Is the UK heading for a Republic when Queen Elizabeth dies? Long then may she reign. This thought struck me not because of media interest in the inauguration of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States but the way the media has featured to attitude of Prince Phillip with his slitty eyes comment in days long since passed, then Prince Harry with his Nazi fancy dress and then suddenly bringing to light a three year old video of him calling a colleague a popular race name among a large section of British folk, then Prince Charles reported as doing something similar in relation to someone at the Polo club. Despite apologies and defences the matter has continued to be discussed, as it was on Question Time Thursday, and the behaviour condemned by heavy weights of the three main Political Parties. By coincidence, I presume, there was also an interesting, but purpose odd programme, on the former butler of Diana, former Princess of Wales, Paul Burrell during which serious allegations against a member of the Royal Family were resurrected..
British Politicians and media have always been understandably two faced on the issue of race. I say understandable because it is morally right and socially desirable that in principle everyone in the UK is treated with fairness and given similar opportunities regardless of their racial ethnicity, their country of origin, their parental background and present social status. It is wrong in principle for anyone to be handicapped because of the colour of their skin, because of their parents or other family members, because of their religious and political views, their sexual orientation, where they live, or how they spend their time and money.
I say in principle because their are some exceptions to everyone being treated with fairness and not handicapped by their behaviour. However this does not refer to their colour, or parental background for example but to what they have personally done or not done in the past. Someone who has committed murder should be viewed with continuing suspicion whether they are in prison or not. They should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they have reformed and able to fit back into society and be eligible for its privileges. Because they have completed a prison sentence does not mean that their slate should be automatically wiped clean. Similarly if someone has been guilty of fraud or straight forward stealing money, they should understand ongoing caution about them being put into any position where they have access to or control of the funds of anyone other than themselves. Human beings can fundamentally change their behaviour, their beliefs and the language they use, but it is wise to be cautious about anyone with a pedigree of crime or anti social behaviour. There are issues in relation to their marital partners and their children which will affect ho society responds to them as parents.
What I object to, and believe is counter productive, is when politicians, the media and others in public positions try and pretend that the UK has not been a racist country or pretends that racism and other forms of prejudice has not only be ingrained into every aspect of British life but continues to thrive. I have met tens of thousands of people in my lifetime and I have not met anyone who is not prejudiced about something or someone. For a decade in Germany almost everyone was not just members of fascist organisations but supported Hitler and Nazism, just as the majority in Communist countries believed in Communism and supported the Russian style of state authoritarianism. And these beliefs did not just suddenly stop when Germany surrendered in 1945 or the Berlin Wall was demolished. A large number of people continue to hold their beliefs until the day they die, but also learn to keep their views private, preferably to themselves. Remembering the Jesuit principle of give me the child for seven years and I give you the adult, by the time most children started school in the UK in the last century their beliefs and attitudes were already fashioned and it is only within the past decade with the significant growth of nursery education that new generations will not be imbued with the beliefs and attitudes of their parents to the same extent as previously.
Therefore it is important that politicians, the media and those in authority continually reinforce what is acceptable and what is not, while understanding the extent of the problem and the nature of the change required. It is especially difficult for some whose lives are under constant scrutiny, and where a lot of money can be made by disclosure, to be always on their guard against saying or doing anything which will be interpreted as offensive or unacceptable to some section of society, or to their contemporary society in general. I am therefore surprised and disappointed that Prince Charles and one of his sons have not yet grasped that even in their private society it is important to avoid statements and behaviour which will cause offence and more importantly further undermine the likelihood of the monarchy surviving Queen Elizabeth. At a stroke all the good work of military service and good causes has been undone.
This brings me to the programme on Paul Burrell. There was an air of revolution in London and around Britain when the former Princess Diana died. It has taken a decade for the combined efforts of the Monarchy, Government, the UK media and two dodgy enquiries to reach the position when for the time being other issues have replaced nationally expressed concerns about her death. Even Mr Al Fayed appears to have dropped his efforts to establish the truth.
I have had and continue to have reservations about the way Paul Burrell portrayed his relationship with Princess Diana, having read the first of his two books and viewed his TV appearances, and followed what happened at the Trial. His semi banishment to the USA where it appears he is doing financially well, seemed a fair outcome for everyone and I assumed that was the end of his influence in the UK over the life and death of the Princess and the future of the Monarchy.
The one hour programme on Channel Four on Thursday Paul Burrell: What Really Happened, is part of a new series with presenter Jacques Peretti. Now who is Jacques Peretti?. I am always suspicious about individuals who poke their noses into the lives of other people in such a public way and yet do not reveal much about themselves if my Internet and Wikipedia search is one indication. To-date his TV programmes have been about sex and the effect of Hitler upon popular Culture; he has written, produced and directed one programme in the IMD database, written and directed a second and produced two others before this new series which I understand will also cover Michael Jackson and Amy Winehouse. The list of references in the Guardian to his writing is more extensive both in subject and quantity.
The focus of this what really happened is the trial where Mr Burrell was accused of taking without authority some 300 odd items belonging to Princess Diana from her home. In the programme Mr Peretti seemed to me to be implying but then backtracking that the main reason for the original police raid was a tape which was said to have been made by the Princess when she visited a former employee of the Royal Family who claimed he was raped by one of its member’s. Mr Peretti also implied but also backtracked that a deal had been done in which Paul Burrell left the UK and limited what was subsequently said to the public in exchange for the memory recall of her Majesty reported to the court shortly before he was due to be cross examined. The programme also reminded of what Mr Burrell was reported to have said following his appearance at the Inquest. The programme ended with Mr Peretti posing the question: Did Mr Burrell know something which would blow the Monarchy out of the water or was he a clever bluffer?
Mr Peretti revealed that the outing of Mr Burrell’s alleged relationship with a man living in Australia had come from the Palace. However he also stated that the reason why the British media turned their fury on Mr Burrell was not out of deference to Palace wishes but because he had sold his story to only one Fleet Street (national) newspaper. Mr Peretti also obtained interviews with the father and brother of Mr Burrell who were both upset at the lack of contact, especially the lack of any invitation to visit in the USA. Mr Peretti arrived at the shuttered home of Mr Burrell to find a car pointedly outside the garage to signal that he was home but not for you. One assumes that the programme did contact Mr Burrell or his agent in advance at some point. The programme did not say if there had been a private meeting subsequently, if the visit outside the property and the non appearance had been pre arranged. I was left wanting to know more about Mr Peretti and his methods. Oh you cynical you.
I was left with the feeling that something is going on within parts of the establishment in which the future of Britain as a Monarchy after the Queen is being best questioned, tested, and alternatives planned.
I have watched four hours of American Idol over two days. What is said to be the biggest season so far is being compressed. The problem is that people have become bored with the preliminaries. We are not impressed by sights of thousands of people surrounding the auditions and most of us are embarrassed by the humiliation of those who cannot sing, and disinterested by those who know they cannot sing but see the programme as the opportunity for personal publicity. Most of us can see through the formula of carefully selecting most of the possible finalists for exposure, especially if they have a moving story to tell, they are young, have some quirk such as being the brother of the third runner up of the last series. Those behind the programme need to devise a new formula for the preliminaries.
As I walked to Smiths on Thursday I attempted to count the number of paces and estimate that the total for the outing was between 3250 and 3500 about a quarter of the activity required each day. I am determined to maintain this quantity while the weather continues to be cold. I mark my intake of nutrition fair to good.
I was interested by a series of articles in the Daily Mail by Paul McKenna on the subject of sleep. Foe those who want to have a normal sleep pattern of eight or so while it is dark the advice not to have naps during the day is obviously a sound one. Going to bed only when you are sleepy and not staying in bed getting worked up about not sleeping is advice I have been following with good effect. What continues to upset is when I am in the half and hall zone tired but unable to sleep and tired but unable to work or become engaged in something worthwhile
When one eats and drinks and what one eats and drinks are important factors but alas the rule not drink anything with caffeine some eight hours before bed time is a definite no no. My present diet is a good one a d I have banned Pepsi Coke. If I drink alcohol my body reaction follows the standard pattern of being sleepy and sometimes sleeping well on the settee in front of the TV and then I usually am fully awake and mentally active,
I agree with not trying to sleep just after I have watched something interesting on TV or completed a piece of writing and I sometimes do the washing up and sorting out of food for the following day but making a list is usually counter productive. My sleep environment is a good one, dark and quiet although the air surrounding the bed is sometimes too warm when I forget to switch off the hearing about an hour before retiring. However for me the problems are mental as well as physical,. I am sure the techniques and exercises outlined in the four articles of varying length and quality will be helpful to many. In my instance it is about management enable the maximum use of waking time and just with the issues of weight and exercise it is a question of will and application.
British Politicians and media have always been understandably two faced on the issue of race. I say understandable because it is morally right and socially desirable that in principle everyone in the UK is treated with fairness and given similar opportunities regardless of their racial ethnicity, their country of origin, their parental background and present social status. It is wrong in principle for anyone to be handicapped because of the colour of their skin, because of their parents or other family members, because of their religious and political views, their sexual orientation, where they live, or how they spend their time and money.
I say in principle because their are some exceptions to everyone being treated with fairness and not handicapped by their behaviour. However this does not refer to their colour, or parental background for example but to what they have personally done or not done in the past. Someone who has committed murder should be viewed with continuing suspicion whether they are in prison or not. They should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they have reformed and able to fit back into society and be eligible for its privileges. Because they have completed a prison sentence does not mean that their slate should be automatically wiped clean. Similarly if someone has been guilty of fraud or straight forward stealing money, they should understand ongoing caution about them being put into any position where they have access to or control of the funds of anyone other than themselves. Human beings can fundamentally change their behaviour, their beliefs and the language they use, but it is wise to be cautious about anyone with a pedigree of crime or anti social behaviour. There are issues in relation to their marital partners and their children which will affect ho society responds to them as parents.
What I object to, and believe is counter productive, is when politicians, the media and others in public positions try and pretend that the UK has not been a racist country or pretends that racism and other forms of prejudice has not only be ingrained into every aspect of British life but continues to thrive. I have met tens of thousands of people in my lifetime and I have not met anyone who is not prejudiced about something or someone. For a decade in Germany almost everyone was not just members of fascist organisations but supported Hitler and Nazism, just as the majority in Communist countries believed in Communism and supported the Russian style of state authoritarianism. And these beliefs did not just suddenly stop when Germany surrendered in 1945 or the Berlin Wall was demolished. A large number of people continue to hold their beliefs until the day they die, but also learn to keep their views private, preferably to themselves. Remembering the Jesuit principle of give me the child for seven years and I give you the adult, by the time most children started school in the UK in the last century their beliefs and attitudes were already fashioned and it is only within the past decade with the significant growth of nursery education that new generations will not be imbued with the beliefs and attitudes of their parents to the same extent as previously.
Therefore it is important that politicians, the media and those in authority continually reinforce what is acceptable and what is not, while understanding the extent of the problem and the nature of the change required. It is especially difficult for some whose lives are under constant scrutiny, and where a lot of money can be made by disclosure, to be always on their guard against saying or doing anything which will be interpreted as offensive or unacceptable to some section of society, or to their contemporary society in general. I am therefore surprised and disappointed that Prince Charles and one of his sons have not yet grasped that even in their private society it is important to avoid statements and behaviour which will cause offence and more importantly further undermine the likelihood of the monarchy surviving Queen Elizabeth. At a stroke all the good work of military service and good causes has been undone.
This brings me to the programme on Paul Burrell. There was an air of revolution in London and around Britain when the former Princess Diana died. It has taken a decade for the combined efforts of the Monarchy, Government, the UK media and two dodgy enquiries to reach the position when for the time being other issues have replaced nationally expressed concerns about her death. Even Mr Al Fayed appears to have dropped his efforts to establish the truth.
I have had and continue to have reservations about the way Paul Burrell portrayed his relationship with Princess Diana, having read the first of his two books and viewed his TV appearances, and followed what happened at the Trial. His semi banishment to the USA where it appears he is doing financially well, seemed a fair outcome for everyone and I assumed that was the end of his influence in the UK over the life and death of the Princess and the future of the Monarchy.
The one hour programme on Channel Four on Thursday Paul Burrell: What Really Happened, is part of a new series with presenter Jacques Peretti. Now who is Jacques Peretti?. I am always suspicious about individuals who poke their noses into the lives of other people in such a public way and yet do not reveal much about themselves if my Internet and Wikipedia search is one indication. To-date his TV programmes have been about sex and the effect of Hitler upon popular Culture; he has written, produced and directed one programme in the IMD database, written and directed a second and produced two others before this new series which I understand will also cover Michael Jackson and Amy Winehouse. The list of references in the Guardian to his writing is more extensive both in subject and quantity.
The focus of this what really happened is the trial where Mr Burrell was accused of taking without authority some 300 odd items belonging to Princess Diana from her home. In the programme Mr Peretti seemed to me to be implying but then backtracking that the main reason for the original police raid was a tape which was said to have been made by the Princess when she visited a former employee of the Royal Family who claimed he was raped by one of its member’s. Mr Peretti also implied but also backtracked that a deal had been done in which Paul Burrell left the UK and limited what was subsequently said to the public in exchange for the memory recall of her Majesty reported to the court shortly before he was due to be cross examined. The programme also reminded of what Mr Burrell was reported to have said following his appearance at the Inquest. The programme ended with Mr Peretti posing the question: Did Mr Burrell know something which would blow the Monarchy out of the water or was he a clever bluffer?
Mr Peretti revealed that the outing of Mr Burrell’s alleged relationship with a man living in Australia had come from the Palace. However he also stated that the reason why the British media turned their fury on Mr Burrell was not out of deference to Palace wishes but because he had sold his story to only one Fleet Street (national) newspaper. Mr Peretti also obtained interviews with the father and brother of Mr Burrell who were both upset at the lack of contact, especially the lack of any invitation to visit in the USA. Mr Peretti arrived at the shuttered home of Mr Burrell to find a car pointedly outside the garage to signal that he was home but not for you. One assumes that the programme did contact Mr Burrell or his agent in advance at some point. The programme did not say if there had been a private meeting subsequently, if the visit outside the property and the non appearance had been pre arranged. I was left wanting to know more about Mr Peretti and his methods. Oh you cynical you.
I was left with the feeling that something is going on within parts of the establishment in which the future of Britain as a Monarchy after the Queen is being best questioned, tested, and alternatives planned.
I have watched four hours of American Idol over two days. What is said to be the biggest season so far is being compressed. The problem is that people have become bored with the preliminaries. We are not impressed by sights of thousands of people surrounding the auditions and most of us are embarrassed by the humiliation of those who cannot sing, and disinterested by those who know they cannot sing but see the programme as the opportunity for personal publicity. Most of us can see through the formula of carefully selecting most of the possible finalists for exposure, especially if they have a moving story to tell, they are young, have some quirk such as being the brother of the third runner up of the last series. Those behind the programme need to devise a new formula for the preliminaries.
As I walked to Smiths on Thursday I attempted to count the number of paces and estimate that the total for the outing was between 3250 and 3500 about a quarter of the activity required each day. I am determined to maintain this quantity while the weather continues to be cold. I mark my intake of nutrition fair to good.
I was interested by a series of articles in the Daily Mail by Paul McKenna on the subject of sleep. Foe those who want to have a normal sleep pattern of eight or so while it is dark the advice not to have naps during the day is obviously a sound one. Going to bed only when you are sleepy and not staying in bed getting worked up about not sleeping is advice I have been following with good effect. What continues to upset is when I am in the half and hall zone tired but unable to sleep and tired but unable to work or become engaged in something worthwhile
When one eats and drinks and what one eats and drinks are important factors but alas the rule not drink anything with caffeine some eight hours before bed time is a definite no no. My present diet is a good one a d I have banned Pepsi Coke. If I drink alcohol my body reaction follows the standard pattern of being sleepy and sometimes sleeping well on the settee in front of the TV and then I usually am fully awake and mentally active,
I agree with not trying to sleep just after I have watched something interesting on TV or completed a piece of writing and I sometimes do the washing up and sorting out of food for the following day but making a list is usually counter productive. My sleep environment is a good one, dark and quiet although the air surrounding the bed is sometimes too warm when I forget to switch off the hearing about an hour before retiring. However for me the problems are mental as well as physical,. I am sure the techniques and exercises outlined in the four articles of varying length and quality will be helpful to many. In my instance it is about management enable the maximum use of waking time and just with the issues of weight and exercise it is a question of will and application.
No comments:
Post a Comment