple of my blogs have led to loads of people responding: I had over 1000 lovely supportive messages in the space of an afternoon on one - and I was locked in Twitter Jail in no time, unable to thank people. That sucks.

How long is your sentence?

This varies. The support page mentions something about variable times. It can be 30 minutes, or at busy times it can be longer. You're advised to try again "in a few hours". I've found that if you're put in prison twice in a day, you have to sit out longer the second time and it really can be three hours you're shut out. THREE HOURS WITHOUT TWITTER? What is there to do to amuse yourself without Twitter? Nothing.

These poor Twinky Tweeps are at a complete lost end :(

Jail Breaking

You're eventually released without warning. I've not found tricks round this: you just keep trying and trying and suddenly you're a free Tweep. People have sent me e-nail files (I always leave with well manicured hands, but they're useless on the bars) and even my fearless collie dog, Oscar, has not been able to break me. He's more interested in raiding the biskwit tin or playing with his squeaky toys whilst I'm languishing in a windowless jail. Sob.

@LassieOscar to the Rescue? Erm, no.

Defying Twitter

However... there are ways to make your jail sentence less disruptive, as I and other people have found. What you do is this:

Create a second profile for emergency use (mine is @PMEinJail)
Make it clear on the bio and from the name that it's you, in jail
Log out of your main account (e.g. @PME200)
Open multiple windows on your computer (it's more tricky on an iPhone)
Do a search for your main account name - all mentions of you will come up, so you can see who has replied to you. You can then respond to those messages from your jail account, and the conversation will automatically move over as they reply to you in jail
You do not need to try to follow everyone again from your jail account. What I do is simply open another window with a list I've already created with the people I speak to most anyway.
If you don't use lists, they are a superb way of refining your Twitter experience and ideal for this scenario. I can see what my top 250 tweeps are saying through my period in jail and then just pop back over to my main feed when I'm released

I've been in jail 3 times already this week. The above might sound like a right faff, and if you're a less fanatical user of Twitter, of course not necessary. But for hard core Tweeps like me (aka, people who don't *actually* have a life) it really works very slickly indeed.

Even if you don't need to create a jail account yourself, at least having read this you'll be aware what's happening if you get a response from a random account like for example, @PMEinJail or @KiraInJail...

Have fun and don't tweet too much guys - it's not big and it's not clever! Yeah right :-)

An Ode to Onesies

2012-01-19T07:50:00.000-08:00

In November I was on Twitter and I saw two particularly great guys I follow @SteMcCormick and @Light_XIII talking about Onesies. I was confoosed. What were these things? I actually had to ask them and do a Google search.

My initial reaction was to take the piss: these are giant sleeping suits worn by adults, often in the shape of animals. Normally they are worn to lounge round in the house; some people sleep in them.

(Technically a Dragon Kigu: it doesn't have feet)

WHO would wear them though? Well clearly cute intelligent young guys like those two - and then to my horror I realised a complete generational gap appearing on Twitter. Everyone under 25 either had one, or at least knew what they were. Everyone over 30 didn't seem to. I started asking younger people I speak to: yes, they had a Pacman one; or a Skeleton one; or a Dinosaur one.

My friend @NathanMarsh who is at university told me students sometimes go out clubbing in them - a whole group of young people dressed as animals running along, dancing and having a "Onesie Night Out".

Slippery Slope

Within the next 12 hours I travelled the slippery slope from a position of mild disbelief / mocking disapproval to actually *wanting* one. I decided to ignore this (for him) mild warning from @HyperbolicGoat:

The following lunch time I popped up to Primarni in Norwich to look at their range. Bargain: for £12, I could be a giant polyester clothed 6'1" monkey. How <could> I refuse? As long as I didn't stand too close to a naked flame, all would be fine.

Looking at myself as a giant monkey I of course realise that EVERYTHING the Daily Mail says about Twitter is true. I have gone from being a respectable City lawyer to dressing as a big brown monkey. Twitter corrupts innocent minds. It's dangerous. There I've said it ;-)

Entering the Main Stream

Now, there's no denying Onesies have caught on. They are really becoming popular. Christmas 2011 seems to have become the "Onesie Christmas" - I've heard so many stories of people on Twitter of all ages giving and receiving them. There are giant pink bunnies, dalmatians, hamsters, and regular hooded onesies being worn across the kingdom.

Guardian Fashion recently asked is it ever okay to wear a Onesie? Their conclusion was sneering and a bit pants: they even argued that it can never be a sexy look. Hmpf, look at Joey Essex below having just gone through US Customs. I'd unzip his Onesie for him any day :o))

Joey Essex.... *swoon*

Why Onesies are Great

So now the point of this blog is to let everyone know *why* Onesies are fabulous. They're undeniably warm and comfy. I love putting mine on at the end of the day. It's snug, I can turn the heating down and I lose roughly half my body weight as it's like being in a personal sauna.

I remember vividly from German literature at University a story by the cutting social observer and 19th century Swiss writer Gottfried Keller. It is called "Kleider machen Leute" ("Clothes make the Man" to put it in Mark Twain terms). A penniless tailor, who happens to have one nice coat, is taken in by a town, fed, feted, falls in love with a local girl: all because they are silly and bourgeois enough to assume he must be important and wealthy if dressed like that. I agree with Keller: we do make judgements based on people's appearances.

FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY than their snugness therefore, for me, is the fact that Onesies are fun. They look bonkers. They are playful, they are silly, and we just know that we will be laughing over and destroying photos of ourselves in them within 24 months - just as we look back now at 70s shirts and 80s hair cuts. They're blatantly ridiculous, and who gives two hoots? Grown adults dressing in this way? Bring it. The simple judgement I would make if someone is prepared to wear a Onesie is that they are a laugh. It's precisely because people can take themselves in such a non-serious way, that I love the item of clothing, and I love people who will wear them.

Thus, I shall conclude with a massive YAY to Onesies. Long may this trend last* \o/

Yup, I also have a Chicken one. Guilty as charged.

* I seriously doubt it will, but hey :)

Something Silly

2012-01-12T15:36:00.000-08:00

I went inter-railing when I was 19 (yes, it was hell) and took a ferry home from Cherbourg to Portsmouth. During the journey I heard a group of "lads" who were guzzling beer and talking about the oddest thing that has stuck in my mind ever since. It was supposedly a form of dream analysis or finding out about someone's sub-conscious / true personality.

Here's what you have to do. I'm going to ask you to visualise a particular thing and you have to close your eyes and get a really clear picture of it. If I say "Car" you need to think of the first image of a car that comes into you mind and properly sticks in it. I want to know the colour of it, the model, the age, etc. Just concentrate until it's there - it may change a bit before fixing properly.

The next thing to note is this is a dream sequence - there does not have to be *any* logic in it at all. If I ask you to think of a city and then a shop, you can think of New York, followed by your local newsagent in your village. The items do not need to fit together at all - although they can if you wish.

Okay, all set?

The first thing you need to think of is a FOREST. Get it really clearly in your mind. You're walking along through the forest. Think about the trees, the ground, what you can see and hear around you. Picture it until it is clearly in your mind.

Next thing I need you to envisage a BEAR. Look at it and take in all the details - how far away you are, what it is doing, looks like etc.

You leave the bear behind and continuing along you come across a KEY. Picture that key for me, really clearly.

A little bit further you come to a well or a spring. There is fresh water to drink. You drink from it with a DRINKING IMPLEMENT. Picture that item, just as you have done every thing before.

Next you come across some WATER. This could be a pool, a stream, a river, a sea - I don't know. It's your dream. Fix the water in your head.

You cross the water - it does not matter how - and progress further until you come to a RESTING PLACE. You're tired after your walk and you rest here. Take in all the details of the place you stop at.

And hey, ho - we're all done.

What does it all mean?

So what does it all mean? Well, if anyone who is an actual psychologist is reading this they will probably say this analysis is utter crap. BUT - I've done this same silly game with lots of people I know quite well and am amazed how I can actually guess some of their responses quite accurately. Remember this is just a bit of fun.

1) The Forest is your view of life. The brighter and sunnier it is, the brighter and more positive your view of life in general is. If you have a dark coniferous woods with packed trees and very little light you are more prone to see life as difficult and challenging. If it's cold, dark, and winter - well, you've a bleak outlook on life. A bright coniferous forest with sunlight pouring between glades and well spaced out trees indicates a similarly bright view of life for you. Bonus points for birds singing, happy little squirrels, pretty flowers and shit like that.

Also, were you on a path? I didn't mention anything about one. If you were just walking between trees, fine. If it was an actual path stretching off that you could see, it means you have a clear path where you are going in life. If it is a metalled road then you are really clear where you are heading.

2) The Bear is your view of other people - particularly in social situations. The bear's position is important. If it is standing up it is more scary and threatening than if it is down on all fours. The bigger and more fierce the bear and its position, the more frightening/ challenging you find meeting and dealing with new people in general.

Think about how far you were away from the bear. If you kept well away that speaks for itself. If you just ignored each other that's in the middle ground. If you actually approached the bear and did not find it scary in any way, then again that illustrates how likely you are to be at ease just going up to new people and dealing with them socially.

3) The Key is your artistic side. Most people seem to go for an old-fashioned type key, but the level of detail is key. If you spent ages picturing an exquisite old key with lots of detailing, then you have a highly developed artistic side. If you had a Yale type key then you just think of something that does its job and you're probably an engineer who considers a stick man art (only joking, chill!)

4) The Drinking Implement is your personal standards. One of the lads drank from a rusty old bucket. That says it all to me: would you? Ewww! Call me a princess, but I had a sparkling crystal goblet. You're drinking from whatever you selected and there's an element of personal hygiene and standards involved in that. The more particular you were about the cleanliness of the implement you were, the more particular (aka fussy or even anal) you will be about such things in your life. I didn't care I was in a forest by a well - I wanted Bohemian lead crystal and it had to be new, thanks!

5) The Water is your sex drive. The faster your water is flowing, the more important sex is to you. If you had a still calm little pool, it's no big deal to you. If you've a babbling brook it's becoming more important... get to a fast flowing river and you're starting to become a bit of a stud muffin. If you had a waterfall, well I'm just not going to comment. [PERVERT!]

Also the wideness of the water is interesting. If it was a just a little stream (even if fast flowing) and you could hop straight over, it means your sexual interests are quite narrow. The broader the expanse of water, the wider your mind in matters carnal. So there.

6) The Resting Place is what you'll be happy with materially out of life. The pickier and more demanding you are about the place, the more things you will have to have before you are happy. If you had a whole list of demands about shade or sunlight; protection from the wind or sun etc, it is indicative of what you require in life. An easily pleased person just wants a nice sunny glade to sit down in on the ground; a more demanding one wants a bench.

Anything man-made is upping the demands considerably - I've heard resting places with four poster beds in the middle of the forest. I'm ashamed to say mine is a tree house and is pretty much pictured below. I'm never going to be happy, am I? :S (NB it has air conditioning and one of those nice rain water power shower wet rooms too, please). You may have a very clear path through your forest, but your ending place is very simple. I had no path, but knew what I wanted when I got there.

Fascinating, isn't it? The sheer range of things that people can come up in their heads when you say "imagine a resting place in a forest" is amazing. It is your subconscious that is throwing them up (apparently) and as I said at the start it can be very telling indeed. I had fun putting together the images for this blog - all of these pretty much represent what appeals to me most and is what is "there" for me when I think of the things.

Happy New Year!

2011-12-30T13:42:00.000-08:00

It's soon going to be 1 January and the calendar will click round one more year: hullo 2012 *waves*

However, it hasn't always been the case that 1 January was New Year's Day. For a very long time the New Year began in March. This actually isn't such a strange concept. The Chinese have their New Year's celebrations in February. Jewish New Year is in September.

A Year Has No Obvious Beginning

A year simply measures the length of time the Earth takes to do a complete rotation of the Sun: no one can say "this is the day it started", so there's no reason to choose January over any other time. In many ways New Year in March makes more sense: it's when Spring arrives and is the beginning of the natural year.

A year doesn't actually begin on ANY particular day

So why does the year begin in January? Well it's actually because of the Romans. Their very first calendar had March as the first month (more of this later) but in BC153 they moved New Year to January for reasons connected with the governmental year. There it stayed for some time.

Here Come the Christians!

Now enter the Christians. 1 January has absolutely no religious connotations for the Church. 25 December does - it is the somewhat randomly selected date for Christ's birthday. Yes, random: the Bible gives us no clue as to when Christ was born except to mention that the shepherds were tending their flocks. They almost certainly wouldn't have been out in winter doing so.

Sir Isaac Newton argued that the early Christians simply took over a pagan ceremony connected to the winter solstice, and that seems still to be the predominant theory. Most Christians say this doesn't matter: the point is to celebrate the coming to the world of Jesus.

The Christians didn't start New Year at Christ's birth though: they counted back a pregnancy of 9 months (Swiss-Judean precision!) to Lady Day: 25 March. This is Annunciation Day: when Mary received the Holy Spirit and became pregnant with Jesus. So there we have it. New Year in the Christian Calendar became 25 March.

Mildly Confusing

That's kinda mildly confusing though. We're used to the New Year starting nice and neatly at the start of a new month (e.g on 1 January). For centuries however the calendar went like this:

22 March 1499
23 March 1499
24 March 1499 (New Year's Eve)
25 March 1500 (New Year's Day)
26 March 1500
27 March 1500 etc.

There's a neat little example of the old Christian calendar in action in Salisbury Cathedral. Look hard and you'll find a tiny grave of a boy. In modern English his stone reads as follows: Here lies the Body of Thomas, Son of Thomas Lambert, Gentleman... Born May 13 1683, died February 9 of the same year.

(Many thanks to @murphy_maria for the pic)

See how that is possible? Good. Poor little baby Thomas died in February of 1683 just short of nine months old, because New Year's Day 1684 didn't arrive until 25 March.

The Romans Made a Mistake

Still with me? Smashing. Now it gets a bit more confusing still. The Romans had introduced the calendar with 12 months in BC45 under Caesar. It is named the Julian Calendar (presumably because he had a favourite budgie called Julie. Or something). Anyway, the Romans were a clever bunch, but they made a tiny mistake in working out they the length of the solar year. That tiny error led to a big mistake over the centuries.

I think he might have noticed. Silly Romans.

By 1582 the calendar was "out" to the tune of 10 days. The shortest day in the calendar should be 21 December (the Winter Solstice); the longest day should be 21 June (Summer Solstice). However, because of the Romans' mistake the shortest day was now falling on 11 December. The days were already getting noticeably longer by 21 December. Pope Gregory XIII twigged and announced that the calendar should jump forward 10 days. They also did something technical to Leap Years to stop the error from occurring again*. Lovely job.

Now had naughty Martin Luther not started all that Reformation Jazz this could have been perfect. By 1582, however, the Pope's authority had been seriously challenged within Europe. The Northern Protestant nations viewed the new "Gregorian" calendar with a great deal of suspicion. Many ignored it - which led to horrible confusion in terms of determining on what date anything happened. The Eastern Orthodox Church also ignored it.

New Year's Day Moves Back to January

Although Pope Gregory did not expressly specify it, around the same time as the introduction of the new Gregorian calendar with its 10 day adjustment, many Catholic nations also moved New Year's Day from 25 March back to the Roman start of the year: 1 January. What's more, some Protestant Nations also did the same - but kept the Julian Calendar itself.

Bit of a nightmare: European Calendars around 1600

Shite, this is getting horribly complicated. Here's an example:

The Winter Solstice falls on 11 December 1599 in Scotland. Why? Because they're using the old Julian Calendar**. However, the still independent kingdom decides at this time to move New Year's Day away from 25 March and back to 1 January. The year 1600 therefore arrives in Scotland on 1 January. The same day, 1 January, is however still labelled 1599 in neighbouring England. New Year's Eve in England will be on 24 March and 1600 will not arrive until 25 March....

Let's hop on a hovercraft and go on a booze cruise to Calais. The Catholic French have adopted the Gregorian Calendar in full, as well as the move of New Year's Day to 1 January. Therefore if we make this trip on say the Spring Equinox, the exact same day is labelled in the following way:

11 March 1600 in Scotland (Julian Calendar with New Year on 1 January)
11 March 1599 in England (Julian Calendar with New Year on 25 March)
21 March 1600 in France (Gregorian Calendar with New Year on 1 January)

The countries of Europe all adopt different schedules for moving their New Year about and switching to the Gregorian Calendar. Prussia adopts 1 January as New Year's Day in 1559, but waits until 1700 for the new calendar; Austria has gone with 1544 and 1583 respectively. The Swiss Cantons - part of the same country - all do it at different times (Grisons does not switch to the Gregorian Calendar until 1811). Various parts of the Netherlands also change at different times according to religious affiliation and political governance.

It is literally a nightmare... And *now* who is complaining about EU standardisation, eh?

Riots on the Streets

The British Empire, of course, is (almost) the last of the lot to move to the new accurate Gregorian Calendar and (with the exception of Scotland) is ever conservative about leaving New Year on 25 March. Finally in 1752 Parliament makes the switch to both. By this time the error in the old Julian calendar was so great, instead of ten, a full eleven days had to be skipped.

Wednesday 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday 14 September 1752. People felt their lives had been shortened by 11 days as a result of an Act of Parliament. There are literally riots on the streets.

The blackboard is centre front

It was still an election issue three years later in 1755. This Hogarth painting has a tiny blackboard in the front. When magnified the words read "Give us our 11 days". The change of calendar incidentally affected the whole of the British Empire, including the United States, which had not yet become revolting ;-)

Well, finally we're all there. Except the Eastern Orthodox Church, that is. Russia waits until the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 to move to the Gregorian calendar; the Greeks wait until 1923 and the Russian Orthodox Church is (somewhat unbelievably) still on the faulty Julian Calendar. This explains why their Christmas is celebrated so much later than ours. They are now a full 13 days slow, so for them 25 December falls on the day we now label 7 January. Don't make the mistake of thinking they celebrate Christ's birth on a different date: for them it *is* 25 December. They've just not got yet changed to the more accurate calendar.

The Tax Year: 5 April

Okay have you died yet? Nope? Then you need to know about this curious remnant of the Julian Calendar and New Year's falling on 25 March. When does the tax year in the UK begin? "6 April" you answer. Yes: and why? Well if you take 25 March as the old New Years day... and add on the eleven days' adjustment that were required in 1752 you end up with..... 6 April***. Ka-Boom.

It was felt that it was unfair on the Exchequer to shorten their tax revenue by 11 days when the calendar changed, so the tax year was left as it was, with the exception of the eleven day adjustment.

Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue are therefore still organising our tax years around the date the Virgin Mary became pregnant, with an adjustment for the miscalculation made by Julius Caesar. This is another example of a "New Year" starting mid-month of course. 5 April 2012 is in Tax Year 2011/12, while 6 April 2012 falls in the "New" Tax Year 2012/13.

Numbering the Months

There's one last curiosity to note. If we go all the way back to the ancient Calendar of Romulus, which was before 1 January was chosen as New Year's Day in BC153, and before the introduction of the Julian Calendar in BC45, you'll probably remember that we find March as the first month of the year.

Mars: God of War

March was named after Mars who was God of War and was second only to Jupiter in the Roman Godly hierarchy. Like March the months of April, May, June all had proper names. Then the Ancient Romans ran out of ideas. Accordingly:

July was Quintilis (fifth month)
August was Sextilis (sixth month)
September was September (seven month)

Yep: September was the seventh month in the Calendar of Romulus. Have you ever thought about this? Why is Month NINE in our calendar called "Sept"? In this old calendar, beginning in March, the eighth month was October. The ninth was November. The tenth was December. Still in 2012, we have kept this incredibly ancient (pre-BC 153) and entirely unfitting naming convention for our calendar. Unlike the shifts of New Years Day and the calendar alteration it has remained: quite possibly because no one has ever really noticed it.

I like it, though, and it is a reminder of where we began: New Year's Day is on 1 January, but originally, and for a very long time, New Year began in March. For HMRC it still kinda does.

Now have a drink and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

* Every year that is exactly divisible by four was to remain a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100; the centurial years that are exactly divisible by 400 would remain leap years. For example, the year 1900 is not a leap year (it is divisible by 100 but not 400); the year 2000 is a leap year (divisible by 400). You can see why I kept this as a foot note.

** There is a popular misconception that the Scots adopted the Gregorian Calendar in full on 1 January 1600. They remained on the Julian Calendar until 1752 along with the rest of the British Empire. All they did was move New Years Day to 1 January from 1600.

*** God this is so technical. Add 11 days to 25 March and you have 5 April. The reason that the Tax Year begins 6 April is because 1800 is a centurial year that would have been a Leap Year under the Julian Calendar, but not under the Gregorian Calendar (it's not divisible by 400). The Exchequer went with the Julian rule, so it's therefore 12 days that are now added to 25 March to reach the Tax New Year. Right, I need a triple vodka.

People

2011-12-26T13:01:00.000-08:00

A few months back I did a little spot on Rob Dunger's BBC Suffolk Sunday breakfast show - oh yes, my moment of fame! I trundled down there for 7am and alked about blogging and Twitter, as well as did a newspaper review. I really enjoyed the whole experience - which wrapped up with a thought for the day.

I'm not religious so the "thought for the day" was a bit challenging. I decided to tie things in with what I'd talked about previously: Twitter. Let's face it, if there's anything I can waffle on ad nauseam, it's that. Below is an extended version of what I said.

My Thoughts on People

We live in our own little circle of friends, colleagues and family. Most of us will know perhaps a hundred people tops. The bulk of these will be superficial contacts: we might know anywhere from a handful to a couple of dozen quite well. Broadly speaking we will have quite favourable impressions of most of these. If you think of the people you know, I think most people would say they are anywhere from "okay" to "really quite nice".

Few of us know lots of people who are actually horrendous: there might be someone we dislike, perhaps even strongly; but on the whole the bulk of people most of us know are quite pleasant. I don't think too many of us know many people who we would categorise as actually dangerous, nasty or evil.

Despite this fact, we live in a world where we are taught to be cynical, suspicious and to fear. Although our own direct personal experience of other people we've met is broadly positive, most of us, I believe, subscribe to the view that anyone else "out there" whom we don't know is to be viewed with anything from mild suspicion, through cynicism, to outright hostility.

This view of the world is particularly reinforced by the media. Of course bad news sells: we gorge ourselves daily on stories of stabbings, con-artists, mini cab drivers who rape, the odd high profile murder etc. Even the day-to-day stories are pretty grim and pessimistic. We're thrown the odd scrap of a happy story, but you have to have to look for it amongst the onslaught of misery and depression. There have been a few attempts at "good news" newspapers: they invariably fall flat on their arses. No one is interested: we somehow want/need the daily dose of fear and worry. It is of course epitomised by the Daily Mail/ Fail/ Wail. It is really no small surprise, if as a result, we have the impression that the world is a horrible place and in particular that people are basically pretty shit.

However, in fact - I would contend - as you drive through a town, each and every house or flat will in fact be populated by someone remarkably similar to you and to your circle. The problem is we can't ever know this without knocking on their doors, going in, meeting them and having a cup of tea with them. They wouldn't of course let us in to their homes to do so, because we're a stranger, and as we know strangers are to be feared because they're potential nut-cases / robbers/ murderers etc. So we continue to live in our world where our circle is okay and everyone else is almost certainly not. How can my contention be proven?

Twitter offers an E-Cup of Tea

Enter Twitter, stage right. Twitter is people. It is simply a medium where people - for the most part complete strangers - come together. If you are a user of Twitter who has got to know people you didn't previously, ask yourself what your impression is of those you have encountered and got to know? I follow 1100 people on Twitter and speak regularly to hundreds. The medium offers me a snap shot into the lives of all sorts of people I would not otherwise come into contact with: in effect I am knocking on doors and having that e-cup of tea.

Some of these people are from a background I encounter anyway in my regular life; many are not. Twitter has shown me, for example, that people with whom I might have wildly differing political views, are not inherently "bad" people. I have developed a great deal of affection for one quite right wing woman who I only viewed as a "troll" at first. Yes, politically we could argue until the sun comes up, but I wouldn't hesitate to have her over for dinner, or a drink, and I know she is a really humane, decent person - as differing as our views are.

It's very human to dislike people in the "other team". We're incredibly tribal. When you're face to face, however, with someone from that other tribe (and can stop yourself from taking a dogmatic position) it is incredibly revealing. I don't tend to argue politics on Twitter any more: they won't change my mind and I won't change theirs: what it does is just lead to the reinforcement of stereotypes and hostility. When the British and German soldiers met in the trenches on Christmas Day 1914 to play soccer, they weren't arguing whose foreign policy was correct. They met as human beings - no longer faceless ones - and it was precisely for that reason that this was considered so dangerous by the High Commands. When you realise your combatant is a person rather like you - with a mother, a family, friends and a life - and not a faceless monster, you're not so keen to blow them into the next life.

The Trenches, Christmas 1914

Obviously Twitter isn't about killing each other. But it can be about exposing yourself to a broad range of people and if you're open to doing so, this can be extremely instructive. I talk to Christians: many gay people view them with a default setting of absolute hostility. I don't share their religious beliefs and sometimes their moral views, but I can tell you I really have forged some friendships here and have a lot of respect for people I didn't think I would. I talk to Muslims, to policemen, to housewives, to mothers, to 16 year olds, to taxi drivers, to theatre directors, to students, to QCs, to republicans, to nationalists, to Libertarians and to Marxists. The range of people you can access and get to know on Twitter is breathtaking.

What I've Learned

What I have come to realise is that Twitter can give us a very real insight into humanity. It literally does open doors that wouldn't otherwise be open. We can't in real life gain access to people's homes and lives, but on Twitter people are remarkably willing to share their thoughts, experiences, concerns and feelings. It teaches much more about all those people we don't know than picking up and reading a newspaper or watching a movie can.

And what are my impressions? Well I believe my contention is correct. Put simply, I am repeatedly overwhelmed by the simple warmth, kindness, goodness of almost everyone I encounter. People are good. They care for one another. They want to form friendships and have support networks. They enjoy laughing, socialising and sharing. This is not the Daily Fail vision of humanity. It is not the world of headlines of murderers, thieves and rapists. It is something much more mundane, but something so much better.

Yes, there's the odd bad apple (see previous blogs!) but they are in such a minority. I've tweeted well over 50,000 times: the number of falling outs and "nastiness" is perhaps 0.05% of that total. I always try to bear this in mind. If my sample on Twitter is broadly representative of people "out there" - which it must be - my conclusion is that the world is simply a much better place than we are led to believe... and tend to believe ourselves.

Thank you Twitter, and thank you all the people I talk to on it.

Can't help ending on this diamond ;-)

Munich

2011-12-16T14:26:00.000-08:00

I've done a "travel guide" before, but hey here goes. I'd like to tell you about my favourite city perhaps anywhere: Munich. I'm off there again on 1 January and it's the single city I probably visit most outside the UK.

First Experiences: Munich is Shite!

The first time I visited Munich I thought it was absolutely shit. I'd been inter-railing with my friend Nick in the summer of 1990: we were 19. After a full four weeks travelling around, three days in post-revolution Bucharest with nothing to buy except watermelons, bread and clothes pegs (the latter aren't that edible) had left us in quite a state. We caught the Istanbul Express from Belgrade to Munich overnight and slept in the corridor. I remember people stepping over my head, smoking all night long, and had the delights of waking up with the side of my face stuck to the floor as I'd rolled off my camping mat.

We got off at Munich Hauptbahnhof, put our least stinking clothes on, washed up a bit, and bought as much food as we could afford from a department store supermarket. I remember what then happened so clearly: I even know the place we were sitting devouring our rolls with processed sliced cheese, when an old man came up. He asked in German where we were from. I assumed he was begging and trying to get some food from us. I wasn't concentrating (there's a distinction between "kommen von" and "kommen aus" in German) and answered that we came from "Romania".

The lovely old Bavarian clearly thought we were starving Eastern Europeans and offered us the groceries he'd just bought. I was mortified and swiftly explained we'd *come* from Romania, but were English and had plenty of Deutsche Mark to buy ourselves some more processed cheese if we wanted it! Bless him, I felt awful for the way I'd dismissed this kindly generous guy out of hand.

The rest of the day was spent wandering round the main shopping street, missing all the sights, and catching a night train on to Paris. We probably bought some more rolls and cheese to fortify us through the night. That was Munich.

Munich: Let's Try Again

I then returned with a group of young Americans whom I was leading around Europe. We had a coach tour of the city with a local guide. I couldn't believe what I was seeing: we literally had missed everything. The city was beautiful: full of stunning architecture, beautiful green spaces, art galleries, history, markets and restaurants. It is classy as anything. The Munich people love to say it is an Italian city north of the Alps. Frankly, that's crap. I know Italy, and love Italy, and whilst elements of the Ludwigstrasse definitely have echos of Florence (quite deliberately) this is very much a German city in terms of architecture, cleanliness and "Ordnung".

The Italianate "Ludwigstrasse" with Alps behind

The people of the city may also be referring to the "laid back" attitude in the city. Again *ahem*. It is a little more chilled than say Hamburg, but far less so than scrappy-anything-goes Berlin. It is an efficient, clean, polished city of 1.4 million people with an incredibly high local GDP. Yes, people guzzle Bier and will happily sit round being sociable after work, but a city this wealthy did not come from a lot of hard work. Get on the U-Bahn at 7am and you'll see everyone on their way to work at Siemens, BMW, the publishing houses (it's second only to New York in terms of numbers), or the many insurance and reinsurance companies.

Schickie Mickies

The city is not just wealthy, it is by any standards a very egalitarian city. The unemployment level is around 4% and everyone seems well off. You see yuppies in their BMW cabrios (the so called "Schickie Mickies") everywhere and well dressed students (over 100,000 young Germans study here for €500 a semester fees) but remarkably few homeless. The city has been ruled by a Social Democrat/ Green Coalition for years. Massive amounts are invested in excellent, reliable public transport: fab retro teak lined subway trains from the late 60s and their gleaming brand new air-conditioned designer counterparts. You can ride 8km from one side of the city to the other, without touching a road once, on the network of cycle paths. And yes, both young and old people DO wear Lederhosen and Dirndls not for fancy dress (more later).

Oh, ze Lederhosen. Mein Gott.

You just get the sense of a very cohesive, comfortable, well off group of inhabitants. There are stacks of art galleries (the Alte Pinakothek is magnificent), 4 symphony orchestras, loads of museums - it is an extremely cultural city. Munich is supremely bourgeois, but in a sharp, trendy, "right on" way. The city is hugely gay-friendly, has almost 25% non-German population and its Jewish population is apparently back up to 1933 levels. The newly opened main synagogue in the centre of town is a testament to this: the six smaller ones were packed to overflowing, so a magnificent new one was opened on 9 November 2006.

The New Munich Synagogue

You also feel you're in a young city: there are so many youthful faces everywhere. The city is very liberal: in the summer people go to the city park (the "English Garden") and strip off over lunchtime and nude sunbathe. It's not pervy or weird: you'll see a mother having her picnic with her kids and a young couple nude sunbathing right next door. You'll also see the SURFERS all year round just close by. These dudes (and dudesses) can be seen all year round (wet suits in winter) surfing on some serious waves close to the US Consulate. The story goes that a GI from Hawaii stationed here after WW2 discovered the spot, but that is of course probably utter rubbish. In any case, I highly recommend stopping here, at the entrance to the English Garden and watching them do their stuff.

Bavarian Surfer Boys (*Skreeeem*)

The English Garden of course also houses Bier Gardens: they are all over the city and provide a "sitting room" for people with apartments to go and meet and be sociable. Apparently the average Bavarian drinks 46.5 gallons of beer per year. It is called "liquid bread" and covered by the oldest food purity law in the world. It is fooking lovely. Just watch the Wheat Beer: it packs a headache and hangover like none other. I'll only ever have one and then move to the regular Light or Dark Beer.

There are six big Munich breweries, all located within the city limits, as they have to be to take part in the Oktoberfest. In 1810 the Crown Prince got married and they had a huge party to celebrate. The people of Munich liked it so much they did it again in 1811 and have been doing so (with a couple of war related/ hyper inflation related interruptions) ever since. It begins in late September (one year it snowed in October, so they moved it forward), lasts 16 days and is the world's biggest beer drinking festival. The atmosphere is amazing: the whole city stops for 16 days as over 6 million visitors come to join in, visit the massive beer tents, drink over 14 million pints of beer, and have fun.

An outstanding Bavarian Balcony

People are merry, but not obnoxiously drunk. There are crazily fast fairground rides too - just what you want after drinking a few litre glasses of beer. I've been once: the gay tent was *incredible* - drunken Bavarian boys in Lederhosen up on the tables at 11am, with their shirts open, wearing cute little neckerchiefs, singing and locking arms. Wow. Just, erm, wow. If you want to go to Oktoberfest, be aware hotel prices are literally doubled and rooms sell out 6 months in advance. Ideally you should book no later than now (December 2011) for October 2012. The Oktoberfest brings a staggering €830 million into the local economy.

Munich of course has not always been the cosmopolitan fun place it now is. I read a description of the city in the winter of 1933 by that outstanding and sadly recently deceased travel writer, Patrick Leigh Fermor that sent shudders down my spine. It was the City of the Nazis: the "Brown City" (as opposed to the socialist stronghold of Berlin, the "Red City"). When Hitler arrived from Vienna he declared "Finally, a German City!". Vienna was much too international for his tastes. The old main synagogue in Munich was destroyed in June 1938, 5 months before the other German cities "did their bit". There are traces of the Nazi past all over the place: amazing fascist buildings that mysteriously all missed the Allied carpet bombing raids (6600 civilians died here, as opposed to 568 in Coventry). Around 75% of the city was destroyed, but the main buildings were later beautifully reconstructed, unlike in other German cities.

"Führerbau": where Chamberlain signed Munich Agreement

I could write on and on about the history of the place, before, during and after the Nazi period (the 1972 Olympics are fascinating: private sponsorship was *banned* and the city and state paid for everything) but I think I'd probably send you to sleep :( If you're into this stuff though, the city is a treasure trove of places to look up and is steeped in history.

Some Top Tips

Okay now it's time for some top tips of places to go if this has whetted your appetite to visit. My favourite hotel is a gorgeous little designer boutique place close to the historic area around the Hofbräuhaus. It is called Hotel Cortiina and is just loooooovely (click for link). It runs in at about €250 a night, so is not exactly cheap... if you want somewhere stylish, cheaper, and a little further out but in a beautiful quiet street, try Motel One (Deutsches Museum). It's around €85 for a double room, has an über-trendy bar and is still a design hotel despite the name.

My top meal recommendations are Sunday brunch at the Park Café (a former SS hangout and now mega trendy contemporary beer hall and jazz venue close to the Hauptbahnhof - the type of place the girls from Sex and the City would come to)... and a high end pizza restaurant called Riva Tal. The staff are just erm... well very decorative... and the food is literally better than any pizza I've ever had in Italy. If you really want to eat hearty Bavarian crap, there's plenty of it, and I guess I should recommend Weisswurst (apparently delicious white veal sausage, eaten only ever before 12 noon) - but as a veggie I'm just not going to. So suck it up.

In terms of sightseeing, the thing about Munich is it's quite small: 1.4 million inhabitants is not a lot and there aren't hundreds of big "sights" to see as in Paris or London. I love it precisely because the centre is so walkable. I can just stroll about, eat, drink, soak up the atmosphere and enjoy the place. I do enjoy the Residenz (the former Royal Bavarian Winter Palace in the centre of town), the Olympic Park is well worth a visit out to on the U-Bahn, and while you're there most definitely go to BMW World. It is free and even if you're not into cars, the architecture will blow you mind. It apparently cost half a billion Euro to build and they have old and new BMW cars and motorbikes to play about with.

BMW World with Olympic Tower/ Park behind

Make sure you also visit the Viktualienmarkt (the main food and flower market) and Dallmayr, a grocery store that is smaller, but I think a lot classier than the Harrod's Food Hall. Maximilianstrasse has the best shopping in town, along with the department store Oberpollinger which can give Harvey Nicks, a run for its money, dahling. Check out the Veuve Cliquot bar there. A totally zany recommendation is Wiesn Tracht which is run by a mad old Bavarian queen, his cohort of gorgeous girls, and sells Lederhosen and Dirndls. They will serve you champagne free of charge if you hang round long enough admiring the checked shirts. I go here *every* time I'm in Munich and buy something :)

The *actual* staff of Wiesn Tracht

Rounding Up

Okay, so I hope I've given you a litte taste of Munich? I've done a lot of travel. I adore it. I've been to a total of 63 countries around the world on 5 continents on my own travels. I've taken my groups of Americans to 178 towns & cities in 18 countries across Europe (yup, I keep an OCD style list).

I'm often asked what my favourite place is. It's really hard to answer: doesn't it depend what for? Of course I have places I love for nature, for beauty, for excitement, for relaxation... But of cities where I would chose to spend a weekend or even a week - or where I would consider having an apartment - three stand out for me: Amsterdam, Zurich and Munich. Of these three (I've lived in the first two) Munich is my all-time favourite.

If you haven't been, Oscar says you don't know what you're missing out on. Even *he* has been to Munich with me.

@LassieOscar on tour in Bavaria

Blogging

2011-12-08T06:20:00.000-08:00

It's just over 10 months since I started this blog and I've just reached a milestone (more of that later) so I thought I'd reflect a little about "blogging".

A Very Silly Word

First off, it is of course a pissingly stupid word. Apparently it's a portmanteau that blends "web log" and "we blog". Anything with the word "log" in it is bound to get my inner 4 old year giggling. Aside from that it implies some kind of diary or journal of the writer: I could not think of many things much more dreary. Blogging definitely had overtones of lonely teenagers pouring their thoughts out on their computers to me before I really grasped what they were. To be honest when I started on Twitter and saw people promoting their blogs I thought it a little self-indulgent. Who cared what this person had to say? Who cares what I have to say? If I bothered to write one, who exactly would read it anyway?

It really did take me a time to "get it". I dipped into some of the "big name" blogs like the brilliant @DavidAllenGreen and @_MillyMoo and found them informative and entertaining. These were "proper" writers who knew their stuff, though. They were explaining elements of law and current affairs in an accessible, interesting way. That is quite different to pip squeak me sitting here and pouring my uninformed thoughts out. In a state of quite a lot of annoyance during the student protests I did have a go at writing one blog kettling for LibCon. It was mildly terrifying sending it in and seeing it published, but it seemed to go down quite well. I also wrote a couple of pieces for Political Reboot. I was still some way from setting up my own blog though.

After Omi Died

Then my grandmother died. I heard the news from my Mutti when I was in the bath. I got out, set up a blogger profile and just poured my heart out. It remains the single post I'm most proud of. The link is here. It tells the story of a 26 year woman who packs her life onto a horse and cart, with my not yet 4 year old mother, in the bitter snowy cold of a Prussian winter, and flees for her life at the end of the Second World War. I was in a state of shock and desperately wanted to share her story. I tweeted it and it was retweeted. People read it and I was immensely touched, moved and grateful that they would bother to read the story of my Omi. I also wanted a permanent historic record for my own family in the future.

After Omi, I guess I just got hooked. But what exactly *are* blogs? Perhaps my favourite blogger, the brilliant Steven Baxter (@SteBax) described it in his published collection of blogs "Musings of a Monkey" in the following way. It is responding "to that nagging voice in your head that tells you to write because that's how you feel best at communicating." It's a "way of getting across what you want to get across at a particular moment, which may be something profound or something profoundly silly."

A SNITCH at £2.29: buy it!

That totally fits what was going on for me with Omi. I found it therapeutic, necessary, and comforting to write. It's a stream of consciousness. I never sit down and edit and reedit what I write. It just comes out. I find it very natural and enjoyable. I am painfully honest and open in my blogs: I rarely think of who might be reading and their reactions: I just "chuck it out". I know some of my history related blogs are probably a bit obscure to many people: I enjoy writing them, though, and am a bit of a frustrated wannabe teacher. If you don't like reading it, don't, is my theory.

That said, people do read my blogs. I'm frankly amazed and honoured that they do. There's no question that the kind of messages I receive from time to time keep me writing. If people told me it was a load of boring shite that I churn out (normally on a Saturday afternoon or a Sunday morning, once a week) I wouldn't bother.

I always enjoyed essay writing at school. My A-level history teacher Miss Cooper (she of the "Forget the "c" in Bismarck and you'll never have children" warning) taught me how to write essays properly and gave me lessons that stuck with me through university, law school and my later career. I'm very happy to do public talking and have had lots of experience at it, but writing is something else for me. I just love it. I'm slightly playful and put silly pictures in my blogs. I like them to be colourful and fun. I know the serious bloggers don't do this, but this is my blog, so sod it. As Steven Baxter comments, part of the enjoyment of blogging is there are no hard and fast rules to comply with.

A Personal Milestone

The milestone I was talking about earlier is 100,000 individual hits on the blog, which I passed this morning. The two most popular entries have been A Fake Belief (19,230 reads) which exposed the infamous "Lord Credo" as a liar and Twitter fraud; and The Perils of Twitter (14,200 reads) which was about a guy sending abusive lewd messages, plus more generally a warning about looking after your online safety. The "big" (for me) piece I wrote about my experience of living Ten Years with HIV is the third most read entry. Almost as popular were Scum: a furious piece I wrote about the reactions of the majority towards the actions of a minority during the riots; and How to use Twitter which is a bit of a tongue in cheek guide to our favourite medium.

I don't have anywhere near 19,000 or even 5,000 followers on Twitter. It means people are presumably retweeting links to my blogs or perhaps posting them on their Facebook pages. It really flatters me and if I'm honest makes me feel wanted that people will read my stuff. I hope you don't think I'm a dick for saying so. I know there are plenty of other blogs that get 100,000 hits a week. My "achievement" is nothing in the scheme of things, but it matters to me, so thank you.

Two You Might Have Missed

There are two more pieces I have written that didn't get many hits but which mean a lot to me. I'd just like to share them with you as they were a while ago and you might not have seen them. Boys in Girls Dresses is about my Dad and the somewhat amusing and quite inspiring way he reacted when I put on a dress when I six years old. Parents is about the time I called my Dad and told him I loved him. He died in 2000 and the memory of this still brings tears to my eyes. Please read it and do what I did.

Publicising a Blog

The last thing I'd like to say is I'm never sure how much to "push" a blog. I don't want to keep cluttering up people's timelines with a wanky egotistical "READ MY BLOG" tweet. On the other hand, there are many genuinely appreciate and kind responses and I know people come on line at different times of day. I'm grateful myself if I see a favourite blogger or friend promote their blog when I may have missed it the first or second time round. My rule is three tweets at different times on the day of publishing and that's it.

It is always possible, if the blogger has enabled the facility, to get email alerts of new posts from someone you enjoy reading on a regular basis. They don't see your email address (at least on Blogger which is what I use): google stores them and sends out alerts automatically.

Anyway, this whole thing is basically an explanation of why I blog and a thank you to anyone who has visited "The Blog That Peter Wrote". Given I hate the word "blog" so much I should probably come up with a better name like "Thoughts of a Teutonic Himbo" or some such. No, actually that's crap too :/ I'd also like to thank those who blog themselves for having touched, inspired, informed and moved me. You never know the power your words might have and the capacity to bring a smile.

Conceptualising Twitter

2011-12-04T04:35:00.000-08:00

How many times have I tried to explain Twitter to a non-user, got all over-excited and after a confusing 10 minute spiel I halfheartedly end up saying "Trust me, it's great". Cue indulgent, benevolent smile from friend and a discussion of the weather we're having...

I got an email this morning after my friend Janet from New Jersey joined Twitter. She knows how much I love Twitter from the hours of glee spent on my iPhone in hotel lobbies in Poland and the Czech Republic this summer together. She was wondering if I'd seen a particular tweet of hers (I hadn't) and needed an explanation of how Twitter differs from email or from a chat room; and in particular how tweeting generally differs to sending an @mention.

A Big Sports Hall

So, here is my analogy*. Imagine a big Sports Hall. Picture the kind of thing you have at a student freshers' or careers fair. There are stands everywhere, people are everywhere; some are handing leaflets out and some are walking round collecting and reading them. Most are doing both at various times. A tweet is a leaflet. It can contain anything: information, entertainment, a picture, a link to a blog or article - but it's short and limited in length to 140 characters.

When you walk in to the Hall you can go wherever you want. If you just stay at the door, you will have access to no leaflets at all. You need to jump in. Perhaps you have a friend you know who has a stall. You go over to them and pick up their leaflets and read them. Perhaps you see some of the big, noisy people who have a stand in the centre of the Hall in the limelight. They have have thousands of people picking up and reading their leaflets.

Twitter as a Giant Sports Hall

As you walk past a stall what will instantly attract your attention is the latest leaflet of the particular person there; however you may choose to look back at every previous leaflet they have stored on their table. These are freely available if you're interested enough. Some people aren't at their stalls and so aren't handing anything out right at this moment, but you can take a look at what they've said in the past if you wanted to. One way this differs to Facebook is the nature of the stands: people can't spend ages trying to make themselves look interesting with loads of pictures of themselves etc.. all they have is a table with a short bio, a single picture. What people are interested in are the leaflets they're handing out. You have little more to assess a person on: it's much more dynamic and instant than other social media.

Of course you are not going to walk to continually read leaflets about what people had for lunch. This is why that particular stereotype about Twitter is so absurd. Occasionally, yes, it is amusing to see that someone can't cook baked beans on toast, but it is going to take a lot more of interest than that for people to return to a stall frequently to see the most recent leaflets.

What you see on your walk around the Hall creates your timeline. You may choose to come back to a particular stall holder on a regular basis, in which case you can be said to "follow" them. In effect you make a mental note that they will be on your route around the Hall each and every time you visit. You might find their leaflets uninteresting after a while and decide to "unfollow" them. It's all very casual indeed. The people who have the most interesting or entertaining things to say naturally attract lots of people who happen to visit their stall.

What makes things quite chaotic, and fun, is the element of people not just handing out leaflets, but the same people wandering round also collecting them and reading themselves. It's crazy in here, with leaflets strewn all over the floor and a hugely fast interchange of thoughts and ideas. The more stalls you visit, the faster the pile of leaflets you grab and have to read piles up. Some you will just flick through, others will really interest you. You can choose just to stick to visiting one or two stalls, in which case your visit (your timeline) will be much calmer; or you can run round grabbing loads of leaflets and being up to your neck in it in the high energy, high speed world that can be Twitter.

Masses of information: masses of fun

You can choose to return to the Hall whenever you like, and as often as you like. Some people seem to live in here (*puts own hand up*... others visit for a short time maybe a couple of days a week). Certain times in the Hall are busy. Other times are much quieter (e.g. 3am when most stall holders are home asleep). It's important to note that any given moment when a person is handing out their leaflet, and if even they know 2000 people regularly visit your stall, they've no idea exactly which of their regular visitors will happen to be passing by at the time, and who will later come along and flick through their recent leaflets. Just because a leaflet is produced it does not mean every regular visitor will read it, at all.

This is the critical way it differs from email. If a stall holder therefore wants to make sure a specific person they know reads their leaflet, they have to pop it in an envelope and drop it over directly to the other person's stand. You do this on twitter by putting the name (eg. @pme200) in a tweet and it will appear in the @mentions section of the other person's timeline. The recipient may be at their stand and see the leaflet there and then, or perhaps later when they return to their stall if they are out of the Hall at the time.

The leaflet with someone's name on it, although addressed to them, is public. Anyone can read it - people who visit both your stall and theirs are highly likely to see it - but also anyone who feels so inclined and is looking through a pile of previous leaflets can read it. Again this is very different to the privacy of email. To deal with this Twitter also has direct messages which are more akin to actually mailing a confidential letter through the post to your friend's home address.

If someone really likes something you say they can shout out "Guys look at this" and hand your leaflet to anyone who passes their stall ("retweeting"). If that person has lots of regular visitors then your leaflet will get much more attention than just its exposure to the small number of people who visit your stall. In this way you might also attract new visitors who didn't previously know you to your stand and you'll be added to their route.

Twitter isn't just about either reading leaflets or writing them. It's also about responding to people's leaflets and this is where it's huge attraction is to me. In the mêlée of your handing out your leaflets, and picking up other people's and reading theirs, you can also respond by scribbling down messages of up to 140 characters on a leaflet and dropping it on their stand. Frequently this is just a two-way interchange, but remember everything (except direct messaging) that goes on in the Hall is public. Anyone else who is interested can chip in and a 3 way or even 4 way conversation can follow. It's not a chat room with hundreds of people watching whatever is said on a single stage though; the stage is just the area around your respective stalls with whoever happens to be walking by at the time.

Sometimes you have angry, annoying people who will come by your stall to cause trouble. Fortunately this happens relatively rarely. They are called "trolls" and they probably don't follow you (i.e. visit your stall regularly). They just want a fight, normally about politics. Fortunately Twitter provides an invisibility cloak à la Harry Potter. Chuck it over them ("block") and they can make as much noise as they like, you won't be able to see them or hear them.

Trolls: how we LOVE them!

The Hall is quite high-tech. There's a central stand where you can do a deliberate search for any given subject matter and every leaflet mentioning it right now, or that has ever mentioned the term, will appear. That explains how someone looking for say things specifically connected to Robin Hood Airport would chance on an obscure joking leaflet written weeks before that was only read by a handful of visitors to a particular stand and which had no wider circulation than that.

Searching is another way of finding interesting stands to visit on a regular basis, or just see what people are saying on a subject at a given time. Because it is public, if someone does a search and you've included that word on a leaflet, your leaflet will pop up. Anything you have direct messaged however, will still remain secret.

There are a few refinements to the above to mention too (thanks, @BrianInkster). A person can protect their tweets. This means only people they decide are allowed to may visit their stand and take a look at their leaflets. However, those people can still manually copy their leaflets (they'd have to do this one by one) and republish them on their own paper. Also, a few people choose to Twitwipe. What this means is they can delete all their old leaflets by putting them in a shredder. However, if anyone took a copy (a screenshot, akin to a photocopy) the leaflet will not be entirely gone.

Why On Earth Would You?

So given the description of chaos above (remember the Hall has tens of millions of people in it worldwide), why on earth would anyone even chose to enter the Hall? Well, information is valuable, it's fun, it's entertaining. You may find out news quicker than the usual channels. You'll get people's perspectives and opinions on the information. Those big name stall holders are here in person. You can send them a leaflet and they may respond and interact with you personally. You have no idea where they live privately, so this is a rare opportunity for public access.

You meet all sorts of ordinary people you don't know. By and large the atmosphere in the Hall is friendly, welcoming, and fun. You're never on your own in the Hall. If you've woken up with insomnia or are stuck with hours to kill, pop into the Hall, read some leaflets, respond to some, and write some of your own. Twitter is people: that is all it is. Many are kind, funny, supportive and far far nicer than you might ever have imagined. It brings people together and in a very effective, safe, modern day medium and it fulfills the most basic need that we all have for social interaction.

And if that hasn't convinced you.... well, just trust me, it's great, okay? *sighs*

NOW if you've got this far and want to know more... check out my Guide on How to Use Twitter (click link) which is actually probably more suited to intermediates than absolute beginners, but which I hope will be of interest!

* Any analogy can be pulled apart. Be kind to me! At the end of the day Twitter IS Twitter, nothing else. I just hope this helps.

And welcome Janet, @heyugly6. LOVE your avatar, this post is for you. Now visit some other stands: there are so many lovely, interesting people on here that you will get on great with!

Keeping Our Borders Safe

2011-11-29T04:54:00.000-08:00

As tomorrow's day of action happens one element of media reporting has perked my interest. Repeatedly I have seen attention focused on the striking Border Agency workers. They make up around 18,000 of the 2.5 million estimated workers to be taking part in the action: some 0.07% of the total. There are an awful lot of other essential workers going on strike: some 57,000 NHS patients could be affected with operations cancelled, almost 90% of schools in England and Wales will close, libraries, museums, leisure centres, local government offices will be shut, the courts may well be affected, the tunnels and ferries across the Mersey will close etc etc. There will be a lot of disruption to millions of people in this country... yet, the "threat to our borders" seems to be taking top billing.

Look for example at this from the Guardian (at the time of writing, no 2 story on their website):

This is FAB emotional media stuff. Any mention of "bringing in the army" is always designed to highlight the absolute seriousness of a situation. Think back to the riots in the summer and the calls to "bring in the army". It appeals to the dramatic sense that these are the last defenders of order: we are one step away from chaos, disaster, and only the army can save us. It resonates with the calling of the Army into Northern Ireland or the imposition of martial law around the world. When the Police or other public services cannot cope, the army will prevail. Look too at this, again from the Guardian:

Dirty Bombs, Radiation and Nuclear Material

"Dirty bombs"... "Radiation"... "nuclear material"? Is this for real? Do people believe this is a serious, credible likelihood of one day's not checking passports? What exactly is going on here? There are different possible interpretations. On the one hand this could be seen as an attack on the reckless unions for putting us all at danger of nuclear attack by being so selfish as to argue for a better pensions deal. Given it is a lefty newspaper, another possibility is that it is seeking to portray the Government as willing to risk the safety of our land and borders because it will not budge. A third interpretation is that this is simply the classic driver of so much in our lives: FEAR.

Fear sells. Fear grips people. When I look at the stories about "keeping our borders safe" I somehow imagine Fortress Britain under siege from foreigners. There are terrifying people seeking to scale our walls - millions of them who would burst in to our country at a moment's notice if we let our guard down for *one* second. They'd either be bringing in their dirty bombs, or there would be millions of grubby little brown faces storming our fair green island looking for jobs or claiming benefits. Our borders must be KEPT SAFE and they must be KEPT OUT.

We saw this so clearly during the attack on Theresa May - she had apparently committed one of the worst sins possible: the BBC reported that the Home Secretary admitted she "did not know how many people came into the UK without proper checks". A bit like the Trojan Horse, instantly we imagine who got inside our safe haven, and is now wandering around, ready to attack us. Look at this from the Mirror: hundreds of thousands of people may have entered the UK without critical anti-terrorist vetting:

Labour of course took this up with gusto. They attacked her for giving the "green light for weaker controls" and attempted, in the usual depressing way in British politics, to score political points. Yes there are very good grounds for having done so on the point about her not being in control of her own ministerial area of responsibility; this however became a more simplistic point about her having put OUR COUNTRY AT RISK. Such a point of course resonates with voters and there is no doubt the Tories would have done the same the other way round. The narrative is always the same: there is a "list of terror fanatics" who want to get in and moreover "strong borders" will stop them. She dropped the ball and now we're all in danger. Is any of this true, reasonable or balanced however?

What Are Borders?

First a bit of historic background. Up until World War One it was possible to travel from St Petersburg to Land's End without showing a passport. The passport, in essence a feudal permission to move away from your immediate place of residence, granted by your overlord, had disappeared and border controls had been abandoned with the advent of the railways. Despite fears that the "Irish would be moving all over the country" the railways had now caused widespread social breakdown in the UK or elsewhere. Before WW1 paranoia that German tourists on holiday drawing sketches of the Dover cliffs were actually spies led to the Official Secrets Act 1911. Similar fears on all sides later led to the imposition of border controls across Europe.

Borders are artificial things. We humans have drawn them on maps. The local Dutch and Low German dialects on both sides of the border where my Mutti grew up are the same. The border between the two has developed artificially, historically and politically. It culminated at a certain point in a long barbed wire fence and two officials checking a piece of paper that determined if you could cross or not. I do not need a passport to go from Mossband in Cumbria to Gretna in Scotland, yet I needed one to travel the 10 minutes from Freilassing in Bavaria to Salzburg in Austria. Arguably the latter two are far closer from a cultural and historical perspective. A bird flying overhead wasn't stopped, but I was. We've made these things up. They are, in my opinion, social constructs to control/ check and constrain people's freedom by the State.

If that is true, the next question is to ask if the inconvenience they involve is proportionate, whether they serve their purpose, and where exactly we should have them. Isn't it a fair question to ask why people are free to travel from Norfolk into Suffolk without the State demanding a piece of paper from me to make sure I'm permitted to? Let's face it HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people crossed the River Waveney last month without any anti-terrorist vetting. That is a fact. Literally anything may have been transported down the A140 with *no* checks.

The United States is well over 2000 miles wide. There are 3.79 million square miles you can travel about in without showing your passport (the whole of the UK is a tiddly 94,500 square miles by comparison). Liechtenstein on the other hand is 15 miles long and 6 miles wide. It had its own border controls until very recently. Because of these passport controls am I correspondingly far safer in Liechtenstein than in the UK, and again far more so here, than in the US? Think about this critically: at what point geographically do we impose travel checks? Should movement of 15 miles be controlled? Or 100 miles? Or 500 miles? Or is it okay to have border free areas of 2000 miles? At what point do we lose a grip on safety and security by not having State check points every X distance?

Am I being a Dick?

You quite possibly think I'm being a dick for somehow belittling the incredibly serious threats that face us. Such threats are much more serious in the modern age than they were before 1914. You may not question the fact it is entirely obvious we need "strong borders" to keep our threats from abroad: both terrorists and migrants.

I actually, however, have problems with believing that people are queuing up outside Britain, specifically, ready to attack - or indeed to migrate to this land of milk, honey and freely available work and benefits for all illegal immigrants. I think it is actually a bizarre, unsustainable, fear-driven notion. I would like to know where the evidence for it is, other than in these sweeping headlines and unchallenged assumptions. I think that what borders do is to cause real hassle and inconvenience to the hundreds of millions of absolutely innocent, peaceful people who wish to travel around - rather than stopping a tiny minority of people who may or may not be trying to use mainstream ports of entry to come into this country.

With ever increasing numbers of people travelling internationally, attempts to keep up "vigorous checks" are, I believe, completely unsustainable. The passport lines for EU travellers at Heathrow or Gatwick are unmanageable: no wonder biometric checks on European nationals and warnings index checks on children for the EU were "abandoned" for a period this summer. So what? To me it is a massive non-story. People working in this field, far better informed than I, took this decision because the attempts to man the walls of Fortress Britain in this way are in fact impossible.

Schengen Area

It is in large part the practical impossibilities of controlling the movements of the majority that led to the creation of the Schengen zone. It covers twenty states including several outside the EU (e.g. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland) and functions like a single state for international travellers. You are subjected to a passport control when you first enter (just as in the US) and then can travel round an area of 400 million people without a single internal border.

There is a single visa to enter for non-EU nationals that require one: there is no free immigration for everyone: there are still checks for those coming from outside. Of course anyone applying for a job then needs to show they have the necessary permit, so it is not allowing 3 billion Chinese or Indians to just come over and settle - even if they had the money for the fare or inclination to do so (which seems to be the assumption in all immigration related matters).

Schengen Area in Blue; Applicant States in Green

I recently took the train from Budapest to Vienna. The first time I did so, in the summer of 1989, we were held at the border: penned in like sheep whilst guards checked our visas, our police stamps, under our seats and in our bags. Nowadays we simply crossed without a single check and the train didn't stop. Even between Germany and Holland I remember passport checks very clearly: now there is simply a sign indicating the name of the village and you're in the next country.

Is the whole of the massive Schengen area *really* less safe for the lack of passport checks? Has this nightmarish anarchistic creation led to millions of people travelling the continent freely committing crime, transporting "dirty bombs", nuclear weapons, radioactive material and/or claiming benefits - or any of the other evils that our "vigorous checks" supposedly prevent? That is the risk we seem to think will occur if our external borders are left unmanned. The answer is of course not: look at the evidence of the past 16 years of operation across the countries involved. 400 million of our nearest neighbours live within a huge no-passport zone quite safely, quite happily.

House of Lords Committee Reports

Don't take my word for it either: the House of Lords have twice considered in great detail the operation of Schengen. The first report was in 1999. The committee listened to expert evidence from the Intelligence Services, the Police, Border Staff, civil servants and the government.

Here are some key points:

The (then Tony Blair) government had made its position on maintaining frontier checks clearly and repeatedly and left the Lords under no doubt of their conviction on this
The Lords said that they did not believe the status quo of border checks "remains a long term option". The steadily increasing numbers of people entering the UK necessitates closer cooperation with other Governments, "as all our witness made clear"
The Government's main arguments for keeping passport checks were they prevented clandestine immigration and prevented crime. They doubted other Schengen States would police the external border to "our standards" and that our island geography made our case "special" [never mind Iceland of course]
The Government however "failed to convince" the Lords committee that "systematic border control as currently practised is the most effective use of resources to control illegal immigration or is focused on the main sources of illegal immigration"

Just look at that last bullet point. It could not be clearer. The report considered whether Johnny Foreigner could actually carry out passport checks on non-EU nationals on our behalf and concluded quite clearly: "We believe that in the three major areas of Schengen - border controls, police cooperation and visa/ asylum/ immigration policy that there is a strong case in the interests of the United Kingdom and its people for full UK participation".

Okay. The facts here are that we, like all countries, face terrorist threats. Here's a bit of a scary thought to those who like to keep the idea up of our "strong border" though - I'm pretty sure I'm correct in saying every single terrorist attack to date has either comes from home-grown (i.e UK) terrorists or from the Republic of Ireland (part of our Common Travel Area). People INSIDE this country come up with these plans and manufacture these weapons. Border and passport checks do absolutely nothing to stop them. Alternatively they import weapons from outside, but you can be pretty sure they will get them into the country if they want to. They do not bring them in their suitcases through Heathrow on a flight from Paris. In the same way, as the Lords found having heard the evidence, the major ports of entry are not the source of illegal immigration into this country. They get through anyway.

What keeps this and every other developed country as safe as they are is in fact the work of intelligence services and the Police within the country. However, the really serious criminals operate internationally, so our own intelligence services require the help also of others abroad. Part of Schengen is an incredibly detailed and sophisticated pooled resource for gathering information on serious crime. It is called the "Schengen Information System". It is far more appropriate to the modern world than one country seeking to stop terrorism on its own, by checking and looking at each and every person's passport at Dover. The Lords looked at this again in 2007:

The Schengen Information System, and its development into a second generation system are matters of the highest relevance to this country
We believe this is understood by the police, the prosecuting authorities, and all those involved in the combating of serious cross-border crime. They appreciate the benefits to be derived from this country's participation in the information system
We are less sure that this is fully understood by the Government. They are content not to participate in the current SIS, and likewise content that the UK should be one of the last countries to participate in SIS II. We find this hard to reconcile with their stated commitment to fighting cross-border crime

WOW, again, right?

Now what I'm wondering is, how many people reading this blog even knew that the House of Lords had looked at these questions in such detail and come to such clear conclusions? The Government (then Labour, don't expect the Coalition to be making any changes either) are pandering to the "Fortress Britain" narrative without any actual objective ability to conclude that we are in fact safer for it. The Dutch relied on cutting the dykes when the Germans invaded during WW2. It had worked against the Spaniards in the 16th century; the Germans just flew over in May 1940 and dropped in paratroopers.

Just because the populist view out there follows the narrative set out time and time again that "the security of our borders" is the country's top priority and will be protected by systematic passport checks, it does not mean the Government should ignore the evidence for political reasons, does it?

Summary

There are 4 things going on here: 1) I have yet to see any evidence that there are in fact hundreds of dragons and foreign armies all around us, singling out Britain, trying to get inside our castle; 2) Even for the odd few there might be lurking from time to time, our castle walls are already screwed: you can walk round the back and so checking everyone at the drawbridge won't keep out the bad guys; 3) We've got our own bad guys from within the castle community, so the walls won't help against them; 4) We're relying on a medieval defence system in an age where we should using the modern tools at our disposal.

The key to keeping our community safe would be to pull down the walls, allow all of us peaceful folk to travel about freely - and rely on our security services, with the best information available to them (which they currently do not have because of the insistence that they waste their time manning the drawbridge) - to ensure our safety.

That is looking at the matter mainly from a Schengen perspective. From a wider more libertarian type perspective, however, should there be any borders or border controls in this world? Should the EU still have visa restrictions at least for countries at the same stage of economic development? Why can't I go and live in the US, Australia or Canada if I can move to Germany or Sweden? At least why can't I travel there without having to queue up for ages with a silly little passport that an official checks? As the world becomes an increasingly smaller, more integrated, more coherent whole I believe there is a lot to be said for the great Labour politician Ernest Bevin's view:

"My foreign policy is to be able to take a ticket at Victoria and go anywhere I damn well please."

10 Year Anniversary: Some Reflections

2011-11-27T03:25:00.000-08:00

It was 10 years ago I was diagnosed at that grotty little clinic in Regent's Park. I've written about all that in a previous entry: please do read if you haven't already by clicking here. This is just a series of unimportant, random little reflections since posting that blog in September.

The same day of my HIV test, my colleague and best friend at work Lisa had a breast cancer scan result. We'd joked in our usual vacuous and flippant way about the possible outcomes: what combinations of "Sad Face and Happy Face" would it be for us? As it turned out is was "Happy Face" for Lisa and "Sad Face" for me. Lisa was the first person I told, immediately after leaving the clinic. I've still got the card she gave me the next day: dated 28 November 2001.

There are some private jokes in it, but here goes:

Peter,

Life begins here! Enough (already) of the self-doubt... start dancing... become a Forum groupie.. give a free rein to your perverse & utterly unacceptable sense of humour... throw caution to the wind... be my friend forever... let's get drunk soon & go shopping together... here's to lattes & jokes no one else finds funny.... down with people who frown on colour analysis and shudder at the "c" word... just think the world is now your oyster (if in doubt, use a cliché.)

All my love

Lisa Xx :-)

PS Pls use the enclosed to find someone who can help you on the path to total self-fulfilment (a professional that is!)

PPS Just ask "What is really great about this situation...?" I have concluded that all self-help gurus are total c*nts.

What actually wonderful words (hah, especially the last sentence, which I'll come on to).

I think back now to what I was going through then and the ten years that have passed. I have tried to do what Lisa suggested. I did leave a career that was destroying me inside and have tried to put the self-doubt behind me. I have many, many things to be grateful for in life. I have the dog I always wanted and who gives me the most absurd amount of happiness every day. I have continued to travel, I have made many wonderful new friends. It's true I have not found anyone to love on a proper basis since the long term relationship that preceded my diagnosis. Is this anything to do with my status? Really, I don't think so. The biggest stress in my life comes from the dream I want to fulfill regarding my work and the risks I have taken to do that. Again nothing to do with HIV.

All in all, apart from (major caveat of) the work situation, I'm in an incredibly good space. It's been a pretty great ten years. I never believed it would be possible on that bleak day back in November 2001. I'm well physically. I'm well emotionally. I'm doing what we all do, plodding on through life: learning, laughing, living.

I wanted to get a difficult balancing act over in my blog: I want to continue to stress how important it is to protect yourself by not contracting HIV. I don't want in any way to minimise the effect it can have picking up the virus. I therefore deliberately mentioned the time I gave up all hope and tried to end things by shoving a bag over my head. I don't want people thinking "Oh you just pop some pills, it's okay, let's forget to protect ourselves" - so many young people, straight and gay, do seem to have this attitude. On the other hand, I wanted to show that there is a huge amount of hope and positivity (cringe) about being positive. A diagnosis is not the end of your life.

Publishing my blog was a massive step for me. I was terrified of the reactions. I'd actually thought about it for months before hand. Several friends on and off Twitter warned me off doing it: or at least tried to make sure I was aware of the consequences. People I know in real life follow me on here who didn't know my status, including two people I work with. I sent the link to my big brothers who also didn't know: I'd only told Mutti. The blog explained things better than I could in a call, though we obviously spoke after they'd read it. I was also of course throwing myself open to complete strangers as well as people who knew and interacted with me through Twitter. What would their judgements be like? I was scared of nastiness, misunderstanding, judgmentalism.

So how were those reactions? Amazing. Touching. Beautiful. I was in "Twitter Jail" twice, trying to respond to the incredible wave of love that flooded towards me after publishing it. I had around 1000 @ messages plus a raft of DMs. People I knew from Twitter, whom I didn't know were HIV+, told me about their status. I picked up a couple of new followers who had been recently diagnosed. People told me about friends or family members who had died of Aids (there have been 19,912 in the UK to date). I helped a Twitter friend who was scared he might be positive by talking with him on the phone about getting tested (he's fine as it turns out, though I had a couple of sleepless nights). I've been asked to hold a World Aids Day student talk at Essex University next Thursday.

One of the most touching things was that people said I'd explained things to them and increased their knowledge about the condition. If that is helping with the stigma so many HIV+ people feel, in whatever limited way, then I am delighted and it was worth it. We will only deal with stigma by putting our heads above the parapet and showing yes I'm one of those faceless statistics: the 90,000 or so people in the UK living with HIV. A lot of people opened up to me and friendships were deepened. This happens when you stop talking about the weather and are instead open and honest about things that really matter. I am actually so glad I pressed publish - it helped me to write the blog, and by publishing it I feel a weight lifted from my shoulders. It is amazing and heart-warming to think it may have helped anyone.

Lisa (jokingly) quoted a self-help course we had both been on in her card (the Landmark Forum, which is outstanding and the lessons of which I know we both still use daily 14 years later). One of the exercises is stepping back and asking "What is great about this bad situation?" It is -literally- comical to ask that the day after you've been diagnosed with HIV. However today on 27 November 2011, looking back, I have to say an incredible amount of things: going through this horrendous experience has put me in a very different place today.

Life is a long path of learning. I know, like everyone, I still have a long way to go. I want to hide sometimes - just scream "enough, just please stop" when the challenges come up and I want for it all to stop, to feel safe again. But I do really believe that the biggest breakthroughs present themselves in the context of the biggest breakdowns. This may sound the oddest thing to say, but if a genie offered me three wishes today, being negative again would not be one of them. I don't feel HIV has a power over my life, and there are simply other hopes and dreams for myself and others that I would put above that wish.

Thank you for reading this, thank you everyone who sent me messages of support or who retweeted by original blog. I really am extremely grateful.

Peter x

A Lying Tory Bear?

2011-11-23T11:41:00.000-08:00

Tory Bear is the pseudonym of the man who now goes by the Twitter name @MrHarryCole. He is the man behind the #KerryOut hashtag which, in the words of the Guardian, was an online campaign by the big beasts of the Tory blogosphere (Guido, Dale, Tory Bear) that offered "smirking expletives, pre-emptive celebrations and bodily-fluids gags" against the Labour Bristol East MP Kerry McCarthy during the last General Election. Cole is the news editor of the right wing Guido Fawkes Blog and UK Political Editor of The Commentator website.

He is also a tweeter who today engaged in what I consider to be an extraordinary act of misleading people aimed at another blogger, Tim Ireland (@bloggerheads). Looking at their respective timelines Cole and Ireland have been engaged in a very public and personal spat. I know nothing of the background to this, but Cole claims in his timeline he was emailed photos that were fake as part of an "attempted sting". The whole exchange is there for anyone interested in it to read.

What interests me, however, are these two tweets. They simply speak for themselves:

The meaning of this is very clear. The second part of the sentence is the key part - the allegation is that Cole is "protecting a bastard" who has apparently been targeting Tim Ireland's wife and family.

The tweet was then taken by Cole and retweeted in the following form:

The meaning? Again in my view it could not be clearer. If you were one of Cole's 12,171 followers (who had also happened not to have seen Ireland's original tweet) you would naturally think that Ireland (@bloggerheads) had alleged that Cole has been targeting Ireland's wife and family.

Having amended the tweet to completely change its meaning, Cole then responds to the allegation, which he has himself fabricated, by denying it. He then throws in a personal insult, as his style, for good measure.

What of it? Well it is one thing to have differences of political opinion on Twitter. But to actually change someone's words in a brazen misleading way to score points, and to then send this completely misleading tweet out to your thousands of followers? It's pretty low. It does absolutely nothing to get over any form of constructive political argument. And it's quite likely to be defamatory towards Ireland.

Of course it's possible that Cole "innocently" amended the tweet because there wasn't space to put his insult about Ireland's wife in the 140 characters... and that therefore this wasn't a deliberate attempt to mislead. However, reading these two tweets I can't myself help thinking that Tory Bear is not just a bully boy with lots of followers, who likes insulting those he disagrees with, but that he's also a misleading, dishonest liar.

No wonder Sarah Ditum of the Guardian commented on Cole's behaviour previously:

"This is the sort of tiresome nasty-party stuff that the Tories are officially keen to leave behind, but that dominates in many of their vigorous internet representatives."

Remembrance Sunday and Germans

2011-11-13T06:31:00.000-08:00

I'm just back from our little Suffolk town's Remembrance Sunday service. The war memorial is brilliantly looked after, with family names of people from the town I recognise, who still live here, on it. I remember people in the 1980s saying that the whole culture of remembrance would die out. I'm personally very glad to see that seems to be far from the case.

Our family was/is completely non-religious and we never went to church except today - it wasn't about the religious act, it was about having a forum and an event to remember. It was particularly important to us as my father was in the British Army and served in three armed conflicts (not including Northern Ireland). My mother was very nearly a 23 year old widow a year into her marriage because of a mortar attack on my father in Aden in 1964.

Beautiful, well attended Remembrance Sunday in my town

Remembrance Sunday was also very poignant for us precisely because Mutti is German. My grandparents literally fought on opposite sides in WW2. My English grandfather had also served in the horrendous conditions of the trenches of WW1, one of the millions injured by German fire and invalided home. This is quite an odd thing to grow up getting your head round. It's something I share with plenty of other Anglo-Germans of course.

My German great uncle Walter was in the Afrikakorps and a British prisoner of war (he always spoke highly of the "Tommies" btw). Another German Great Uncle, Heini, thought the War was a struggle for right and wrong between Germany and the Soviet Union. He was sure Germany would win and did not want people afterwards to ask what he'd done, and to say "nothing". He was 18, literally a kid, when he died outside Kiev in 1943. His last letter home, just before Christmas, told how terrified he was to go out on patrol into the dark winter.

Amongst the first words of Father Andrew at our town ceremony was a call to remember the fallen, to call for peace and to celebrate the "reconciliation amongst peoples" - the former foes. This has always seemed to me the complete nub of the matter.

The British Press

It's precisely for all of the above I am so sickened and fed up of recent items that have appeared in the British Press. First we had the Daily Mail talking about the "Rise of the Fourth Reich" and Germany conquering Europe in the context of the financial crisis. This has been going on for several months now. They don't even have the historic knowledge to realise that a Gauleiter was a regional, not national, leader when they call Angela Merkel it.

Then came the Daily Express with its "Germany warns of War of Europe" headline, which was the most perverse distortion of Dr Merkel's speech to the Bundestag imaginable. I don't want to send any traffic to either newspaper to boost their advertising stats: you'll have believe me. I wrote in passing about the Express two thirds of the way down this blog. This is a small but typical selection of the reader comments:

We also had the Church of England News publishing that absurd article about the "Gaystapo" and the "Gay Wehrmacht" - utterly devoid of any intellectual value, but so telling that the silly homophobic author chose to frame it in such language. In passing I'd like to think that gay people will not fall for the same bigotry and prejudice in tarring all Christians with the same brush as the individual who wrote it.

Here we are 70 years on and some British appear still to be fighting a war that ended in 1945. At school I regularly had kids who would give Hitler salutes. I had swastikas drawn on my desk in the 1980s in Hampshire. The fact I was born here, am a British citizen and my dad had actually risked his life serving 23 years in the British Army? Never mind. When I was 19 at work on a gap year in Schleswig-Holstein the managing director of the company stopped me in the corridor. Could I explain why the Sun had a headline "We beat them in 1945 and 1966, we'll beat them again" about the 1990 World Cup semi-finals? I couldn't really and it was actually quite mortifying for me. A few months later a letter arrived from one of the company's British dealers - it had the words "Did some old Nazi do this on purpose?" in it with reference to a faulty product that had been exported to the UK. Again all I could do was be desperately embarrassed on behalf of my father's country.

As someone who is half English and half German, and who has lived in both countries for many years (the first 12 were almost exclusively in Germany), I have -never- experienced overt prejudice or taunts for being half English in Germany. All of the prejudice I've had directed towards me has been related to my being half-German and it is British people who do it.

What is Actually Going On?

What seems to be going on for some/many* British people I think (*delete according to how generous you're feeling) is something like this:

We're jealous of Germany. How comes they still have a manufacturing industry, make excellent cars, washing machines, have a huge trade surplus, have superb high speed affordable trains that work, and are so wealthy compared to us? Also, why DO they always beat us at soccer?
The reason we're jealous is actually when it comes down to it, we are well aware of how pants we are. In essence we feel quite inferior. Germany is perhaps the only European country we don't actually look DOWN on, if we're honest. It's not like the rest of the "continentals" whom we can dismiss with some amount of mirth.
At the same time, however, we also think/know we're superior. This is utterly contradictory, of course, but an inferiority complex can quite often be bundled up with a superiority one. It also doesn't matter, because at the end of the day WE WON THE WAR.
Because WE WON THE WAR (but still feel jealous/inferior) we must bring this up at every opportunity to put the Germans in their place. (Never mind that almost 90% of German military casualties were on the Eastern Front and even with our terrible losses Britain suffered 2% the deaths the Soviet Union did - that's not how we teach history and it's definitely not what our movies will show, ever.)

There is quite a fundamental problem with the last proposition however - apart from the fact the Germans are well aware from their perspective where WW2 was lost/won. It is essentially that the Germans tend to find the British obsession with "the War" actually genuinely puzzling: it certainly doesn't put them in their place to bring it up. It just makes Britain (for whom most Germans have quite a lot of inherent respect) look faintly ridiculous. Basil Fawlty needn't have said "Don't mention the War" to be polite: it's not polite to avoid it so much as to avoid a pretty sincere "huh?"

[My Twitter buddy @mynameisedd, who has a refreshingly younger person's take on all this (he's 17), has since put this to me as a young German person would probably react to a WW2 comment in much the same way we would if a French person came running up to us shouting "1066! 1066!" - I rather like this analogy. Another might be an American expecting us to be offended or put down by mentioning 1776. Would we care?]

Germans genuinely don't understand why anyone would bring up the War in the context of a sporting event, much less so in the context of their Chancellor making a historic speech in the very serious situation of impending economic meltdown. Merkel's speech was about the need for Germans to assume their special responsibility, because of their history, and to reach into German tax-payers' pockets, to ensure that conflict doesn't arise again in Europe. In case you're wondering, that is how many Germans see the overriding reason for the existence of the EU: something the Brits continually fail to see themselves. For that to lead to the Express headline? Wow, just wow.

It's Not Just the Tabloids

This reaction is not because the Germans have no sense of humour. The appearance of 'Allo 'Allo dubbed into German was I think a seminal moment for the country. Similarly there have now been several home grown comedies about Hitler in recent years. This is a very healthy development for a country that is acutely aware of its special responsibility to learn from the past, but which has moved on and is now in a very different place.

This isn't about humour at all - which of course the British can do brilliantly and which I personally greatly enjoy. This is about deliberate, nasty, and apparently acceptable racism and prejudice. And it also isn't limited to the Tabloid Press. Their regular anti-German attacks are, incidentally, reported on in the German press and are generally met with a weary expression rather than any indignation.

Take a look at this. It appeared two days ago in the Guardian. The (slightly misquoted) German at the end is from 1861 (yep, 150 years ago) by the nationalist Emanuel Geibel. It means the "May the world enjoy the German spirit". This was a very particular phrase used by the Kaiser in the context of German Colonial Imperialism in Africa (he was of course busy trying to copy the British and French). It was then employed of course by the Nazis in the context of their racial theories and policies. The use of "Führung", in German, has only one interpretation in this context: it makes the reader think of Hitler and the Third Reich. Angela Merkel's middle name is for the record, Dorothea. "Hilda" means "Battle Maiden" from Old German. This isn't casual racism - it is extremely deliberate and educated.

There are valid concerns, and there should be debate, about what is happening in the Euro Crisis regarding the interplay of democracy and economics. Putting that aspect to one side, the Germans (and Merkel in particular) are damned on the one hand if they do not as Europe's economic powerhouse provide decisive leadership, as called for in particular by the Coalition. On the other hand, when they do provide it, we do not have to wait long for calculated and spiteful racist commentary from not just the Tabloids, but also the so-called quality liberal press in this country. Debate the issue, do not resort to frankly pathetic Third Reich jibes.

We Will Remember Them

Our War Memorial

And so we come back to this Day of Remembrance. I think of the men who left our town in those dismal years of 1914-1918, and since then, who never returned. I think of the service people who are serving and still suffering. I think also of the millions of civilians who were injured, raped or died during conflicts: the emphasis is so much on military remembrance it seems, but many more civilians in particular during WW2, died. I think of members of my own family, from both sides, who were pawns and victims in the divided politics of the 20th century.

And I really, really wish that people in this country could move on, keeping the personal remembrance, the dignity, and the gratitude; but without continually lowering themselves regarding the Germany of today: a country that in 2011 is our neighbour, our trading partner, our ally, and our friend.

Language of Twitter

2011-11-09T09:54:00.000-08:00

Language fascinates me. I grew up bilingually with German and English, and later took French and Spanish for years at school. I read Modern and Medieval German and Dutch for my degree. I'm a lawyer by training and profession and therefore well aware of the importance of precision in drafting, and the potentially huge and expensive problems that can be caused by ambiguity in language.

This blog is simply a random set of observations on some of the things I've seen on my favourite medium: Twitter. I'm essentially fascinated to see how language adapts to new situations and how in some cases it can actually overcome ambiguity with the use of playful new spelling or vocabulary.

140 characters

The first obvious challenge of Twitter is brevity: everything has to be packed into 140 characters. There is a real art form to doing this: broadly speaking the shorter the tweet, the more likely it is to grab the attention of a reader in a rapidly moving timeline. I gather the skills involved in writing tweets are similar to those used in telegram messages: the imperative there was cost; now it is about conveying information in a way that is most likely to be read.

Thrift with words and being punchy are clearly key. When people resort to Twitlonger I personally have to be really interested in the particular author, or the contents of the first part of the tweet, to open up the link. My timeline is racing by: there are other things to read and I will skip quickly pass a link. If there is a complex idea to get across people often instead do this by multiple tweets, one following the other in quick succession. I've seen people label these as "1/3, 2/3, 3/3" to make it clear they're part of a set. That way they are more likely to be read than using Twitlonger, where the body of the tweet is obscured. Tweet 3 might catch your eye, so you go back and read tweets 1 and 2 accordingly. Twitlonger works fine, however, in a one-on-one conversation where you have a particular reader's attention.

The first thing to go in tweets are often the words "the" and "a/an" - in 140 characters there is little room for a definite or indefinite article - you simply drop them out, even if you're not hard up against the character limit. The language of Twitter is much less formal than you'd use in an email or letter - but what is interesting is noticing that if you tweet a lot, it's actually an effort not to write texts, instant messages or emails in this same shorthand style. It's all about the speed. This is a bit beside the point, but I also find myself wanting to use hashtags in all of these contexts. That will definitely only work if the other person spends time on Twitter...

Abbreviations

There's a whole range of abbreviations used on Twitter that take some getting used to. Some originate in "text speak" others are unique to the forum. We are well familiar with "LOL" for "laugh out loud" (love it, or hate it - personally I think it's great) and its relatives ROFL (roll on floor laughing) and "LMAO" (laugh my arse off). If something is off the scale funny we may even see a "LOLOLOLO" - as observed several times this week on my timeline about the departure of Frankie Cokeupthenozza from X-Factor.

There are things like RT, HT, MT, which are unique to Twitter and have been created entirely by users of the medium - check out point 13 in my earlier post on "How to use Twitter" if you're unsure what they mean.

We also have FTFY (fixed that for you) - you take something someone tweeted and amend it as retweet, basically to take the piss out of them by changing a small but important detail. The tweet then goes out to all their followers and says something entirely different to what you intended to say - but the FTFY makes it clear this is a joke.

The Playfulness of Language

What I like most about Twitter though is the sheer playfulness of the language used. In the last few days I've seen the following examples:

Time for a screenbreak.. Moar coffee!

That's the best pic EVAR

Oooh we're spending Boxing Day in Snowdonia. I am tres excited!

A-MAY-ZING: That Kelly/Cocozza vid

The reenactment of Dambusters on BBC2 is acecakes

No question: this is tres amaze

You might well think, Jesus, these people need to learn some English. In fact three of the above are from highly literate and intelligent lawyers. "Acecakes" is from an outstanding writer on a well known daily paper. "Tres Amaze" is from someone who works in Westminster. If you write "That's tres amaze" in an email to your MP boss, he might think you're quite odd and/or illiterate- on Twitter it just seems to work. It also indicates something - a warmth and kindly acceptance that is different to the plain "that is amazing."

What is going on here is a whole new fun creative language is being created. The speed of adoption is breathtaking: I saw the use of "Klaxon" a few weeks ago (hardly a common word, though "Klaxonner" remains my favourite verb in French) - suddenly everyone is using it on my timeline. Twitter is all about words... and here words are picked up rapidly, played with and used.

I exchange "Lolz" with an English teacher - and if something is really funny we use "Lolkatz". I'm sure if one of her kids tried this in an essay they wouldn't exactly get top marks: we're using it almost ironically, between the two of us, because it's so "wrong". The "Z" is *so* much fun in my opinion - you use "OMG" (oh my god) to express surprise - shove a Z on the front (ZOMG) and it becomes "zoooo my god" which really ups the excitement of what you're saying.

The examples I've given above really demonstrably aren't from people who confuse their "you're and your" or "who's and whose": they are just playing with English. I've seen how new completely ungrammatical constructions: "Son, I am disappoint". "I am much excite": those both from a student of creative writing who is perfectly capable of getting his grammar correct in other contexts. I learned ZOMG from an almost scarily bright young guy who has a degree in Chinese and is currently learning Korean. Illiterate he is not.

The misspelling of words can soften their meaning. I received the above tweet that said "it's just bubbles, silleh". That's actually fascinating: had Dan (a graduate journo himself) written "silly" I could have taken it as a bit patronising - it's notoriously difficult to get tone across in written language and in so few characters. Instead "silleh" (which I'd never seen before) came across as sweet and really very cute. How is that for actually overcoming ambiguity?

We also of course have the whole language of the "Tw". People on Twitter are "tweeps"; when they arrange to meet it's a "tweet-up"; I even attended a "twitnic" last summer. I'm a "twaddict" for being on Twitter so often. A new way of forming a noun has been created that indicates a link with Twitter. These aren't in the dictionary, but everyone is quite clear what they mean.

Misuse of English?

Where does this all get us? Well nowhere in particular. It's just a random set of observations. You might be "totes snooty" about what you see as the misuse of English. I'm not. Language evolves constantly and rapidly: it has always done so and will always continue to do so. We are seeing it happen here on Twitter and I'm fascinated by it and love it.

Whilst I'm perfectly capable of being a grammar fascist and explaining why (for example) in a formal letter you should use a possessive pronoun with a gerund - and more to the point believing that is a sensible rule - I really enjoy coming on to Twitter, letting my hair down and using a completely different linguistic register. There is no compulsion to do so: many people form "correct" and full sentences; but I actually really enjoy seeing one of the most talented barrister bloggers I know asking for "Moar coffee". It even got a little lulz from me :)

The Guardian and the Prince of Wales

2011-10-31T07:19:00.000-07:00

Today the Guardian ran a number of related stories including their lead one "Princes Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005. The cries of outrage resounded from my Twitter timeline.

The thrust of the article is clear. The Guardian has described Prince Charles many a time as the "Meddling Prince" over the last five years and also uses this today in a related article. Here is a private citizen, using "secretive constitutional loopholes" to stick his nose into matters that he has no right to. More than that, he has actually been using these powers to prevent democracy from functioning properly. He has been doing this by holding up or vetoing laws that would otherwise have been passed by our elected representatives - and *our* government has offered him this! Andrew George MP is quoted saying "Most people will be astonished to learn that [the Prince of Wales] appears to have in effect powers of veto over the government." The article also uses the words "overstepping his constitutional role by lobbying ministers directly".

Bloody hell - no wonder people are concerned - didn't we have a Civil War over this type of thing before?!

Let's Pick it Apart

Except... when you read the article carefully you can pick this all apart and realise the Guardian is chucking quite a lot of mud around here, some of which is not actually connected and none of which is backed up by any evidence.

The first point to note is that the issue of lobbying ministers (for which absolutely no evidence is given here) is quite distinct to the issue of the Prince of Wales's "power of consent" to certain specific pieces of legislation. The Guardian has deliberately muddled the two and thrown them in together to create the picture it wants the reader to come away with.

Next, any level of critical reading of the piece shows that the allegation of having "a power of veto over the government" is not in fact some general power over the business of government as is implied; in fact it is limited to a dozen government bills that the "Guardian investigation" has revealed. The piece mentions the Prince's "pet concerns" of traditional architecture and the environment, but does not provide any evidence that the power of consent was in fact related to them.

Then we come to ever such a critical point. Daniel Greenberg, a lawyer at Berwins is quoted as saying "It is something of a nuclear-button option that everybody knows he is not likely to push".... Ahh - so in fact this power of veto has never been used? I didn't read this piece like that at first. What with Andrew George MP's strident words I had the distinct impression the Prince was stopping laws going through on a regular basis - perhaps a dozen times in recent years, if you just skim read the article.

In fact the allegation (from the director of Republic) is that because this power exists it *may* give the Prince the power of leverage. Reread and note the plentiful use of mays/mights throughout the entire article. The Guardian gives us no proof in any way that the Prince has been seeking to influence matters through the threat of veto (the actual use of which would of course cause a massive constitutional crisis) - it's left to the reader effectively to assume there's no smoke without fire. He *must* have done so, pretty much.

Mind Games

Now for the tone of the article. We kick off with a great picture of the Prince. Remember the nice pictures of Vincent Tabak used in the press before he was found guilty? And then how they changed overnight because a murderer couldn't possibly be portrayed as an ordinary smiling man? Yep, here we have the most unflattering image of the angry Meddling Prince that we can dredge up. Minor point, but it sits with the headline in creating a particular impression the paper wishes to create. All sectors of the Press, of course, do this continually.

The use of the words "secretive" and "loopholes" scares us as readers. We all know what loopholes are - they are things that clever lawyers use to get undeserving guilty privileged clients off things they have done. The language is emotive and absolutely deliberate. We also have the use of "multi-millionaire Prince" in the related article to get some class and wealth envy going. These are pretty crude tools.

Anyway, how secret are these loopholes though and how ever did the Guardian discover them then? Well, let's try looking at Hansard. Yes, do a search on "TheyWorkForYou.com" (many thanks @MrsTrevithick who takes a very different viewpoint on me to this whole subject) and up they all pop - each and every completely publicly available record of the Prince (along with the Queen) consenting to their prerogatives and interests being put at the disposal of Parliament. The language is absurd "the Prince commands" etc- but it's not sinister, it's traditional; and multiple entries in Hansard isn't exactly my definition of "secretive".

Hmm. Okay then, what of the fact that the Guardian says "Since 2005, minister from six departments have sought the Prince of Wales' consent to draft bills on everything from road safety to gambling and the London Olympics". Is this some kind of new power? The fact that 2005 is quoted gave me that impression. The print version of the story went further along this line: it suggested that "ancient powers have been invoked" - the clear implication is to me that somehow these old powers had been discovered and resurrected. The Guardian goes on "Neither the Government nor Clarence House will reveal exactly why he was asked to grant consent to a such a wide range of laws". This is looking like a massive stitch-up and the government is in on it: ministers have handed over powers to Prince Charles in some secret deal to take away from their own power. Except why would they do that? Why would Labour and then the Conservatives have "offered" Prince Charles the power of veto over laws voluntarily? Common sense tells me we're being led up the garden path again here.

If you're prepared to continue digging around the Guardian actually provides a link to another story (by themselves). And here it all is: since the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall, back in 1337, the Prince of Wales's consent has been sought on laws that affect his personal interests as the holder of the estate. The piece actually explains there that the Monarch and Prince's consents are required as a matter of parliamentary procedure and this is fundamentally different from royal assent to a Bill. So this is nothing new. It's in fact been here for almost 700 years. It's not personal to the "Meddling Prince", Charles Windsor. Each and every Prince of Wales has in fact provided such consents as a standard and regular matter of course (or not) down over the centuries. Nor is it limited to him; the monarch also evidently routinely provides such consents, yet the Guardian has not chosen to suggest the Queen is somehow acting improperly - just Charles.

I'm not clear if this is a standard exercise of Royal Prerogative (I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I'm having my doubts about the Guardian's certain obvious lack of objectivity here) but if it is, I do know that since the 19th century this has in practice been vested in ministers, and specifically the prime minister. It's a theoretical historical power that is never exercised by the monarch. Should this power exist? Almost certainly not, but this is a much wider subject for proper debate - not the misleading, personal warfare the Guardian is engaging in.

A Giant Load of Shit-Slinging

So where do we come to? I really believe this is a monumental example of the Guardian driving its own agenda. I would love to know why it decided to run this as its lead story today and wonder why (given years of similar attacks on Prince Charles) its editor or proprietors have this intense personal dislike of the Prince. This isn't a news story. It is a deliberately misleading, innuendo laden, crude piece of propaganda. I suspect there is some pretty strong reason why the Guardian has it in for him, but we're certainly not going to find it out from them.

Did you see the Express last week? There was a piece on Thursday that followed Chancellor Merkel's extraordinary, historic speech to the Bundestag. Dr Merkel said that the EU had guaranteed peace in Europe for 50 years (a widespread view amongst Germans) and that if the Euro fell, the EU fell with it. She warned that another 50 years' peace could not be guaranteed without the EU and that because of Germany's historic failings it had a special responsibility to reach in its pocket and do everything it could to prevent this. After the death of well over 6 million of their citizens, the destruction of their cities, the blood of tens of millions on their hands, and 40 years of division, most Germans have a terror of War that we can not relate to. This was powerful language indeed from a modern day German Chancellor in the Reichstag building and not deployed lightly. The Express took this and chose to go with the headline "Germany Warns of War in Europe". It carefully, deliberately, selectively and utterly misleadingly threw something out there and left it to its own readers to run with it knowing the reaction. Here's a selection of the results:

The Guardian did pretty much the same today, but in a more sophisticated way, with a liberal lefty audience. The effect was the same. My timeline had comments in it such as "Doesn't Charles know what happened the last time a Royal tried this?" and "Unbefuckinglievable!" - we had cries of anger and outrage reacting to a story, that was in fact a different story, that had been dishonestly made and not proven in any way.

There are some serious questions about the position of the Royals in our constitution. I will happily argue them out with a republican and I respect entirely the logic of their position. No one would come up with this system today. I'm told by @Mousehole1 that if you die intestate and without heirs in Cornwall your estate passes to the Duchy of Cornwall. That's bonkers: I completely agree - but it's nothing to do with this Guardian piece. There is also a serious issue in all this about wealthy, powerful people lobbying and the need to have all of such activity properly above board. That is by no means limited to the Prince of Wales and again this article is not in fact about that. There are questions as to why a consent (however formal) is required as a matter of parliamentary procedure - yes, let's talk about that rationally and sensibly, examine whether it is in any way affecting the business of government, and abolish it if there is reason to.

What the Guardian is not doing is conducting an evidence based, objective campaign calling for the abolition of the Monarchy. It is running a personal vendetta against the person of the present Prince and I really am not prepared to respect that or run with it myself. Above all, once again this whole subject is proof to me that we really must be critical of things we read in the papers.

UPDATE: The BBC is now running this story as a result of the fuss caused by the Guardian. It is doing so in a far more balanced way and I believe both Clarence House and 10 Downing Street's statements fully back up what I'm asserting. Note this in particular: "This is not about seeking the personal views of the Prince but rather it is a long-standing convention in relation to the Duchy of Cornwall, which would have applied equally to his predecessors." There are some interesting and important constitutional issues to be discussed here; the Guardian has fallen over itself with its bias and thereby failed to present them in a way that facilitates proper debate.

2000 years of Architecture with € Notes

2011-10-29T08:58:00.000-07:00

When I'm taking my groups of Americans around Europe (Click here if you haven't read my evangelical enthusiasm for this part time job of mine!) one of the things I love to do is explain 2000 years of European architecture, art, history, politics and religion in 15 minutes... with the aid of Euro bank notes. Okay, that might be overstating it a *bit* but if you want a very rough and ready overview, read on!

The Whole Spread

So I love Euro banknotes (and coins, but that's a whole other story) and wonder how many people know what they depict. I don't want my students just wandering round saying "wow, everything's so old" - I want them looking at buildings and realising that styles don't exist in a vacuum. They're intricately linked to what is going on in Europe at the time.

5 EURO CLASSICAL

Let's kick off with the 5 Euro. The banknotes always depict an archway or window on one side, and a bridge on the other. The structures are representative - they don't show a particular national building. That is reserved for each country's own coins if they wish. So what's the oldest still existing architectural style of building in Europe? We need to head down south for it - it's of course the architecture of Greece and Rome.

Classical Architecture

Look at the design: it's a familiar "classical" archway. On the back we have something that looks a lot like a Roman viaduct. We're obviously talking about broadly 2000 years ago and many of these buildings are now ruins, and are can be found located in southern Europe. We have wonders like the Colosseum in Rome; the Arena of Nîmes; the peerless Acropolis in Athens. There are of course however classical buildings and ruins in Northern Europe too - although the Romans did not penetrate much north of the Danube or east of the Rhine.

10 EURO ROMANESQUE

Of course "Antiquity" ends. The marauding Germanic tribes descend on Rome and after several sackings put an end to the dying empire in 476. There follows a period known as the Dark Ages (*cue bad jokes about people bumping into each other with candles*) Nothing much is built, there's not a great deal of surviving culture as people wander to and fro across the continent, mingling and settling in new places.

Then, broadly around 800 or so we have a new style of architecture. Except it's not particularly original: it's a simpler, less grand form of building than the Romans did. It looks vaguely similar though, and for this reason we call it Romanesque architecture. We can see it on the 10 Euro note. The lack of complexity of the style is as a direct result of the political situation in Europe; we're coming out a period of intense turmoil and even whilst these buildings are being constructed there are still invasions from the North from the Vikings.

Romanesque Architecture

The arch looks familiar, no? There's just one thing to note: there are semi-circular round arches, often one inside another. There isn't too much Romanesque architecture around: you can find the odd church dotted here and there. They tend to be quite small and basic, with massive heavy walls, small windows and they are fairly simple in style. They are therefore quite easy to spot where they've survived: Lisbon Cathedral is a great example of a very large one in fact. In Britain Romanesque architecture is normally called "Norman" whereas everywhere else it is "Romanesque".

20 EURO GOTHIC

NOW we're talking though. A clever Frenchman, Abbot Suger (also known as "Sugar", but only to his closest friends) became the chief patron and adopter of a brand new style of architecture in the 12th century. This is "Gothic" architecture, the great style of the so-called Middle Ages which broadly last until around 1500. It is represented on the 20 Euro note.

Gothic Architecture

For Gothic Architecture, think tall and pointy. It's mainly seen in churches: we are building upwards to the Glory of God. A brilliant new invention, flying buttresses, allow the roof to be supported without the massive heavy walls of Romanesque structures. Instead we can put in wider aisles, and large windows often filled with beautiful stained glass. Gargoyles often complete the picture.

There are splendid Gothic churches and cathedrals across Europe. Think of Salisbury Cathedral in England, Cologne Cathedral in Germany, or the breath-taking Cathedral at Chartres with its intense blue windows. Perhaps the most spectacular of the lot is Notre Dame in Paris with its outrageous flying buttresses. Many of these churches take upwards of 150 years to complete: one end is one variety of Gothic, and by the time you get to the other end the particular style of Gothic has changed. St Vitus cathedral in Prague took an amazing 600 years to complete (they had a bit of an extended Staropramen/Becherovka break in the middle, it must be admitted)

50 EURO RENAISSANCE

When we hit 1500 we run into the two big R's. Actually the first R started quite a lot earlier than that in Italy: it's the Renaissance. It takes quite a long time, however, to reach the other parts of Europe. Renaissance of course means "rebirth" - the people of the time begin dismissing the "blind belief" of the Middle Ages and look instead to rational explanations and science to try to work out how the universe works.

These guys admire the thought, art and architecture of the Classical Age. They actually coin the term "Middle Ages" as a derogatory way of referring to the bit between the two periods of civilisation: Antiquity and Now (i.e. the 1500s). The archetypal Renaissance Man is Leonardo da Vinci: a painter, sculptor, mathematician, scientist, inventor and writer. Bet he was a right annoying sod to have as a dinner party guest.

Renaissance Architecture

Look at the 50 Euro note. Does the style look familiar? Yes, this is becoming a bit dull. It reminds us, not surprisingly, of the architecture of Greece, and even more particularly, Rome. It's actually an absolutely conscious copying of the Classical style, with an emphasis on symmetry, geometry, proportion and a direct copying of the classical order of columns for example. THE Renaissance city in Europe is Florence, but this architecture can be found all across the continent. It takes until the mid 1600s to reach somewhere like Turku in Finland, by which time it has pretty much finished in Italy.

How do we recognise a Renaissance building? Well, the columns are a give away, as is the symmetry and lack of fanciful decoration that Gothic buildings tend to have. If it looks vaguely Roman in style but is in really good shape, chances are it's from the Renaissance. It's had less time to become a ruin.

100 EURO BAROQUE

How about the second R then? This is the Reformation, which kicks off with a vengeance (after some earlier mumblings) with Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses - complaints - about the Roman Catholic Church to a pretty insignificant church door in Wittenberg in northern Germany. An invention by another German, Guttenberg, makes this unimportant event a revolution: the moveable printing press means the ideas about reforming the Church spread across Europe like wildfire.

What's this got to do with architecture? Well not much, initially. Protestant Churches are stripped of their finery - the emphasis is on the word of God - Luther has translated the Bible for the first time into German and people can hear and understand themselves what the book has to say. The pulpit is the important place in a Protestant church - let's whitewash all over the colourful Gothic paintings and strip the altars of their gold. The important thing to do is listen, not be distracted.

Baroque Architecture

Broadly much of Northern Europe has become Protestant: the movement has been very successful. The South remains mainly Catholic. Where the Protestants have swung to simplicity, the Catholics now go exactly the opposite way. Let's show people what Heaven on Earth can look like. Let's decorate our churches fancifully, with gold, with glitz! We demand angels, beautiful paintings, magnificent altars. This is the Counter-Reformation - and when the Catholic German Emperor becomes involves this becomes the Empire Strikes Back (is there no end to my bad jokes?)

This new style of architecture is Baroque. It's bold, it's bling and it's on the €100 bank note. It's not just about a style of building either; we're talking a feast for the senses. When you enter a Baroque church you will SEE the beauty; you will HEAR the new Baroque music; you will SMELL the incense. It's a feast for the senses. It is taking you out of your miserable hard mortal life and showing you what promises the Church can offer you - if you remain with the faith. There will be a huge dome towering above you in a Baroque church: the circular form is typical of the style.

Baroque architecture is intimately linked to the Catholic faith, so you will find much of it in Italy, Austria, Southern Germany, France, Spain - and it's not just Church architecture - palaces are decorated in the same heavy, ornate style. We don't see quite so much of it in Britain. St Paul's Cathedral is our best example: and it apparently was kept under scaffolding until the end, because the shock of seeing such a Catholic structure in London caused a scandal. Its highpoint is during the 1600s. Castle Howard in Yorkshire is a splendid non-religious example of the style. Late Baroque is called "Rococo" and it lasts through into the 1700s. It's getting even more silly and gaudy by this stage.

200 EURO ART NOUVEAU

The 19th century, or Victorian Age, is pretty pants for new architectural styles. I guess people are too busy building up either their overseas or continental empires (countries such as Spain and Portugal have already been busy exporting Baroque architecture to the New World with the help of the Jesuits). They are also rapidly industrialising and society is changing. In Europe we have no new proper styles of architecture throughout this period - instead we have "Historicism".

A drive around central Vienna is a perfect example of what is being built in the Historic Style. We have a neo-Gothic town hall - the idea is that the middle class citizens of the Low Countries had a great deal of autonomy in the Middle Ages. It's therefore a good thing to copy this style to show this isn't about the aristocracy or royalty ruling. It looks just like a building from 1300: but it's over 500 years later. It's "new-Gothic" (just like our own Houses of Parliament in London). We see the Assisi Kirche: a massive neo-Romanesque structure, built in 1898, in a style that's been dead for 700 years. The Austrian parliament building looks like a Greek temple: Athena stands with her back to it: it is pure neo-Classical: a direct copy of a style 2000 years old. We also have neo-Renaissance and neo-Baroque mansions, hotels and public buildings dotted around the Ring.

Art Nouveau Architecture

For crying out loud, no wonder people get bored with this crap. We've seen it all before, right? It's not actually an architectural style - it's just copying old stuff - so we're definitely not going to give it its own bank note. We need something new, different. In Vienna a group of artists (Klimt foremost amongst them) "secede" - they object so strongly to the historicism around them that they form their own breakaway movement. A style of architecture develops that is playful and inspired by nature. Plants and flowers are often used to decorate these new building facades, as are curved lines.

It's more than just a style of architecture: it's a philosophy, an art - a reaction against the stodge. It has its heyday from 1890 to 1910. There are beautiful, curious, wonderful Art Nouveau (literally "new art") buildings all over Europe. In Britain some wonderful examples are found in Glasgow. There are also some great art nouveau touches inside Liberty's in London.

500 EURO MODERN ARCHITECTURE

We pass on through Art Deco in the 1920s and 1930s (a more mathematical, geometric style of design and architecture that is not shown on the notes) and on to the architecture of today. We are talking glass and steel. Whether this is a uniform style or not is a good question, but the 500 Euro note is a serious bit of kit. It's a massive note, designed in particular for Germans, who eschew credit cards and cheques. They like to pay in cash, even for something like a car. If you buy a £20,000 car in England you'd need 400 x £50 notes. The same €23,000 car in Germany could be bought with just 46 of these big pink whoppers. On the French Autoroutes they have signs warning no €200 or €500 are accepted at toll booths: not in French or English, but only in German!

Modern Architecture

There's not too much to be said about the style of the architecture other than there are, in my opinion, some absolutely superb beautiful examples of it (I *love* the Gherkin in London) and I'd quite happily knock down the Shard before they stick the last piece of North Korean lookalike glass on it (yes, Google Image Search Pyongyang and it's THERE). They say you should give all architecture a generation before you judge it - so I'm penciling in 2030 before I hire a crane and a wrecking-ball.

Quite a Journey

But there we are. It's been quite a journey to go from the Colosseum to the Shard, but I hope you've hung in there. As I started out saying, architecture does not ever exist in a void - it's reflective of what's going on in politics, religion, art, society at the time. I'm no expert, but I love looking at buildings, trying to understand more about them, and I love the fact that a prop such as Euro notes can be so handy in reminding us of the story.

I hope you've enjoyed reading as much as I've enjoyed writing this! Pictures of some of the buildings I've referred to can be found below.


Roman Arena, Nimes (€5 Classical)


Lisbon Cathedral (€10 Romanesque)


Notre Dame Cathedral Paris (€20 Gothic)


Hospital of Innocents, Florence (€50 Renaissance)

Castle Howard, Yorkshire (€100 Baroque)


Parliament Building, Vienna (Neo-Classical)


Apartment Blocks, Vienna (€200 Art Nouveau)

Swiss Re, London: the Gherkin (€500 Modern)

A Very Rude Word

2011-10-24T09:54:00.000-07:00

I was walking in the woods today and noticed this daubed on a wall. Oh ho, ho, how funny/ shocking. Or is it? It got me thinking about this odd little 4 letter word and its strength and ability and offend. I'm clearly not the first person to do so. Just to reassure you, however, this blog isn't some 6th form college attempt at defending the C-word, trying to shock, or using it at every opportunity. Please do read on!

The C-word is old

First off, this really is an old word. Actually *ancient* in all likelihood. Wikipedia cites this rather blunt advice given in the Proverbs of Hendyng (pre 1325):

"Ȝeue þi cunte to cunnig and craue affetir wedding"

(Give your c--t wisely and make (your) demands after the wedding)

The Oxford English Dictionary cites its first usage around 1230 in the context of "Gropecunt Lane", but it's much older than that. It's likely to come from the Proto-Germanic kuntō (We are talking about 2500 years ago). When people say "don't mind my French" in fact they should be saying "don't mind my Anglo-Saxon": most swear words in English are actually from Old English, and are therefore Germanic. In our Germanic neighbour, Dutch, we still have the related word "kond" which is not a swear word and simply means "bottom". This reflects a fascinating confusion akin to the British English and American English usages of "fanny".

The C-Word has survived the Viking raids, the Norman Invasion, and "polite" Victorian society. Chaucer used it quite happily - anatomical words didn't seem to have the same stigma back then, but by Shakespeare's time it was becoming "obscene". It's not a word taught at schools, and until recently wasn't hardly ever seen in print - its eradication from mainstream script shows that it could only have survived because people were still using in speech, sufficiently frequently, that it did not die out. The word has literally been passed from mouth to mouth down the centuries.

It even actually disappeared from all main stream English dictionaries from 1795 to 1961. Think about it: the C-word survived notwithstanding this fact. That's actually amazing.

Is it offensive or should it be reclaimed?

Well Germaine Greer thinks it's offensive: she said "It's one of the few remaining words in English with a genuine power to shock". Likewise the Guardian in 2005 said it was the "most offensive word to the majority" and the Dictionary of Invective in 1991 said it was "the most heavily tabooed word of all English words."

The flip side are the now well rehearsed feminist arguments, also put forward by the likes of Greer*, that why should the "most offensive word in the English language" refer to the female genitalia? Who has made it this way? Men. Therefore to disempower the word it should be used as much as possible. A "dick" is a fool; a c--t by contrast is pretty much the most offensive insult to throw at someone. Let's take this power away from it.

We had a group of lesbian friends staying with us in Amsterdam at New Year 1998: I suggested this argument to them and still remember posh friend Henrietta shrieking and covering her ears. By the end of the long weekend we'd used the word so many times (on purpose and jokingly) it *had* in fact ceased to have the same power. Critically, though, this observation applied amongst us and in this limited societal context.

I've heard people say the very <sound> of the word is offensive. It's apparently harsh and nasty. As I touched on earlier, I'm not trying to show I'm all grown up and above petit-bourgeois norms by defending the C-word... but I do disagree with that contention. Is "cat" or "cut" an offensive sounding word? No, of course not. There is absolutely no such thing as an offensive sounding word: we as a society have given this word a special meaning unconnected to the actual word itself.

Context and intent are everything

Many words can be used offensively. If you use the right spiteful, aggressive tone you can call me an "idiot" in such a way that it will hurt far more than if, say, one of my pals jokingly calls me a "daft c--t" with a laugh and a smile on their face.

My former boss is a quite frum Orthodox Jew. A typical conversation in the office might have gone like this: "Oh Jeremy, sorry I forgot to send that email out you asked me to" .... "That's okay, Peter, you complete c--t". The fact we were close friends and the wonderful inappropriateness of his using the word (his wife did it too) just turned the whole thing on its head. We would write it "komplete kunt" to make it clear, I suppose, that this was our usage of the word and the not the more general one. We had actually managed to make the C-word (or K-word!) a term of affection and humour between us. Language is very much capable of this - but this is about a strictly specific and limited context: if we had gone around calling the trainees or the senior partner a "c--t" we'd have, quite rightly, been in serious trouble.

This understanding of and sensitivity to context is, I would argue, wholly lacking from the type of thing I set out below. Laurie Penny (@pennyred), who is relatively well known on Twitter and blogs/writes for the New Statesman, has frequently thrown the C-word out there "to the world". She once wrote a long blog on why it was such a great word and seems to use it to want to shock and draw attention to herself:

Note 31 people felt fit to retweet this "fascinating/profound" thought..

You may be aware that she called a writer/activist of the Third Estate group a c--t in January of this year (please click for a short explanation of the story) and this tweet followed on from it. This was in front of around 100 people, of whom the target apparently knew around a quarter and had to work with the rest. How would I have felt if my Mutti had been in the audience? How would I have felt if *I* had been in the audience? I'm not exactly a person of delicate Victorian language sensibilities - I would not otherwise be writing on this subject matter - but I'd just find that naive, coarse, unnecessary and in that context it would lower the speaker in my eyes. I can't see how the standard feminist "disempowering argument" was PennyRed's intention: her tweet suggests she uses it very much to offend: it is about "baring her teeth". I also find it odd she thinks men find the word offensive: my own life experience is that men are likely to use it far more often, and women are more likely to be offended by the C-word.

In any case, this blog is not intended as an attack on Penny Red. She is obviously bright and writes some very good stuff; however this behaviour makes me think that she does have some amount of growing up to do. She is of course not the only person who uses the C-word for effect: as we've identified: if nothing else, it can evoke strong reactions. The above tweet and the story I mentioned are simply good illustrations of the point from someone who is "not shy" of the word.

The C-word on Twitter

In real life I'm very relaxed about using the C-word with certain friends. They all know me well and they know that my intent is not to offend them. I choose never use it as a term of abuse, because I think personally the misogynist undertones are pretty clear. On Twitter, which is by definition much more public, I deliberately do not ever use it in general tweets: I do use it every now and then, with a humorous intent, in an @message to a few people (eg @obotheclown or @hyperbolicgoat) because I'm pretty sure mutual followers of ours would not be offended given these guys' own style of "sweary" tweeting.

On a macro level I very much see the merits of the feminist "Lady Love Your C--t" argument put forward by Greer - but I am not going to change the world on a micro level by standing up in front of 100 people I did not know and using it as an insult.

Cover your ears, Hyacinth!

You are of course perfectly entitled to use whatever language you like and we are all aware that people may well follow or unfollow us on Twitter on that basis. I don't avoid c--t to keep followers, or from some "polite" or "prissy" Hyacinth Bucket view of language; I don't use it simply because I know a good proportion of people will find it offensive. To misquote a legal case on the Egg-Shell Rule from English common law: "you take your audience as you find them". Some of my followers couldn't care less, some might be mildly upset, a few would be very upset if I swore in this way. It doesn't make me feel big or clever to evoke the 2nd and 3rd reactions.

Back to the Graffiti

To summarise the C-word is not a bad word of itself - as in any use of language, what makes it powerful or offensive is the way we decide to view it: both individually and as a society. That changes over time and at the moment you hear the C-word more and more. If this keeps up, it will become less powerful. Huzzah to that... I guess? The word has certainly been around a long time and as a former student of history of language I have a certain inherent respect for it on that basis.

I follow lots of people on Twitter who use it frequently. Sometimes it is splendidly funny to hear someone you really don't expect coming out with it. However, there are plenty of people who won't find it funny and will be upset. I don't think randomly going round (intentionally or negligently) upsetting people is that great a thing. Isn't that just common sense and the rules of basic social interaction?

Back to the graffiti on the wall: you know what? Meh. I really couldn't care less if you'd written "Poo", "Faggot" or "Wibble Wibble" on that wall. You're not offending me. You have given me an idea to write about on my blog - but I'm not so sure that many of the older people walking round the woods with their dogs will be quite so relaxed. It's a pretty pathetic and unnecessary thing to do to want to upset or shock them, isn't it?

[Update: many thanks to @AAEmerson for for pointing me to a recent video in which the incredibly likeable and brilliant Greer has since modified her position again, and is now celebrating the C-word as having "power". She says she is glad the "normalisation" she called for has not happened. It's a great watch if you have 11 minutes spare and are interested!]

Camping!

2011-10-23T05:15:00.000-07:00

Time for a bit of a happier/fluffier blog than the last one. I want to explain why I love camping so much.

(Almost) Born Camping

We kicked off at the earliest age. The 'rents bought a "bungalow tent" (one of those big old frame ones) and a trailer, attached it to our Vauxhall Viva, and off we went. My earliest memory is actually sleeping on my mother's lap in Austria as the road in front of us was washed away in one of those terrible Alpine summer storms. It was 1973: I was two. We were on the way back from Yugoslavia. This was quite adventurous stuff back then: we needed a special visa.

All my childhood we camped: it was cheap, it was outdoors, and my parents took us all over continental Europe. I'd go so far as to say it was absolutely formative for me - my love of languages, history, travel, people of different cultures, all come from here. Travel changes lives: something I believe with a passion.

VW Viking

On 14 April 1978 Dad came back to Germany from London with our new "Volkswagen Viking" motor caravan. The date is etched in my memory. It had a pop up roof where four could sleep: downstairs there was another double bed. We three boys had been allowed to pick the colour - what a silly decision - we went for bright screaming orange with a brown and orange tartan interior. Hehe. It *was* still the 70s I guess.

The first trip out with the Viking was utterly shite. "Organised" Army Dad had made a check-list of everything that had to be packed. We ended up in the Harz Mountains in Germany over the sodden Whitsun weekend of 1978. Absolutely everything was closed and we'd forgotten the matches. No way of lighting the hob, no warm food, no heat - we ended up borrowing a match from a solitary smoker in a car park. I huddled in the pop up roof, in my little red sleeping bag, with my stuffed rabbit, eating a pot noodle. "Matches" went to the top of the checklist for future trips.

Our beloved VW Viking. I'm at the front on the stool

We took the Viking everywhere: a 4 week tour of Italy, all the way from the north of Germany right down to Sorrento taking in Venice, Rome, Naples, Pompeii, Pisa, Florence and the Lakes. On our various holidays we went along single lane mountain roads through the Dolomites, across to Spain, through Austria and Switzerland, and all over Holland and France with the Viking. "Highlights" of our trips included big bro Alan shoving a fish hook through his finger in Venice and having to be rushed to hospital... and Dad burning the pies which were our supper, and throwing them in a stream somewhere close to the Rhine. They're probably still floating somewhere in the North Sea.

Capri: great sunhats, thanks Mutti *dies of embarrassment*

I've still no idea how we packed everything in: clothes for 5 people for 4 weeks, food, a barbecue, a 6 man sized dinghy, full sized sunbeds, a huge jerry can full of petrol, outside table and chairs, an awning, fishing stuff, cuddly toys, games.... amazing! When we eventually sold the VW Viking to a British Major I literally cried. Our trips away were an absolute highlight of my youth and I love my parents for having saved up and made all of this possible for us.

Ooooh get us: finally, a caravan!

Next we moved on to a caravan: a brand new 1982 Hobby 440T ADX. The "T" stood for "toilet room". That was DEAD posh. It also had double glazing, a proper sized fridge, heating, an extractor fan, and could be used during German winters. I was obsessed with caravans. At the age of two I'd apparently crawled into an elderly English couple's caravan in Rimini and sat there with a vacuous big smile on my face. (A position I still frequently assume today, though I don't obvs need a caravan as an excuse.)

Our first caravan: Hobby ADX with space for a plastic bog!

YES, caravans are naff. I know it, okay? I've heard all your endless complaints about being stuck behind the things in the West Country, I know it's about as socially acceptable as voting Tory or buying the Daily Mail (shock: many caravan owners do both). But I *loved* our caravans!

German caravans are of course infinitely superior to English ones and we had four Hobbys in total: a 460T Prestige, a 535T Prestige, and a 520TQM Classic..* I even worked in the Hobby marketing office in Schleswig-Holstein in my year off before university. It was a (somewhat tragic) dream come true for me.

Finally my parents committed treason by buying an English caravan instead - a Swift. I spit on its dirty little aluminium memory and came pretty darn close to disowning them. Fortunately I was living in London by this stage and the tragedy of having to see it parked in the drive was not therefore inflicted on me on a daily basis.

Mr Bean on Holiday

One day in 2002 I forced best friend Dominic to come to the Camping and Caravan Show at Earl's Court with me. He's probably still in therapy. Let's say he doesn't quite get this particular obsession of mine and camping isn't exactly his idea of fun. Sitting there at the show, attracting quite a lot of attention was a brilliant new silver tear drop of a caravan: a T@B (Click on Link!). It's was a brand new retro 1950s design, by German manufacturer Tabbert. They are the undisputed "top end" of the caravan world (I actually noted how many of their full-sized models were at Dale Farm: if it's your home, the quality matters even more).

The interior - I'm not joking - was pure Conran: cherry wood, plain classy cream upholstery. I bought one on the spot on my credit card. "Hedwig" as I christened her was a perfect match for my red Mini. (NAME DROP: Jasper Conran actually later sat inside it with me and was quite complimentary. Another friend said it looked like a giant Ikea dustbin, but he can sod off.)

SO CUTE: my "toy sized" car and caravan combo, 2003

I am of course a massive homosexual. Hedwig therefore was kitted out with a little DVD player, crystal classes, goose down quilt, Egyptian cotton sheets, an array of A&F clothing, WMF cutlery, Harvey Nicks washing up liquid, Cowshed toiletries, a Prada washbag... I even found a set of designer taupe melamine crockery. We have plentiful stereotypes to uphold, naturally.

I took my little silver caravan all across the UK and the Continent - such wonderful trips. People *actually* laughed, smiled and waved at me as I and the dog drove by looking some kind of deranged, but very happy, Mr Bean on holiday. Did I care? :D

Oscar enjoying the view top of the Simplon Pass, 2007

A couple of years ago I completed the circle and moved back to a tent. It's just a two man this time and looks a bit like Darth Vader from the front. I find I can cover distance much faster than when I'm towing and it's just easier for touring. Oscar wags his tail when he sees the tent: it's 24 hour fresh air, walks galore AND he gets to sleep squished up next to me. It's a perfect dogcation for him. I still insist on a goose down duvet and proper feather pillow: none of this sleeping bag nonsense. I don't tend to cook (except veggiecues): I eat out in restaurants - the money I'm saving on hotels more than allows that.

Back to canvas. In Andorra, part of 4500 mile road trip, 2009

What's the Attraction?

So *what* is so great about this camping thing then? I guess it's very happy memories of childhood. It's being able to explore and move from place to place. It's experiencing places at an absolute fraction of the cost of staying in a hotel. It's the fresh air - there's nothing like waking up to country air, particularly under canvas. It's the sociability - people on camp sites talk to each other in a relaxed, friendly way that they wouldn't in any other context. It's the ability to go hiking from your "door" up in the mountains in Switzerland - or to swim in a lake in Italy that you're looking out onto from your tent. It's incredibly informal: shorts and polo shirts are the main thing I pack when I go away. It's the rain on the roof of the caravan or on the canvas when you're tucked up inside.

Camping Des Glaciers, Verbiers, 2008. Yeah. Beat that.

Yes, I love my fancy schmanzy designer hotels too and have been to enough of them: but camping really holds an equally great attraction for me too. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea: but for me... bring it on.

* Of course another massively great thing about caravans is playing the "spot the naff name" competition on road trips. My top 6 of all time are:

the Bailey Unicorn (WTF - how does a big white box on wheels look like a unicorn?)
the Elddis Crusader Typhoon (actual huh?!?)
the Eriba Troll Manhattan (whaaaat?)
the Swift Challenger (bed fellow of the "Swift Conqueror")
the Tabbert Imperator (Flash Gordon?)
and the Ace Ambassador (Ferrero Rocher :))

They must pay their marketing departments with space cakes to come up with these names, surely?

The Perils of Twitter

2011-10-18T10:43:00.000-07:00

I've often commented on what a wonderful thing Twitter is. I've also however highlighted two frauds on this blog and pointed out how they have abused the trust and friendships that are so easily formed on Twitter. Today I received two death threats for publicising a man who has been abusive to women.

BertieWWooster

This account was set up on 2 September 2011. The man purports to be an "upper class twit" and is seemingly jovial and friendly, if a little odd. I was sent a couple of warnings about him from friends by direct message and thought I would follow to see what he was saying. My interest was instantly perked when I found out he'd preemptively blocked me: we'd had zero contact and that is obviously quite an odd thing to do. I therefore followed him (when his account was unlocked) directly on the net.

@BertieWWooster avatar

Bertie is an abusive misogynist. He tries to befriend women (he follows several hundred) and then responds to things they say pleasantly - but is also sometimes quite pushy about asking them to follow him back. He follows networks of young mums for example: sees who they follow and talk to and then follows himself. He asks about husbands and boyfriends and other personal information. His own follower account has never gone above 115, but follows over 900 himself.

At certain points he seems to "lose it". If someone does not respond or thank him for things he flies into a long tirade and calls people (particularly women) "OIKS", "cunts" and says they are working class, or on the dole. He also wishes women dead. Later he deletes all the tweets - seemingly without realising that people can, and do, take screenshots.

He also likes women to follow him back so that he can DM them. He does this sufficient quantities that he complains about being in "Twitter Jail" (the daily limit is 250 direct messages). Some of the messages are fine: some are lewd and include pornographic links, requests for phone sex, or what a woman's favourite sexual positions are. This does not come out of the blue: it is after a period of "grooming" where he builds up a relationship of trust and friendship.

I know of two occasions now where Bertie has telephoned women in real life and abused them down the telephone. One was because of a link to a business included on a Twitter profile; the other was because of much more in depth stalking that led him to find out a whole set of personal information on a woman, which he then also published repeatedly online (address, telephone number, place of work, full name, photos of home from Google Streetview etc).

I have screenshots of all of the above, but obviously don't wish to publicise the names of the victims involved. I have however provided screenshots below of abuse directed at me (below) that I think demonstrates it clearly enough.

Other Accounts: @PFBraneStawm, @BrainyProfessor @CharlesManduca, @IagoTheParrot

I set up @SexPestWarning specifically to warn women about Bertie. I also wanted him to know that we (a female friend on Twitter has been watching him closely as well) were on to him. I could not tell him directly from my account - as he had blocked me - that I knew what he was up to, so I had to use this new vehicle. It was also a handy place to set out the whole story to anyone who looked like they were falling prey to him. Bertie locked his account at various points, then realised his numerous messages to women could not be read by them - so a bit like a vampire requiring fresh meat he had to unlock to try to attract more people in. He is currently locked but will have to unlock if he wishes to keep up his "game".

@PFBraneStawm avatar

He then yesterday set up a new account - @PFBraneStawm (since changed to @BrainyProfessor) and used exactly the same M.O. Today something made him "flip" and he used two other accounts @charlesmanduca* (new today) and @iagotheparrot (an older account) to hurl abuse at about 10 people. He called me and them, for example, "vile, lifeless, psychotic, jealous, jobless living on Benefits Dykes". He said we were under 24 hour surveillance by the FBI, said we were"lesbians with friends who are homosexuals and pedophiles who have been convicted and been in prison for more to seven to nineteen years" and added that we would be extradited to Guantanamo Bay. He is apparently a billionaire with in excess of 1,750,000 followers on his other accounts... so can arrange all this. Because of his friends at Microsoft all my personal details are currently being sent to every Hotmail user in the world.

* Important Note: there is a real life Charles Manduca who is a respected litigator. The man operating the @CharlesManduca account is clearly not the real lawyer, as a) he spoke utter nonsense about defamation (amongst many other things); and b) he claimed to be at the City firm Hogan Lovells (whose logo he also misused). Mr Manduca is no longer a partner at that firm. I do not wish to imply that the real Mr Manduca is in *any* way connected to this Twitter abuse, other than being a victim of having his name and photograph stolen for the account.

Here is a selection - these were sent out to at least 6 people, including a top legal blogger, and were subsequently all deleted. He has since changed the photograph on the @CharlesManduca account to mine, which he stole from my account.

Read from Bottom

Image 2

Image 3 (redacted)

He told us he knew where we lived. To this was then added, just to me personally, the following:

What of it all?

Well it's easy to see this man as having serious emotional or possibly mental health issues - and in that respect to have sympathy for him. The FBI claims etc are clearly absurd and laughable. However, stalking women, abusing them on line, phoning them up at home and at work, and making death threats are less funny.

Twitter is pretty much a "free speech zone". If you don't like what someone is saying, you are instructed by Twitter to block them. This is to some extent true: yes, if you find a person creepy you can unfollow and/or block them instantly. However if someone is "grooming" you like Bertie, you may well be have been drawn in and given him the benefit of the doubt. By the time he goes in and is really abusive, the damage is done. Your trust is shattered, and particularly if you are in a vulnerable position it will be extremely upsetting. Yes, you can block - but if he's become sufficiently obsessed about you that he's found out where you work or live it hardly helps you.

Twitter will broadly only intervene when a) there is a specific direct threat of violence; or b) private details are published. It's important to note that that "Block and Report" button is ONLY for spam: Twitter is bothered about people sending out marketing links but not about people being abusive it seems. You can report the two specific forms of misuse I mentioned by filing a ticket (go to Twitter Support) - but not on behalf of someone else. We have been warning Twitter for almost a week of the breaching of private details - they have utterly failed to do anything about it. I instantly reported the death threats - his account is still operative. Twitter is clearly, in this case, completely failing to ensure a safe environment for its users by its insistence on the broadest interpretation of the American First Amendment. Personally I find that completely shoddy.

The Police will however get involved if you are lucky enough to speak to an officer who has a sufficient understanding of how Twitter operates and the fact that a harassment offence online is every bit as real as someone "in real life". This *is* real life, for heaven's sake and regardless of Twitter's lackadaisical approach, national law applies. As for a death threat, again, this is a real thing and can carry a heavy custodial sentence. I am fortunate enough to have spoken to a very bright, clued up and understanding Detective Sergeant in CID locally, whom I know through Twitter, about the whole matter. UPDATE: see this story from the BBC (31 October 2011) if you had any doubt that online harassment can be dealt with in exactly the same way as "real life" harassment. This story about racist abuse (3 November 2011) also shows that Twitter is not the "free speech" zone people seem to think it is. The law applies just as much here as elsewhere. Berties and others beware.

Advice for Twitter Users

It cannot be stressed enough how careful you should be with your personal details. Stalkers like Bertie look through your photo streams, those of your friends or partners, read your blog, and will look for clues about who you are and where you live. We ALL know this - let we still do it. It's a bit like those "Smoking Kills" labels - we're sure it won't happen to us.

One lovely woman who had been abused by Bertie by phone happily gave me her mobile number to talk about it. I gently pointed out that perhaps she should have asked for mine and withheld her number? As it turns out, like 9,999 other men on Twitter, I am not going to phone her back or bombard her with abusive texts - but she didn't know me from Adam at the point.

It also really does make me think about the benefits of complete anonymity. A friend on Twitter (@grumpyhatlady) is anonymous. I once asked her, perfectly innocently, by DM what her name was. She said she wouldn't tell me - she had been stalked in real life as a result of the Internet [click for her blog post on this: it's excellent and so worth reading]. She has an icon of an old woman with a hat and all I know about her is that she is clever, entertaining, lives somewhere in Scotland, and has a legal background. She's not grumpy and I don't *think* she wears a hat. Isn't that enough? We talk, share views, even experiences - but I don't actually need to know anything more. She doesn't Facebook, she doesn't use FourSquare. I'm beginning to think she's an incredibly astute individual, as much as I would actually like to see what she looks like just from normal human curiosity.

Twitter is SUCH a supportive, friendly, wonderful space. It sickens me that there are people like Bertie around who will direct abuse, threats and make people less trusting - to the extent that they will be completely anonymous. He is an absolute minority - and I'm hoping one who will soon end up realising that he can't get away with this. Before his death threat and publishing private details, all we could do was spread the word by warning people off him, hoping that if they knew us, they'd believe us. Given Twitter's lackadaisical approach and if there hasn't been a Communications Act 2003 offence, "self policing" is in effect all we are left with for other instances.

Keep safe and take care.

UPDATE: He this morning (20 October) bombarded me with a whole series of abusive messages - he knows where I live, I'm a "Pedophile" etc. It is rather sweet he thinks anyone would think these are different people when he uses exactly the same language, spellings, idioms and threats in all of his accounts. Here is just one page - it went on for about 20 tweets.

In addition, anyone he saw me speaking to with homophobic abuse/ swearing from the @BrainyProfessor account. The language was in some ways comical, in other ways revolting. I advised everyone to block/report for spam and it produced a surprising result - his account was suspended (by Twitter) almost immediately and then deleted. There seems to be a mechanism whereby X reports of spam in Y time leads to an automatic response. This is far better than relying upon Support who work at a snail's pace going through individual complaints.

My advice is therefore block/report for Spam and encourage your friends to do so if you see him behaving in this way again. It is quite likely he will return with new profiles. Over 13,000 people have now seen this blog and are aware of the way he works now.

He did continue the harassment of one woman from his @iagotheparrot account throughout today - he repeatedly published her home address and says the time has come "to pay her a visit". Again screen shots have been taken, the Police are fully aware, and she has a crime reference to quote to make any 999 call a priority matter.

He is now claiming in these tweets that his wife and children were murdered; previously he said his 4 children died in a road crash in France. Clearly he is a very disturbed man and were it not for his causing upset to ordinary users of Twitter, foremost women he has taken a fancy to (but then later calls "ugly dork pedophiles") I would feel a great deal of sympathy towards him.

As of the evening of October 20 there is good news: all 4 of his accounts have now been suspended or deleted.

Coming Out

2011-10-16T12:10:00.000-07:00

Is it a bit passé to blog about "coming out" - surely this is a bit of a non-event and everything has been said there is to say about it? Probs, but I'm going to blurb on a bit anyway.

First my story. I realised I fancied guys when I was about 13 or 14. Yup, I even *spent my pocket money* on the Sun and had a cut out collection of Page 7 Fellas I kept hidden on top of my wardrobe. I went through a phase of intensely hating myself for fancying men. This may or may not have been to do with the hairstyles of guys in the 80s, it must be admitted.

At the same time I went through an arch-right wing phase (please, keep reading, I've reformed!) and in fact was once called a "fascist" at school by a teacher. I definitely deserved it for the hideously intolerant, vile nonsense I was spouting in my confused attempts to "conform". I was outwardly extremely homophobic, as a crude defence mechanism that of course anyone sees through nowadays.

Silly, homophobic, screwed up 16 year old Peter

I "found Jesus" when I was 19*. I convinced myself the devil was somehow leading me astray by tempting me with hot men. I had a minor breakdown during my first term at college about 6 months later. I totally withdrew into myself, just did loads of academic work instead... but then one day randomly thought, this is nuts, and had sex with a guy. It was far from an ideal "first time" scenario, but I knew this was what I actually what I wanted and who I was.

Is that all?

"Coming out" is a weird process. I'm white, I'm male, I'm not disabled, I'm from a materially comfortable background, I'm nominally Anglican. I'm therefore hardly an oppressed minority. A black child does not come down and say to his/her parents over breakfast "guess what, I'm black!" S/he will grow up with all of the prejudices that are present in society, sadly without a choice in the matter. By contrast, in coming out as gay most people suddenly move from a position of majority to minority, and the sometimes adverse reactions will be new to them. It's a very brave thing to do to put yourself in the way of that.

"Coming out" actually usually involves multiple stages: 1) to yourself.. generally as the hormones start raging and you realise you're "not like all the others"; 2) once you've dealt with that, and possibly been through a period of denial, to a close friend or two; 3) to a wider circle of friends; 4) to your parents.

All my college buddies were pretty much fine when I told them I was "bi" (yup, again not quite true) when I came out at 21 years old. I was (amazingly) the only gay man out at Law School, though, out of several hundred students in my year - and I definitely experienced a limited bit of homophobia. I was by this stage out the world in general, but not to my parents. This is quite typical I think, certainly for back in the mid 1990s.

By 25, I was living in London, working. My parents were in Hampshire. I'd so successfully cut them out of my life there was, as far as I was concerned, no real or meaningful relationship left to damage. I didn't hate them or anything: they just knew virtually nothing about the adult me, who I was, who the boyfriend was I'd just moved in with, and whom I was totally in love with. I essentially had a 100% childish relationship with them and never told them anything about my feelings. Just stop and think about that. How sad a state of affairs.

Utterly randomly I was feeling bored at home one afternoon and thought "what the hell - I've nothing to lose here." I picked up the phone. Mutti's reaction was quite simply "Is that all?" I literally could not believe it. I had spent years convincing myself (on the basis of nothing objective) that they would cut me off, disown me, stop loving me. I asked if she had guessed - no, she said, she had no idea. She just thought I was very private (obviously the hiding my collection of Page 7 Fellas had worked. Thank god, considering how *embarrassing* they were in retrospect :S)

CHECK OUT THE HAIR

I then became convinced Dad would be different. He was an army guy: he was bound to be homophobic. I called back nervously the following day: Mutti had told him, at my request, and he wasn't bothered either. Read my blog on how he reacted when I put on a dress as a little boy (click for link) and you will realise what a total tit I'd been: he was hardly going to react badly.

I sent my mother a bouquet of flowers: I'm still a bit teary realising how amazing they both were. My Mutti actually said she was upset I didn't feel able to talk to them before and that she regretted not being able to support me as a teenager going through all this. A few weeks later they met the boyfriend. They adored him and he was taken into the family. Many years later, the two of us apart, Mutti still worships the ground he walks on.

The Flip Side

Now the flip side. By no means everyone reacts as my parents did. I've heard every story from parents as great as mine to parents who have literally cut off and thrown their kids out. A friend with a Danish father and a French mother, both educated, liberal professional people, said they wanted nothing more to do with him when he came out to them in his late 20s. He'd been at Cambridge and was now a successful City lawyer: he was a golden boy in looks, personality, achievements - but they could not deal with his being gay.

What does one do in that scenario? Hurt, obviously. Scream about how unfair it is. No one deserves to be treated like this by their parents for simply being honest with them. Any open-minded person would say "how could a parent *ever* behave like that to their child?" We all know this. However my question is, does it help the situation for the gay kid to be the victim and to simply be morally "right"?

When you come out, you do so with having worked through an intensely complicated, difficult set of emotions over a long space of time. You present that your parents. Regardless of how good or bad your relationship is you owe everything to your parents: you literally would not be here without them. If your friends react badly, you can avoid them, or move on to new ones. The same does not apply to your parents.

You throw this potentially huge thing at them all in one go, when you've had years to digest and process it. Of course everyone wants for them to hug you, tell you they love you, and accept you. The simple fact is not every parent can do so - at least not straight off.

Some Advice

So what does one do? If you are contemplating coming out, particularly to your parents, you will realise how daunting it is. No one wants to be in my friend's position. The possibility of losing your parents in this way is beyond terrifying. Remember that very, very few parents do react in this way though. There are proper guides available on the net about coming out - read them - they will offer you proper tips far better than I can. I will just throw a few things in though from a personal perspective.

It is often said that middle class, ostensibly liberal, families take the news of a gay child the worst. They profess to be open-minded than other groups in society, who sometimes are more casually homophobic. However, when it comes to one of their own, the situation is often reversed. Your nice educated middle class parents are frequently more worried about appearances than anyone else. Know that the societal pressure of "looking good" will colour and distort their reaction and this sadly has very little to do with you and the love they actually fundamentally feel.

Even my Mutti (who was so amazing) almost immediately asked me not to tell my Grandmother. What I think was going on was she was worried about how this would reflect on her and whether her mother would think she'd "done something wrong" bringing me up. When Omi did eventually find out she said "Oh it's genetic, I read it in a magazine". She was in her 80s, staunchly Lutheran, a former Hitler supporter, and I was still her "Peterchen". I guess she was at this stage simply past all this appearance nonsense that can create such pain in our society.

Give your parents time. There is a desperate desire for them to be okay with your news immediately and to be out joining you at the next Pride (okay, perhaps not that... how embarrassing?!) Often if other extended family members or friends do not react badly when they in turn hear the news, your parents' fears of people's reactions will diminish. This may take months, it may take years. Stick with it - they are your parents and it IS worth it. In a strange way you are having to take over the role of the mature grown-up in this situation. If they ask you not to tell your uncle or your grandma: cut them some slack. They are very likely to change their mind with time as they become used to things.

Don't rub your gayness in their face (you can do this with your mates down G.A.Y. on a Saturday night: it's much more fun) - and this sounds strange but above all be as forgiving to them as you would wish them to be accepting towards you. There is *nothing* wrong with your being gay and deep down almost everyone knows this. Almost every parent will want to love their child regardless; just be prepared to love them back too, even if they don't react as you would want them to or in the time frame you envisaged.

Don't get all morally righteous: if you expect them to love you for who you are, be prepared to love them back *unconditionally* too. Think what they means - and be it. This can be bloody hard, but remember no one is perfect, not you, and not your Mum or Dad. Love them for their views as much as you might disagree with them, try to understand why they're being like it, and don't be demanding about the way you expect them to be. You can't control their reactions, but you can control the way you behave. You can chose whether to be combative, angry, or instead try to show them that you still love <them>.

In all cases of parents reacting negatively that I know of personally, the eventual outcome has been positive. The biggest factor in how long it takes, in my experience, is actually how the gay child behaves and how they are towards their parents after the initial bad reaction. That sounds odd, but it is my honest experience. The gay son or daughter may be the "hurt party" but they are the one who has to turn the situation round. Unfair? Hugely. The reality? In my view, yes, unfortunately.

Is it Worth It?

I'm now 40. There is zero question to me that coming out is entirely worth it. Before I did so, there was an appalling cost to my self-expression and to my integrity. I lied constantly to cover up my sexuality. I lied about where I'd been, whom I found attractive, what I'd been doing. I believe that deceit is cancerous: once your life is so full of lies about this big important area it becomes easy to lie about other things. The longer this goes on the more damaging it is to you.

The sheer relief of being able to say "phwoar, he's nice" or a bit more importantly to introduce your lover to your friends and family - wow, it is worth it in every way. Removing this lie gives you the opportunity to work at rebuilding your integrity and realising how deceit affects you as a person.

Yes I have had a few shit reactions - both at college and at my law firm. So what. People may hate me because I'm half-German, because I talk with a "posh" accent, because I support Labour, because I went to Cambridge, or because I like Glee (I jest, NO ONE could hate Glee). I can't control people's reactions and I can't live my life trying to fit in at the cost of my own happiness and self-expression. I'm who I am. I didn't choose my sexuality: I had no control over it. The only choice I had was to lie about it to varying degrees or to be myself and be honest about myself. Yes, I could even have got married to cover it up: some still do even in 2011.

A Continual Process

Coming out is a continual process; this is often forgotten. It is so wearisome to realise that even today many people just assume you are straight. It is still the default setting. I had to come out to work colleagues; every time you meet someone new you somehow have to make it clear somehow that you are attracted to your own gender.

You don't want to have to be in this position of continually coming out, but it's the way things are. We just still have such a hetero-normative set up in our society that we have to do so. Once your friends and above all your parents (the ones who really matter to you) are out of the way though, you obviously becoming increasingly less bothered about people's reactions.

There are of course those who say "why do gays have to make such a fuss?" They really don't get it. Meet any straight person, in any context, and the chances are within a few conversations they will have announced their sexuality to you probably without even having realised they've done so. They'll mention a wife, a boyfriend, someone they fancy on X-Factor etc etc. If you're on Twitter think about the people you talk to. I chat with several hundred; without most of their having announced it, I must subconsciously know or have a good idea about the sexuality of a good 80% of them.

Most gay men and women aren't making a fuss; they're being themselves, in just the same way straight people have every right to be themselves.

The Good News

There is extremely good news in all of this. If you are around 20, chances are your parents will be of an entirely different generation: aged 40-50 and much more likely to be accepting than the parents of those in my generation. Homophobia still exists and this influences opinions, but it is far less widespread and far less socially acceptable than it was.

A barometer of this is the statistic (apologies if this not exactly correct) that if you are a gay man aged 60 in the UK today, your average age of coming out was 37. If you are 40, you came out on average at 21. If you are 21 today, you came out on average at 17. People are less and less bothered about it, and there are more openly gay people in all walks of life, making it easier in turn for everyone else to be honest about themselves.

Society is changing enormously. Be yourself - you can't after all be anything other than you are, no matter how hard you wish it. There are a lot of people who will support you and although this may be hard in the short or even medium term, it will on reflection be the best thing you have done for yourself.

* Just to be absolutely clear I had NOT found Jesus. From my limited understanding, I don't believe any of Christ's teachings are compatible with the hate filled agenda of the religious right. The Christians I have in my life are loving, accepting, wonderful people. I don't share their faith, but I know from the way they are that bigotry and hatred are not part of who they are.

Objectifying Men

2011-10-09T06:26:00.000-07:00

We've all seen it - the use of hot men to sell things. I guess it began overtly back in the 80s when Levis took to the air in 1985 with Nick Kamen stripping off in a laundrette. It was followed by Calvin Klein shoving up a billboard of Marky Mark in his underwear in New York in the early 90s. Apparently the billboard caused a storm (every advertisers' dream) and as a 14 year old I remember being mildly scandalised by the Levis 501 advert. Watching it now (click on the link) it is so mild it's untrue. Perhaps this is a sign of the distance we have travelled in those twenty five years in accepting "male flesh" and the general sexualisation of men.

Sex Sells: Abercrombie and Yeo Valley

Anyone can have their photo taken with an A&F "hunk"

Abercrombie & Fitch are of course the real "masters" of this, with their shop assistants selected for their model looks (to be an A&F model you have to have worked in one of the stores first), their shirtless men in the doorways of the stores who will have their pictures taken with you, and their adverts which seem to show a lot more flesh than they do actual clothing. Sex sells: A&F London apparently outperformed their first two years' sales targets within 3 months of opening. There are queues round the block on Saturday mornings.

For heaven's sake, even Yeo Valley are using an attractive faux-boyband made up of male models to sell their yoghurt and milk during X-Factor. The advert seemed to attract as much attention on my timeline last night as the actual acts. We've gone way beyond the sphere of selling clothing with an attractive model (there's a certain logic there) to just using men as sex objects to sell anything.

Hot young "farmers" selling milk?!

Hottie or Nottie?

I was in the pub on Friday with 3 great women from Twitter. There was a very attractive man at the table next to us and let's say we were enjoying the view. There were in fact a LOT of attractive men in that bar for some reason. I posted his picture on Twitter with the hashtag "#hottieornottie". If you're not aware of it, people (mainly gay men but also women) take photos on their phones and invite comments as to whether people think the subject is a "hottie" or a "nottie". The guy can be in a shop, the pub, a park, down the gym etc.

This was the second time ever I'd posted a guy in my entire time on Twitter. The result was a lot of enthusiastic responses (25 hottie, 2 maybe, 0 nottie). Most responses were from straight women, some from gay men, one from a straight man and one from a lesbian (she asked for double points because of her objectivity). The man wasn't aware he'd had his photo taken, it was a public place, and the question is whether this is unacceptable objectification or just harmless fun.

Likewise there is now the Tube Crush website where women (60%) and gay men (40%) take pictures of "hot men" using the Tube and post them to a website. If you read the BBC story on this you will see the legalities aspect and the fact that during the site's period of operation only 3 men ever have asked for their images to be removed. You'll also note that only photos of men, but not women, are allowed, but there is no real explanation given as to why.

Double Standards?

Yesterday on Twitter I also posted a picture that a gay man had posted of himself on Grindr. FYI this is the "hook up" app on iPhones etc, which has incredibly strict rules about "decency" and what may and may not be shown; there is a maximum distance below the belly button that can be displayed etc. The picture in my view wasn't porn or anywhere close to it (my MUTTI follows me on Twitter after all). It was just a picture a very good looking guy had voluntarily put out there of himself. He was seeking attention on a hook up app, no doubt as he thinks is his just reward for the hours and weeks he must spend in the gym.

I then got talking to another gay man about the "types" we found attractive. My friend showed me a sweet coupley pic of him and his ex-boyfriend and I commented that the ex was "beautiful".

Our conversation was interrupted by a 3rd party who said (in a nutshell, this went on for almost 6 hours) that we were applying a double-standard, we wouldn't say this about women and were pleading special treatment for the gay community. He went on to say (and I quote) "Your defence is akin to 'it can't have been rape, she was dressed like a slut" / "of course your argument applies to women & children. You're proposing a public sexualisation of others" / "I'm suggesting it makes others victims and creates a sexualised power differential. Same as porn objectifies women."

Pretty strong stuff and quite a leap to go from a picture a guy had posted of himself to suggesting that I was proposing a "public sexualisation of children" and that all 3 billion men in the world are "victims" because of my tweet.

Sexual Politics

Like a good few men I believe extremely strongly that women should be given equal political, economic and social opportunities and rights. However, like many men I am also very nervous to express a view about feminist subjects and sexual politics because:

a) they are many people who know a lot more about this specialist are than I do;
b) I don't know what it is like to be the subject of daily prejudice because of my gender;
c) I do not want to say the wrong thing and offend or be taken as a sexist.

I am however a man, and I am aware of the objectification that exists (particularly within the gay community) towards men. I therefore feel safer on this subject and hence this blog.

The question is therefore is it actually a double-standard to talk about hot men and to use images of them to "publically sexualise" men in general?

Tying it in to the above, there is no way, for example, that Yeo Valley could get away with a female version of their advert with pretty women with skimpy tops and big breasts milking cows: it would be considered crudely and unacceptably sexist. It wouldn't help their sales: it would more likely lead to a boycott. Likewise whilst A&F do employ waif-like women in their stores, the imagery on their adverts is much more male oriented and the men are much more overtly sexual than the women in the way they are shown.

Of course other advertising does still use attractive women, but in more subtle ways than these two examples.

My Viewpoint

My (entirely amateur) viewpoint is this has to start from the position that there *is* still a massive distinction between the way that men and women are treated in society. The major argument in the objectification of women is that it greatly reduces the personal and intellectual abilities of a woman; it defines her as solely or predominantly an instrument of sexual pleasure. This comes from a position where for millennia women have been in a "lower" position in male dominated societies. Where some women are depicted in this way, it reinforces an image that all women are of the same (inferior) value.

Hot Man in the Office

Men as a category are NOT a victimised group in our society. If I meet an attractive guy in an office, or indeed see one of the "hunks" at the Abercrombie store, do I think of them purely as sex objects, or do I see their physical make up as one immediately apparent aspect of them... but then quickly move on to make judgements (as we all naturally do) about their personal and intellectual abilities when we interact?

I'm not coming from a default setting of "oh he's sexy, therefore he can't have a brain and is only good for a shag". The A&F model may be good looking and also not very bright; equally he could be finishing his training as a doctor. Because I do not have centuries' worth of social conditioning that sexual attractiveness of a man equates to that being their *only* defining factor, I don't automatically pigeon hole him.

I would genuinely contend that men are still in a very different position to women in this regard and we unfortunately have a long, long way to go before the intentions of the "slut walks" (which I personally think superb) will filter through and become a reality.

I find it fascinating that Tube Crush has only had 3 requests during its existence from men to remove their images. Others are presumably either flattered or indifferent to being featured on it. I certainly don't mind being objectified: I post a shirtless pic of myself on Grindr and would actually be chuffed to bits if someone took my picture and put it on Tube Crush. I'm operating, as I assume most men are, from a position that we know our physical appearances are *not* our sole defining factors in society. We therefore don't have a fear or insecurity we will be just be seen as a "sex thing". Women, it seems, sadly do not yet have this luxury.

That in a nutshell is why I reject the "double-standard" argument as being utterly out of synch with the position our society is in. There is a demonstrable difference between "sexualising" men and women today in Britain - to ignore it is just plain silly.

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

One could of course argue that "two wrongs don't make a right". It's not right to objectify and sexualise men just because women have always been objectified. I've no idea how time will move on. Will the rapid move from Levi Boys stripping in laundrettes in 1985 to Young Farmers in 2011 with suggestive "milk moustaches" lead to men being seen purely as "shag toys"? All I can comment on is now, not extrapolate forward. Instinctively, given the dominant position men still hold in society, I have serious doubts this will happen, however.

Much more informed commentators can make the link between sexual objectification and sexual violence in a society. The overwhelming bulk of sex crimes are currently directed at women; a small (but often forgotten) proportion are aimed at men. Will the existence of A&F adverts make men more the subject of sexual attacks? Again I find that proposition fanciful personally and would be intrigued to know if there is any data on increase in sex crimes aimed at men since, say 1985.

We are Sexual Beings

In addition I think it is a very artificial and essentially dehumanising to deny that we ARE sexual beings. If we don't go out dressed in a burqa, people do see us, at least in part, in terms of our physical and sexual attractiveness. It happens. If you are good looking, or choose to dress in a particular way, people will notice you and react partly through a presence or lack of sexual attraction. The problem only comes, as I see it, when this is seen as our ONLY defining factor.

I will happily comment on a woman I know looking great in her avatar, or saying she looks stunning in a new dress. I guess I have the fortunate position of her knowing this isn't some form of come-on; but equally I'm sure many straight men can pass the same compliment and it will not be seen as stripping her of her identity and seeing her only as a sex-object. Her appearance is PART of her identity; we need to get to the point where, as with men, it is not the defining or exclusive part.

Context is also important: I'd say it's fine in a pub over a drink to comment about a guy there. At the work place it is clearly not acceptable, even if we inevitably think it, to verbalise our impressions whether it's about a man or a woman. Work should be a "sexuality neutral" location in my opinion: a position broadly upheld by the law.

I'd definitely say "nice"

Outside of work, you might personally object to seeing young male flesh on display and being bombarded by sexy singing young farmers drinking milk. I actually don't: I rather like it. I don't subscribe to the puritanical view that skin should be covered up and I really enjoy seeing beautiful images. Sex is important to me and it's part of my human make-up.

We have advertising standards to define what is and what is not widely regarded in society as acceptable. If those lines aren't crossed, you have to accept this is part of being in a diverse society. The Haribo advert is pretty bad, I don't <like> watching it, but I don't think it should be banned because of my personal taste. Going back also to my "sex sells" point, clearly I'm not the only one who quite likes seeing attractive men on TV. Yeo Valley didn't spend a fortune on their rather funny 2 minute advert for nothing: it must make commercial sense to them.

If you don't like my talking about which type of guy I find hot on my Twitter stream, you are of course welcome to either ignore it, or unfollow me. It's a bit like rugby, cricket or F1 tweets: I'm not interested in them, so I whizz on by. If it's *all* someone tweets about, I would probably unfollow. I will not however be censored in my self-expression by someone (the man who objected to my conversation with my gay friend) who calls himself a "liberal" and who somehow reached the point that I'm arguing for the sexualisation of children. I have no problems with anyone of either gender or any sexuality talking about whom they fancy - as long as it isn't the only thing they say (boring) and it isn't directed in a way that a recipient might find offensive or threatening (wrong).

The Gay Position

I do just need to finish up on the "Gay Position". The objectification of men in the gay world, in magazines like Attitude and Gay Times etc., is on a whole other level to the position in wider society. Sex sells and covers that feature horny shirtless men will fly off the shelves. Many gay men clearly want this. The gay world is much further down the line of only seeing sexual attractiveness as a defining feature.

Personally I do think this is somewhat unhealthy and it's not rocket science to say it can lead to very real negative self-esteem in some gay men. Still I think, though, that we're a long way from the stage even in the gay world where a man is stripped of all identity because of his looks. A charming smile, a good chat up line, a pleasant way of interacting will still attract people as much (or more) as a perfect set of pecs and abs. Yes, I'll be drawn to a guy I find physically attractive as much as any other gay man would, but we are all (hopefully) still aware that personality maketh the man - even for a one-night fling, and certainly for anything more. A 6-pack on a guy who happens to be dull as dishwater just wouldn't work for me.

In a similar way I don't buy Attitude just for the hot men - it's an integral part of my enjoyment and it's why I might pick a copy up - but the stories get 90% of my attention in terms of time spent reading.

Summary

My personal position is very clear. I think we respond to sexual imagery and that's part of who we are. Using fit men to sell things has progressed rapidly, I see no real problem with it, and I actually *really* quite like it. There is rightly much more sensitivity when it relates to female sexual imagery than male, and it is not a double standard to act in accordance with the very obvious difference that still exists in our society.

The position I would hope we would get to is not a prudish "everyone should be covered up" position of the past, but instead to one where both male and female sexual imagery can be appreciated and seen just as that; it does not make the whole identity of a person, nor should it ever. We are some way from this with women; perhaps "levelling the playing field" by using male imagery will actually contribute to it.

Hottie or Nottie? Yes, I'll go on playing it every now and then: it is, I believe, harmless acceptable fun. Talking about whether rugby players are cute or not? Yes I will. Talking about what's happening on Grindr? Yes if I've got something vaguely interesting to say. Being censored in my speech by someone not party to my conversation? No, that's something I've never been too keen on.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Wow :)

A Bus Load of Americans

2011-10-07T15:12:00.000-07:00

For the past 20 years I've been taking Americans (mainly high school students aged 15-18, but also sometimes adults) around Europe on educational tours. I sit at the front of the bus, with my microphone, take them to Versailles or Neuschwanstein Castle, and do my bit for the European tourism industry. In the words of Kath and Kim, "it's noice, different, unusual" and I thought I'd blog about it a bit!

Supporting European Travel in Pisa

Travel Free in Europe and Get Paid for It

So how on earth did I get in to this? I saw a poster at college: "Travel free in Europe, and get paid for it" it announced. As someone who speaks 5 languages, loves Europe with a passion, and who was at that point prepared to cycle 3 miles to save 20p on a can of baked beans, this sounded pretty alluring to me. I went for the interview, did the training, and got the job.

ZOMG I still remember the moment my first group arrived. There were 48 of them. I was at Frankfurt airport. I nearly shat myself. This was *seriously* scary stuff. I was just 20: some of the kids were 18 years old. We were going on a 10 day tour ("Bavarian Spring") of Rothenburg, Munich, Innsbruck, Lucerne, and Heidelberg. I'd been to erm, Munich once, for 2 hours. The rest I'd spent ages swotting up on, learning maps, learning history, preparing notes. In most places I got the chance to dash round before giving a city tour.... in Innsbruck I had to do it straight off, reading my encoded notes in Dutch (which I knew no one would understand...) "Turn right at the Golden Roof, that must be the Hofkirche in front of you." I pulled it off though, and the buzz was enormous.

One of my groups at Hohenwerfen Castle, Austria

We'd been out on a coach during training, but the first time I picked up the microphone I descended into a cold sweat. Their little faces were watching me. I was welcoming them to Germany: there was no escape: we would be together for days. Anything could happen. And oh, the things that have happened on these tours.

After my first two tours I moved company. The new one is much better quality, much better organised, and they were far less likely to send me to places I didn't actually know. I've been with them since 1993, over time moving on to interviewing and training people to become tour managers, representing the company at PR weekends, working for a time in Atlanta, being part of a tour manager focus group, actually designing new tours, - this all through my career as a City Solicitor and my current job. I just *love* it. It's my part-time thing: I squeeze in tours and commitments when I can, but I don't think I'll ever stop. It's the most challenging, exciting, enjoyable thing I've ever done.

Musicians of Bremen: a group of young kids from Harlem

What's the Job Like?

So what IS it like being with a group of young Americans? Well they're up for it. They're up to have a good time, they're up for learning about the places you're going to, they're fun, they can be loud, they are confident, warm, lovely. I adore them. They aren't cynical and whiny as I imagine British teens might be. They want to have fun, and they will tell you when they are doing so.

Me and my mike on the coach!

I must have taken around 2000 Americans on tours of Europe: small town kids from Mississippi, street-wise New Yorkers, laid back Californians, Bible Belt Ohio kids who held a church service on the bus - I've had them all. Any "Anti-American" feeling you have vaporises in seconds. You realise just how stupid prejudices about a nation of 300 million individuals can be, and indeed are.

I've been to 18 countries and a grand total of 160 cities, towns or places with my kids, from Bergen in the North, down to Rome in the South They're not "rich" kids, but they're the ones who place an importance on travelling: at 16 they could just have had a new or fancier car: instead they or their families choose to spend $2000 or $3000 on a trip to Europe. Some have worked years flipping burgers for the trip. This will be the only time they leave the United States in their entire lives. A staggering estimated 80% of Americans do not even have a passport.

Goofing round on Mount Titlis... appropriate :)

I know I'm only in effect seeing the "good ones" - but my impressions of US kids genuinely give me a lot of hope for the future. I'm a passionate believer in the value of travel: it opens eyes, changes perspectives, builds bridges and literally can change lives.

Education, Education, Education!

These are educational tours. The kids are capable of going to Versailles, having a group photo and leaving again. Alternatively, you can fire them up, interest them about where they're going. You can stand there and say "I talked to you about the French Revolution... the cause of it? In large part it's behind me!" You can bring to life Gothic architecture by building a church out of kids at Salisbury Cathedral to show them how flying buttresses work. Try enthusing them about this back in a classroom in Kansas - I have a church right there and one of the kids will be my gargoyle. They'll never forget the fun of being part of the demonstration in a place they don't know.

Education, but also chuck in some fun!

You have a *captive audience* to tell them about 19th century bastards: Napoleon, Metternich, Bismarck- you can enthuse, excite, share your love about European history and places with kids, many of whom have never been abroad and possibly never will travel again.

You can talk about European socialised medicine (it's not -actually- evil you know)... point out that people on the other side of the Iron Curtain were as afraid of us as we were of them... that history and politics are nuanced... and you can deftly run through 2000 years of architecture, politics, art and history in 10 minutes with the aid of Euro banknotes. You can tell them why the Holocaust matters and what we can learn from it. What's more, they're stuck on the coach as you talk, so there's NO escape. Mwahaha.

Making Mozart Chocolates in St Gilgen

We do all sorts of "cultural connections" too - they actually take a class in waltzing in Vienna, learn how to paint in Cezanne's style during a class in Provence, do a theatre workshop in the West End, or take a 20s style Berlin cookery class. You get to be part of this very "hands on" experience. It is magic, and I love it.

Logistics and Emergencies

Education is one part of the job; the other aspects are logistics and emergencies. The company makes all the bookings: we stay in lovely 3 or 4 star hotels in superb locations and eat excellent local food. However, I have to make sure we arrive at all the places, I double-check all the reservations, and I'm in charge of all the timings. If I'm doing my job correctly they won't realise it, because it will all run smoothly. If we turn up for our visit to the Pergamon museum in Berlin and the doors are shut that day, though, I've got egg splattered all over my chops.

The dreaded "Train Experience" with a big group

Emergencies can be mental. Anything can happen: I've had lost kids, lost passports, lost suitcases, an adult who had a heart-attack, problems with coach drivers, home-sick kids, broken limbs, 22 hour days - on my last tour I had to on my own book train tickets from Warsaw to Cracow for the entire group of 30 with one hour to go because our driver was out of action and the tour had to go on, get them on the train with all their luggage, make sure they'd visited a supermarket for lunch, get them from the hotels to the stations without a coach, and all without speaking hardly a word of Polish.

You're a teacher, a diplomat, a problem-solver, a friend to the students and a sergeant major all rolled into one.

One of my lovely students @lilplushy on Herrenchiemsee

Music As Well

I also take music tours - my single highlight of 2010 was a Californian choir who on the way back from a concert outside Bratislava sang *me* (yes, little me) "Don't Stop Believing" as we drove along the Danube at night. (Coincidentally) fire works were going off to mark the opening of the new Hilton Hotel.

IT WAS A WALKING SINGING REAL LIFE GLEE EXPERIENCE *passes out*

My "Glee" group on a boat in Prague <3

My choirs and orchestras have performed in the Haydn room of Esterhazy palace, the Mozarteum in Salzburg, the Tosca church in Rome, St Stephen's Cathedral in Budapest - these are world class venues. What an amazing experience for the students. The music tours can be huge: the largest group I ever took round was 167. There were three of us tour managers working together. I had 67 on my bus alone. We ate in the same restaurant every night - imagine how long it takes just to get them from A to B and the loudness of your voice to try to "herd" them from place to place.

Recruiting Now

If you know anyone who wants a challenging, rewarding, amazing, fulfilling and fabulous job - the company I work for is looking for new tour managers for 2012 currently. It's the best student job imaginable and is also superb for part-time freelancers who have a couple of weeks available a year. You can apply here. You get your travel paid for, your hotels and food provided, and the remuneration is actually extremely generous (Americans take tipping very seriously, and the strictly adhered to amount is $5 per person per day. Do the maths on a big group on a 14 day tour).

Cracow, Poland: LOOK at their little happy faces!

Imagine a job where you can have a profound effect on the way a young person will relate to their surroundings outside the comfort zone of the world they know. Imagine the fun (and terror) of having a microphone in your hand. Imagine explaining Impressionism to people who have never even heard of it, sending them into the Musée d'Orsay to look at the paintings, and asking what they thought of it afterwards. Imagine an 18 year old New Jersey boy called Nick writing you a note at the end of the trip that simply says "Thank you, Peter. This has been the best week of my entire life". Don't know about you bunch of hard sods, but I cried.

I'm not even getting a kick back for this blog - I just recommend it as the best job I have ever done, by a mile. If the above has interested you, give it a go! People from all backgrounds do it: it is extremely challenging, but that is the reason the rewards are so great. Again, I love it.

Lolz: Visegrad Castle in Hungary

Living "in the sticks"

2011-09-24T10:01:00.000-07:00

Two ever-so slightly contrasting stories:

LONDON

I'm at the Friendly Society: a slinky, trendy Soho basement gay bar. There's a hot boy. He actually talks to me. The conversation goes something like this: "So whereabouts do you live?"./. "Spitalfields" ./. "Really? Me too - just off Middlesex Street"./. "Yeah, same here. I live on Strype Street"./. "No?! So do I. Brody House"./. "What number?"./. "Number 306"./. "Hi, I'm apartment 307..."

We'd been next door neighbours for 18 months. I hadn't even SEEN him. Not in the hallway, not on the stairs, not at the mailbox downstairs. I wasn't convinced anyone was living in the apartment, actually.

[Editor's Note: Peter would *so* have noticed aforementioned hot gay boy neighbour. This no doubt goes without saying for anyone who knows him.]

THE STICKS

I'm at a Christmas party in Suffolk. I haven't actually moved into my cottage yet: it's being refurbished. A Tory wearing a flashing Christmas Tree brooch approaches me. I think, gulp, I wonder if they hunt Socialists up here with dogs?

The conversation goes something like this: "Hello I'm Peter, I've just moved to Eye"./. "Yes, I know. You live opposite us"./. "Oh okay"./. "I gather you're doing a lovely job on your cottage"./. [Pause and think: that's interesting as precisely NOBODY has been inside my cottage] ./. "Really? Erm, who told you that?"./. "Michael" ./. "Michael?" ./. "Yes, the carpenter who fitted the new locks to your front door."

Cue mild panic attack and consideration of how long it will take to sell up, get my ass back out of here, and to somewhere in Zone 1, where I could die in my apartment and peacefully lie undiscovered until around 2078.

Wind forward around 8 years

It was my dog Oscar's birthday on 23 September. He was 9. That date also happens to be the anniversary of my completing on my cottage, a year later in 2003. The mutt's first two months with me had been spent at best friend @dominic_uk's house. In fact, ALL of this is Dominic's fault. In his ever so random way he had seen his now home, Yaxley Hall, for sale in the Sunday Times property section. He didn't even look at another property anywhere else in the country, let alone in Suffolk. He bought it and moved up from Central London.

Because our business was run together, so did I. I'd seen a little run down cottage with 6 foot high nettles in its garden in the neighbouring "town" and thought let's give this country thing a go. Neither of us had the slightest connexion to the place: it was completely random. On 23 September 2003 I obtained the keys to my cottage. Michael the Carpenter later fitted the new locks some time later, as we've already established.

Chocolate Box? Much!

I put the word "town" in inverted commas because anyone else would call Eye a village. It's an absurdly pretty little place with a Norman castle, beautiful English Gothic church, thatched cottages, little local shops, and a bizarre 19C town hall. However it is technically a town and used to return two MPs. The handsome Georgian house opposite was (I'm told) used in one of the Miss Marple movies *and* had 5 suffragette sister inhabitants who would travel down to London and cause all sorts of mischief. Fabulous.

And I've been here ever since. I've been to 63 countries and have lived for varying lengths of time in 11. This is the longest time I've spent anywhere.

The Former Guild Hall

What's it like?

Well it's surprisingly wonderful. First my cottage: it's thatched, tiny, but is the snuggest home I've ever lived in. It's listed as being 18th century - however clearly the council don't know their arses from their elbows. The builders found the chimney is all Tudor brick and they discovered some kind of wooden thing up in the roof (please note my precise architectural terminology). Smoke was let out through this when the place was still a one storey structure. My Suffolk hippy historic builders told me brick chimneys made it to this area in the late 1400s. Until then a fire on the dirt floor would have been the main source of light, heat and for cooking. It's almost Monty-Python-Esque. Their guess is therefore the place is older than 1450.

That's amazing! 1450!! This place was probably at least 130 years old when the naughty Spaniards tried to invade. 180 years old when the Pilgrim Fathers set off to open the first Starbucks. Over 300 years old when Captain Cook set foot at Botany Bay. Almost 450 years old when Bertha Benz borrowed her husband's new invention (the car) to drive to a Schnell Imbiss in Pforzheim. It's seen some history that's for sure. And poverty of course. Real poverty of a type we cannot imagine: hungry mouths, infants dying, possibly plague, famine. It's just a little worker's cottage. At night I often try to imagine all the people who have lived here: their fears, their joy, their toils, their hardship, the changes as events in both history and their personal lives unfolded.

The cow-poo and stick walls of the cottage are not thick, but they are incredibly dense. The roof is warm. By putting in secondary double-glazing the place has become really snug and so cheap to heat. The BBC ran a story on this type of construction and the Prince's Foundation, ever champions of learning from traditional building methods, commented on what I have noticed: "The smartest way to save energy may be to live in a Tudor house and insulate the attic and repair the windows."

But what about the Locals?!

Well, they're for the most part absolutely lovely. I was really worried about curtain twitching and what on earth they would make of a homosexual, Labour voting, half-German, Europhile, vegetarian in their midst. The Tory with the flashing Christmas tree broach wasn't being nosy: it's just inevitable that people take an interest in a small place. She was being friendly, which took me some time to grasp properly. People look out for each other: that's quite remarkable and not something I was used to. I've been invited to all sorts of events, dinners etc. Warm, welcoming, not in the slightest snooty, and not at all judgemental is how I'd describe it.

I love putting my "vote Labour" signs up in my window. The Gummers (who live 2 villages along) are frequent visitors to the house opposite, along with various other Tories. The owners are both Tory councillors and the husband (whom I occasionally love getting pissed on whisky with) was the chairman of Suffolk County Council. I'm therefore *perfectly* placed to wind this lot up. They're amazingly tolerant of me in the circumstances and said "We KNOW you just put those dreadful signs in your windows to tease us." Hehe.

I even stood for Labour in this May's election for the district council and got 11% of the vote. Not bad for an outsider and a first timer, I thought!

Preaching to the Unreachables

Of course occasionally you get the odd surprise of course: I was told by a former town councillor that London "has no British people left in it: well not whites anyway." Erm, okay, let's look at that statement... *draws breath*. A masseur in Norwich asked me what London "was like". It's £6 if you buy a cheap ticket and two hours away by train, for heaven's sake. This was a gay 32 year old man who had never been to the capital. His reason was "I just never got round to it." I was also told by two sweet old woman they would have voted for me in the election, but they just couldn't bring themselves to tick the box marked Labour. They looked like they were talking about an unpleasant mess a dog had made on the pavement.

Then there's the odd surprise, such as meeting a lovely old woman in the local café Cornforth & Cornforth (best café *EVAR* btw). Her heavy Central European accent immediately perked up my interest. Classy, gorgeous, with the most wonderful accent when she spoke German. She is the second Vienna Jew in her 80s I now know. As a young girl Therese remembered the Anschluss vividly, and came across to England in 1939 with her parents. She joined the Labour Party in 1948, lived in Islington before moving up here, and her home is full of wonderful modern art. When two fish are similarly out of water, they make friends :)

CRIME and Other Things

I remember loving taking the piss out of the Local PC's crime report in the town magazine. The first one said "There were 4 crimes to report in the last month. The two most serious are as follows. A man was seen trying to obtain a refund for a pair of shoes he had previously stolen in a shop on Broad Street. A green plastic chair was also stolen from a garden in Victoria Hill."

THESE ARE THE MOST SERIOUS ONES? What were the other two? One of those chairs costs about £1.99 at B&Q doesn't it? As my friend Jamie joked, one day something really serious will happen. CID will arrive and ask the local bobby "Have you had experience of a murder before?" He'll answer "No, but we did once lose a green plastic chair back in 2003."

Caution: Crime Scene!

But think about this. It is a rare, wonderful, incredible thing in this country that there can be anywhere that is so low crime (I'm actually only 90 miles from London). Apparently it's one of the lowest rates in the entire country. The weather is also great: we get 2 hours more sunshine per week than the UK average and it is substantially drier. Winters are crap: I'd much rather be in the city when it's dark, cold and bleak here, but for the rest of the year, give me Suffolk any day.

We also have proper local shops. They're wonderful. I was once charged 2p for a button in the fabric shop. Does anything still cost 2p anywhere else? Tesco is 4 miles away across the border in that there foreign place, Norfolk. People don't always carry their passports or have up to date visas, so it means that our townsfolk do actually use the two little local Coops, the greengrocer, the pharmacy, the baker, the hardware shop etc. (Btw the hardware shop is sometimes a little like a scene from Cage aux Folles. I am *so* not the only gay in the village).

Main Street: Rush Hour Gridlock

The last thing I love is the night sky. This area is so sparsely populated and the nearest towns (Norwich and Ipswich) are each 20 miles away, which means light pollution is minimal. I never fail to marvel at the star filled skies on my late night walk with the dog.

What does this all add up to? Well according to the Telegraph we have the highest rural quality of life in the UK. I would not disagree with anything said in that article. Note that house prices are significantly cheaper too: this is actually far from a rich or "posh" area like Surrey or Hampshire, but it is one which has massive attractions.

Twitter

The icing on the cake is Twitter. It has literally transformed my enjoyment of living here. I do huge amounts of travel at various times in the year because of my part-time "fun" job taking American kids on educational tours around Europe. Without that it would drive me a bit mad if I were just stuck in Mid Suffolk. London is also very possible for an evening out: I'm down in town some weeks twice a week. I really need that, just for the life and variety.

But Twitter... It has simply stopped me from being lonely and feeling isolated all the rest of the times I am actually up here. I can connect with "my type of people", have social interaction and intellectual stimulation. I've also found Twitter friends much more likely to respond to a tweet "I'm in London: anyone about for a drink?" than many 'real life' friends would be. I can therefore have fresh air, night skies AND access to my buddies from my iPhone when I'm in Suffolk.

I'm sure some studies are required into the emotional benefit of social networks like Twitter - for me being "out in the sticks" it is immense.

A Closing Quote

My cosmopolitan, Hampstead residing, gay, Sydney, Jewish, musician friend Jeremy looked at me when I told him I had put an offer in on a cottage here. He simply said in his splendidly withering tone "Peter. You move to Eye to die."

I ROFLd of course... and I now have the quiet satisfaction of knowing that he has bought a little weekend cottage a few miles away. Oh the delicious irony.

The sticks: there's actually quite a lot to be said for them :)