Tuesday 30 October 2007

Travelling is good for you: Czech cuisine



Wild boar in a sweet honey and wine sauce with bacon and herb dumplings




Apricot dumplings in fresh cheese, chocolate sauce and a light coating of fine sugar




Cordon Bleu chicken with home made potato croquettes in a mushroom sauce, with red cabbage and pepper side salad


The Czech Republic is a country incomparable with any other. It is God's Own Land. A hidden treasure, protected by mountains around its entire borders, it has more than just Prague to offer to its visitors. Any visit to this land means going to Prague, but like any capital city, it is different to the rest of the country. Paris is not an example of the rest of France, London is certainly not representative of the rest of the UK and Brussels is the oddest thing you'll ever find in a country like Belgium. Thus Prague is an anomaly in the Czech Republic.

But it is a beautiful, mystical city worthy of the land it presides over. For Prague is by far the most awe-inspiring, breathtaking and humbling urban area you will ever see. For one, its acoustics are unique. In most cities you always feel the bustle of daily life, the noise, the traffic and the need to hurry. Not so in Prague. You can walk along the streets and talk to your partner as though you were in the middle of the country. The pace of life is also much more relaxed and yet serious business goes on there all the time.

But this detracts from what makes Prague the city that it is: the Czech answer to Disney - just as commercialised, sometimes too gawdy, often in-your-face, but it's certainly not fake. And it has more history in its shortest back alleyway than Disney will ever have. This is leading away from where I want to set the scene - the Czech Republic itself.

You can determine the borders of the country from any satellite maps: it is surrounded by mountains, pure, green, tree-strewn, formed by rivers, waterfalls and lakes of the clearest highland water. The villages are spread around the hills and mountains, where Czechs come to spend their weekends and summer holidays in their second home outside the town, known as a chalupa or a chata. The quality of life is far better than most other countries in Europe - people are more contented, more active, and they eat locally produced, natural fruits, vegetables and meats.

The provincial towns themselves are often Baroque leftovers from times when the city's gentry wanted to create their piece of Vienna or Prague in the country. So if you visited Jihlava, Ceske Budejovice, Pardubice, Olomouc, Brno or Ostrava, you would find the estheticness of capital cities in much smaller, less populated areas. Arriving in Liberec in northern Bohemia, I was surprised to find a Tesco supermarket smack in the middle of some 18th century architecture.

Furthermore, you can be guaranteed that your stomach will not be neglected... Czech food is not yet on the map of world cuisines, but soon enough you will find its status rising so long that the tourists come back homa and pass on their messages. Going into a restaurant in a small village near Telc called "Na Kocande" with some friends, we ordered roast duck, rabbit, boar, pheasant and plain old chicken. What arrived will forever be ingrained on the memory. French cuisine is noted for its art but you'll discreetly pop out for a bag of chips because it's not necessarily filling. By contrast, Czech food is extremely tasty and has the added benefit of filling you up.

The photos above are of the food served in Na Kocande and although everyone could do with free advertising, I recommend going into most Czech restaurants and awaiting the surprise upon your plate.

Monday 22 October 2007

Proper speech or class snobbery?

Something has been playing on my mind recently, and that is the lack of English mother tongue speakers who really make an effort to speak properly, or at least articulate. Another thing which has got me pondering the future of our language is the amount who don't bother about basic grammar. Put these two together and in fact the future of the English language in its native country is very bleak unless someone does something pretty soon.


There are several problems. One of those is that it is not fashionable in the south east of England to sound in any way intelligent, because you can seriously lose friends. I mean it. It has gone so far that often those who articulate are seen as untrustworthy and even corrupt. Take Hollywood. In their films all the bad guys are played by either New Englanders or Brits: the crew on the Titanic was split between the loveable Irish rogues and the unscrupulous British gentry. Cruella De Ville in 101 Dalmatians was played by a well-spoken dame and Alexis Colby of Dynasty fame was Joan Collins, the TV character being forever associated with the tag "bitch". It just wouldn't have been the same if they were Californian, Welsh or Australian.


You have been warned...


I noticed how easy it is for people to look down upon those who speak clearly, and there are other perception problems surrounding this. Many dialects and accents are just as valuable, adding to the richness of the language but the most accepted way to speak is with a lazy slur and an attitude of nonchalance. So as long as you don't sound out of place you'll never have to fear rejection. It's not a case of class any more, because so many people of different backgrounds are training themselves to speak that way. If it were, it would be easier to draw the line somewhere.

Recent research by a linguistic institute found that the lower the class (linguistic, not economic), the more mistrusting of clear speakers one is, yet the lower the class (economic, not linguistic) the better one gets on with those at the top, because both sections of society know who they are and are content with their place in the world. A true working class person would not have it any other way and neither would the aristoes! So the problems lie with the middle class - never content with their position they always seem to want to aim higher. They are the driving force behind this new obsession with grammarless English and they are too proud to speak to common folk and too starstruck to hold a civilised conversation with the privileged classes. Their version of the upper class is in fact being led by people like footballers, television personalities and pop stars.

It is due to these new 21st century "icons" that our language is being taken out of our hands. That and a very naïve government policy which thinks all English and Welsh school students are stupid and can't understand the principles behind grammar. I tell my own students (I have about 80 of them at the moment) that their version of English is the correct one. They should not copy anyone else's English because they can also be wrong. They should firstly write it down or make a mental note of it and ask one of the translators, interpreters or language trainers in the Institutions.

I don't care what people say about the way I speak English. I love my language, I am in awe at its humble beginnings and survival and I wish to speak it properly. It has a truly global influence, but it's such a shame that the people who started it off are now moving to some other, more user-unfriendly version which will be, in 100 years' time, an offshoot of the main version, a little like Latin and its offshoots.

Thursday 18 October 2007

Who exactly are the victims here?

It's strange how life works out.

We go through periods of misery, panic, poverty, grief or self-doubt, but as long as you have a strong head and thick skin, you can pass through the other side with ease and confidence. In my job, I also act as some kind of "therapist" for others and I've had to deal with some tough situations.

IS IT WORTH IT?
One of the hardest was being the first person at the bedside of someone who had attempted suicide. Having been called by a member of his family who was in another town, I dropped everything and got to the hospital within fifteen minutes. On the way, several emotions occurred - I was in a fit of panic that he would die alone; I was terrified about what state I would find him in and how it would affect his future physical health, but most of all I was devastated that he had taken this avenue to escape his demons.

I don't know anything so grizzly that it is worth contemplating the ultimate act.

He had been dropped by his girlfriend and as a person who gets attached easily he had decided to press his own self-destruct button. When I arrived he was attached to all kinds of tubes, wires and monitors. His heart rate was weak and his colour could only be described as grey. I feared the worse. The doctor arrived and told me to talk to him and I asked why. He explained that the tests had come through that he had taken sleeping pills but having rejected most of them he was simply in a deep sleep. I was so damned angry that he had used this method to find a solution that the only thing I could think of to say was that I hoped he did wake up so I could knock him all round the hospital grounds.

A very short while later his mother walked in in a blind panic and I quickly informed her of the situation. She sat holding his hand and talking about the episode. This was her son and there must be nothing worse than outliving your offspring unless you survive to an abnormally old age. Even then. So it was with great relief that we witnessed the first movement of his arms and head - until that moment he had been snoring like a lion...

A good few hours later he made some eye-opening gesture and his first words were "oh no", which we took to be a sign that he was still depressed and was unhappy to be alive. How can anyone be unhappy to be alive?! In any case, he spent a short week in there and we came to pick him up. We took his things and went to the centre for a celebratory meal. It was a really happy occasion although emotional nonetheless.

The question I need to ask here is, how do people get into such a state? Do they spent too long thinking? Do they just not understand that we only get one chance at this, and they think they'll be reborn if they die? Since then he has become more fatalistic in life and is a lot happier in himself. In a strange way, it was a gruesome privilege to be involved in that incident and it certainly made all of us several years more mature in the experience.
___________________________________________________________________


THE GREEN EYED MONSTER
Another incident in my life which occurred recently was a student confided in me that one of her colleagues had started bullying her. It didn't stop there - her colleague had also lost her ability to handle her emotions in the same office as her. She would be all goodness and light and suddenly get nasty. One time she even got the attention of the entire department, including her boss, and showed them all a mistake my student had made. Probably the only one. At the very same time she blamed her for the recent downturn in fortunes in the department. Her colleague had for weeks been "advertising" her good work by doing "extra activities", like reserving car parking spaces for her bosses, getting lunch for everyone and running around looking busy. She had then started comparing herself to my student through defaming hints and comments. Fortunately their head of department could spot a potential maniac from a kilometre away and gave her a good lesson in dignity.

My student told me that as a well-respected and almost indispensible member of the department, her colleague had become jealous of her to the point of obsession. In their private moments, she had told her colleague all sorts of secrets, not knowing that she would hold them against her later. We were quite shocked that this sort of behaviour could go on between adults. Then again, we realised that none of us can be safe from certain individuals and it is just a matter of keeping your head held high, backing out of potentially volatile scenarios, but most of all, not letting them win. According to De Standaard a while ago, this type of person gets angrier when one of four things occurs:

1. The victim has a better life, family or job than the perpetrator
2. The victim is more capable, calmer or better organised than the perpetrator
3. The victim has more allies, friends or contacts than the perpetrator
4. The victim doesn't get upset by the perpetrator's devious actions

A person not content with his/her life will show certain signs too:
1. They don't take so much care of their appearance or body weight
2. They don't do much in their spare time, and have few or no hobbies
3. They don't display signs of familiarity or even affection to their nearest and dearest
4. They can be extremely materialistic to make up for their misery: bigger car, house extension, grander holidays, even going as far as buying expensive pets!

I told her that experiences within my own family proved that this seemed like a pretty accurate assumption. I made one mistake when it occurred in my family - I went to apologise (to make the peace, goodness knows why!) when I really should have just walked away with my head high while I could. Still, there won't be a next time because I decided recently not to maintain contact with this part of my family. I just found it to be a shame that people become so undignified when jealous. They also try to drag those with self respect down with them - I guess that's how they try and hide it.
___________________________________________________________________

A final example of how extreme people can be took place last year when one of my students was unhappy at failing the end-of-semester examination. Well, "unhappy" is not the word: hysterical seems like the better description... In order to get a promotion, those who pass through our classes need to attain a certain level in another language, in many cases English. She had been in class a lot, but had showed signs of panic in class when it was her time to speak. She had also not really worked very hard on her theory and had an awful accent. Needless to say, I knew she was going to fail from quite early on, but I still maintained hope that she would at least do as well as she could.

When the exam took place, she failed abysmally.

Of course, it was all my fault according to her! I had not done this and not done that, despite her being the only failure in the class. In fact, it was more serious than that - she actually lost her job! I received phone calls and emails from her that I had ruined her life. She even came to my workplace one day and told all my students that I was responsible for her demise. I quietly took her to one side, showed her the statistics of the rest of her group in that period, and laid the facts bare in front of her. She looked through them and suddenly turned a shade of red. After several profuse apologies she went back into the class and told them that she had made a terrible mistake. She got another job in a different area and is doing much better now.

If we look at these three scenarios, we wonder who is the victim really. For me in the first one, there is no other than the parents. No parent should have to face such a situation. In the second it is more unclear. If someone has trouble keeping anger under control, it is time to seek a therapist and look more closely at what makes you happy. In the last, it is also unclear, but for me anyone who puts such an unbearable amount of pressure on herself needs to take care.

Wednesday 17 October 2007

A final goodbye to my dear mum


Sorry I haven't written much for quite a while until this week. I am afraid my dear mother passed away at the beginning of the month. She had been suffering for quite a while so it came as a relief when we knew she was finally at peace. However nothing can prepare you for the time it happens. It's a strange sensation and makes you feel lonelier than you would normally be. The one thing I can be glad about is that we had a strong relationship before she faded away.


I have received several requests for the eulogy I wrote to read at her funeral. For quickness and ease I thought I would publish a large part of it here rather than post copies off. My mum was such a robust woman but she had a chocolate heart and I wanted those who attended her final journey to hear of my pride at being her son:


There’s a difference between a mother and a mum.
A mother is someone who makes you look tidy and scrapes the food off your face before school. But a mum makes sure that when you come back, the house is heated, the dinner is on and the greeting is cheerful and sincere.

There’s a difference between an aunt and an auntie.
An aunt will stop to have a chat with you on the street when you haven’t met for a while. An auntie will drive you home safely afterwards and wait for one of your parents to arrive.

There’s a difference between a grandmother and a nan.
A grandmother looks after you while your parents are still at work. A nan feeds you, provides you with toys and games, and clears up when you’ve gone. Day after day, for several years.

There’s a difference between a friend and a mate.
A friend will lend you money. A mate won’t cash the cheque when you return it.

And my mum was all of these and more. She loved to have company. From embarrassing us by striking up a conversation with diners at a restaurant on another table close by, to keeping the pools collector occupied on the front step, to peering out of the front window at the slightest noise to see if someone was coming to visit, she was in her element when she was with people, whether one person or a crowd.

She had the most cunning advice too, if you listened carefully enough. The greatest piece of advice anyone ever gave to me was when looking for employment, never start at the bottom and await promotion, but start at the top and work down until someone takes you. I took this to heart too, and although I spent over a year out of work, it ended with my dream job and I wouldn’t be there without her.

I think my mum would have made a great diplomat. The perpetual big occasion dinners inevitably brought out the worst in us, and the arguments over a certain vegetable are legendary. And although there would be enough potatoes to feed a platoon, goodness knows how the oven coped, we never failed to squabble. But mum found a solution – she gave me a smaller plate but piled up all my potatoes under the other veg. That negated any complaints from others. So sorry to my brother John, but I truly did have more potatoes on my plate than you!

But underlying all this was a vulnerability that only surfaced in private moments. She was in great pain a lot of the time with her back or her legs. She cursed her pain but she never complained or sought sympathy. She also felt quite alone, especially in her later years as her neighbours slowly moved away and those that remained or moved in barely trod upon the driveway. Company was the only thing which drove her aches and pains away – they were the remedy, but unfortunately company didn’t always visit her. And nobody filled the space her own mother vacated.

There is a difference between a task and a duty.
A task is clearing up the mess left behind. A duty is clearing up the mess left behind a dying brother-in-law. For nearly a decade. A task is bringing home the coal to put on the fire. A duty is where you do it when you’re not yet ten years old.

Born in 1937, her earliest memories would likely have been the disturbing sights and terrifying sounds of the Second World War. From a very young age, she was brought up by her grandmother in a family where her mother and aunt were more like sisters. Surrounded by this strong matriarchal circle, she received strong lessons in responsibility and obligation.
Living in wartime and post-war Britain was arduous enough for an adult, but for a child it must have been daunting, grim and unimaginably harsh. So for my mum any hope of a normal childhood was cancelled. Happier times occurred later in life and sisterhood with her mother confirmed when she and my dad got together. A mother and daughter marrying two brothers. It’s a complicated story and I’ll tell you after if you’ve got a spare hour.
With such a youth, duty was instinct.

Once again, there’s a difference between a mother and a mum.
A mother reads you a story. But a mum teaches you to read the story for yourself. And a mum gets you the right material to suit your interests. And a mum harvests and nurtures those interests and seeks advice from teachers. And a mum sends you to the right school. And a mum goes mad when you say you’re not going to college, you’re going to get a job in McDonald’s. And a mum packs you off to university with a cupboardful of food. And a mum tells you to go out into the wilderness and do your own thing even if she’ll be lonelier without you. And a mum will call you once a week to see how you’re doing. And a mum will get you out of hole after hole, time and time again.
And through all this, a mum gets taken for granted. Is criticised for silly meaningless things. Is nagged at when she’s forgotten something. Is brushed off with a post-teenage grunt or even ignored when all she wants is a chat. Takes every trivial complaint on the chin until she’s so frustrated and annoyed that she finally gets her coat and goes out for a drive. Looking back now I wish she had stuck up for herself more and set us more often in our place. But that was mum. She tried to prove herself through what she did rather than through what she could ever have said. She owned the motto that "actions speak louder than words".

And finally, a mum is someone who deserves our most heartfelt, sincerest, if well and truly belated, thanks for all she did for us without so much as a prompt for thanks. An empty dinner plate, a smile, a sigh of relief, were all the thanks she required.

May she rest in deserved peace.

Tuesday 25 September 2007

Language training has many forms

It has been twenty years since I gave my first English lesson. I was only 14 and we lived in the mountains surrounding the proud city of Málaga. I enjoyed it so much, that I seriously considered it as a future occupation. I was also interested in the European Union and its political manoeuvrings and I did part of my university course on the subject, along with two languages: French and Russian. So as I am now giving language training at the European Institutions, I can say that I have made it - I have arrived at the top of my profession; the pinnacle of my career.

The one thing I have learned in these two decades in pedagogy, with an estimation of 400 students who have taken my courses, is that every one of them is an individual with different learning needs, different habits in the classroom and different knowledge of one or other aspect of the language. The one thing they do have in common is that they fit a proscribed language level. But they are not school pupils where everyone learns together from day one. That's where the similarities end. Where one student may be good at grammar and theory but bad at speaking and writing, another one may be good at listening and reading but bad at grammar and theory. And that is why no one method can ever be applied in the classroom.


A certain international company based in the US giving language training goes one step further: it provides its trainers with manuals so that they never need their imagination ever again. The trainer is not allowed to use explanations and certainly not allowed to explain using graphs, lists or charts which show how the grammar of this language might work. If this wasn't enough, it then provides certain phrases per page in the manual that the trainer should spoonfeed the student with, e.g. "the photocopier doesn't work". Well hello! How in the name of sanity is the student then supposed to relate the negative form if he/she is not shown how it works in the first place? The student can know far more about grammar if a wider explanation is given concerning that point than just a poor lonely memory phrase.


Furthermore, the trainers at this establishment are told they will be docked bonus money if they deviate from the methods, or if anomalies are found in the progress of their clients. In other words, clients will not learn too quickly or the company will lose money, nor will they learn nothing or they will find alternative places to learn. Another striking aspect about this multinational is that people still go there to "learn". And the company keeps growing. This shows something about our tastes... In their localities they are the most expensive usually, and they pay the least. In Brussels for example they pay a pro-rata wage which on paper seems adequate, if you're called to work for the full amount of time. The reality is most trainers there earn about 36% of the average trainer's salary, due to being allotted very few hours. There is also a clause in their contracts stipulating that they cannot work for a competitor during this time either, something that everyone else is permitted to do.


Anyway, back to the methods:
One thing that has made my blood boil over the years is this "approach" word. Every language school has an "approach"; a way of delivering lessons in their own little bundle. What these people fail to realise is that each individual needs to be shown in a different way depending on their own abilities. Children until about 8 or 9 are able to assimilate languages pretty simply because their brain is still whole. But after then, the two lobes become ever more separate and this is where the senior school makes a great difference and also where it has got the balance right. People respond much better to an academic way of learning simply because it provides the student with rules and exceptions, tables and charts of grammar and vocabulary. Language learners of any age respond far more quickly to this because they had been doing it in senior school, and that is the method they are acquainted with.

This is not saying that everyone is like this, but as this method has withstood the test of time, it has a majority of supporters. If this is combined with some of the more realistic contemporary forms of learning, a win-win situation can only come from it. Sticking to the target language works for those above beginner level, and has to work if participant and trainer do not have a common tongue. But where they do, it would be wrong not to speed things up with a gentle nudge in the right direction as long as it does not become overbearing. Trainers, especially polyglots, should under no circumstances show off their language skills by translating. However, they should use their knowledge to provide clear explanations as to why rules are different between languages, where words come from, spelling and pronunciation differences and similarities. By simply telling the student this is how it is and that's all they need to know, you are cutting off the tentpegs of language memory and assimilation. By giving them a reason or an explanation you are making sure they can digest subtle differences far more easily than simply spoonfeeding the student with information.

However, my main aim in this entry is to tell you the most important word in language learning. The word which, if properly administered, can increase learning speed. That word is why. By answering it, you are opening up whole avenues of easily memorised words, grammar rules and spellings. For without an explanation, students have nothing to grip onto, no attachment to their own language (because let's face it, we all translate when learning languages). By giving that attachment, you are teaching the student to think outside their own language without knowing it and to detach him/herself from the mother tongue discreetly, almost clandestinely, whilst making them feel like you are giving them an easy and comfortable ride towards a higher level of understanding.

Most trainers usually enter a language training establishment with visions of smiling, happy students. They do not realise how disillusioning the experience can become if methods are forcibly applied when the trainer's own methods have been successful already. Especially as they know that applicant needs money. They can say and do what they want because at the end they pay you. But I say, do not let anyone bully you into accepting their "methods". Trainers do not work comfortably when they are not happy with the regime. It is a recipe for failure and simply has no place in the classroom. Be yourself; inspire; judge the student before applying the methods; don't allow pedagogical bigotry to spoil your profession. If they do want you to apply their methods, just agree - go along with what they say, and when they're not looking or listening (which is most of the time) carry on doing what you have always done! Your own methods are the best, whatever anyone says, and that includes the language schools.

Thursday 13 September 2007

Immigration is good: but what about those already here?

European Commission Vice President Franco Frattini has been in Portugal this week, outlining his upcoming proposals for a "blue card" for skilled migrant workers who can come to work freely in the EU. On the other hand, the Vice President has been keen to be tough on employers who hire staff without a residence permit. This also needs re-evaluating.

There are many thousands, in fact many tens of thousands, already here. They could be doctors, drivers, economists, lecturers, botanists, geologists, camera operators, banking experts, translators, opticians and anyone else but they are instead cleaning floors, driving taxis, picking fruit, working in bars and restaurants, or just sitting in detention centres waiting for someone to finally say yes, they can stay, or no, their application is not strong enough. What about these people first? These are the ones who need immediate attention. These are the ones who should be filling our job market first.

I have an Australian friend, a lawyer, who came to Belgium to visit and decided to stay. She is highly qualified and has ten years' experience too. I took her to the city hall and they told her if she wanted to set up an independent practice she would need to either go back to Australia and apply from there, or declare her arrival date, get a police criminal clearance paper within 40 days from Australia and the country where she lived prior to arriving, China (which will be a nightmare), fill in a form in Dutch, which includes a section where she needs to write 300 words on why she wants to live here, and then she should wait nine months. Oh yes, she cannot leave the country. Surely she would be an asset to the economy. Why then must she go through all this administrative upheaval? And to think, she is even from a country with strong diplomatic ties to the EU. What must it be like to come from Moldova, Mozambique or Myanmar?

Why is the system set up in a way which encourages those with fewer scruples to take part in people trafficking? In fact, if you look more deeply into it, the system is set up to discriminate against those who genuinely come here to work or to escape persecution and favours the economic migrants and those interested purely in social security, benefits and a life of peace paid for by the taxes.

We should be advertising our vacant positions in foreign newspapers but at the same time matching jobs to those already here. Lots of migrants don't want to sit about doing nothing, but they have to, because they are unable to work whilst their paperwork is being looked at, and that can last a very long time indeed, including appeals, re-schedulings and new evidence, all which can mean the process must start all over again. This is a ridiculous waste of precious time, paper and talent. It also creates tension between those who have arrived and the local residents, who without the necessary knowledge of the immigrant's predicament, immediately place them in a negative light.

We should do more to drive away the people traffickers by making it easier to come and work in Europe, especially those with needed talents and qualifications. If you make it legally impossible for those who arrive unannounced to stay, whilst opening quota-driven employment centres in embassies and cultural centres abroad, people trafficking would be rendered useless, especially if the EU makes that clear to the appropriate people.

Thursday 6 September 2007

Remarkable deaths

This week has seen three stories in the press concerning three totally separate yet remarkable people who died in circumstances distinct from each other. But all three are worthy of mentioning simply because of the uplifting stories behind their deaths.

Rhys Jones
In the city of Liverpool this week, mourners have been paying their last respects to the boy who was shot dead by a hooded man riding a BMX bike through the area of Croxteth Park. Rhys was a supporter of Everton FC and mad about his football. It has shocked the community of Liverpool and brought about a collective period of inner reflection in the city. In a sign of solidarity, Liverpool FC, the deadly rivals of Rhys's beloved team, invited his parents to Anfield on match day where he received a minute's applause from the crowd, following the playing of the Everton theme tune. An Everton fan getting a minute's applause at Liverpool FC is striking enough, but thousands of people came to his funeral where the parents asked everyone to dress in bright colours. Most put on their football colours to attend the service at Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral, where members of Everton's first team were also present.

This collective mass of solidarity has made a mockery of those who would turn to crime for their kicks. The far larger amount of decent people come out against violent crime through this type of collective action, yet still those who enjoy criminal lives do not listen. Nevertheless, decent folk will always outnumber the bad eggs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6980996.stm

Jane Tomlinson
Across the Pennines in Leeds, Jane Tomlinson had a seven-year battle with breast cancer. Nothing remarkable so far. Except that seven years earlier, she was given just six months to live. I haven't finished yet though. Jane didn't just sit down awaiting the Big Day: she decided to make the most of her time left on this planet by raising money for charity. By running marathons, half-marathons, triathlons and even the Iron Man, where she became the first cancer patient ever to complete it. She set about doing other such things, like spending 63 days crossing the United States from San Francisco to New York City on a bike. After her second London Marathon, she went back to work as a radiographer. That was only days after cycling from Land's End to John O'Groats. She won some of the highest awards - BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award for outstanding bravery, the Sunday Times Sportswoman of the Year, and was awarded a CBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours this year.

Jane always thought she was an ordinary person but the truth is she brought happiness to a lot of people through her charity work. Even near the end, in June of this year, she organised a 10km road race in her home city of Leeds. Such was her appeal, the race was attended by about ten thousand competitors. She was too ill to race herself then, but she came along and started the event, watching from a raised platform. Despite Jane Tomlinson's worry that it would not be successful, the event is set to become a permanent fixture in the city.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2585103.stm

Luciano Pavarotti

Nessun dorma! Nessun dorma! Tu pure, o Principessa,
Nella tua fredda stanza
Guardi le stelle
Che tremano d'amore e di speranza.
Ma il mio mistero è chiuso in me,
Il nome mio nessun saprà!
Solo quando la luce splenderà,
Sulla tua bocca lo dirò fremente!
Ed il mio bacio scioglierà il silenzio
Che ti fa mia!

Il nome suo nessun saprà
E noi dovremo, ahimè, morir!
Il principe ignoto
Dilegua, o notte! Tramontate, stelle! Tramontate stelle!
All'alba vincerò!

It is hard to find out that someone who gave you one of the most memorable moments of your life is no longer, but Luciano Pavarotti was indeed a member of that list for me. When I was sixteen and enjoyed the music of the time, I was still drawn to the haunting voice and the larger-than-life personality of Luciano Pavarotti. The summer of the World Cup in Italy in 1990 was one of the longest, which I spent with my visiting uncle and his opera music. The BBC had made Nessun Dorma its theme tune for the tournament and by the end of the first round I was knew the lyrics, as you see above. The BBC's theme tune became the tournament's anthem not just in the UK, so when the Three Tenors (Pavarotti, Domingo and Carreras) said they were going to put on a show the night before the final, the whole family tuned in to watch the show. In fact, I think there were just as many viewers for that event as for the final. And what an event it was, in the floodlit ruins of old Rome.

Pavarotti was born in Modena in humble surroundings but his talent for singing meant his future was secure. His father had a talent for singing too, but turned down the chance due to stage fright, something which his son definitely did not have. In his life, he visited all corners of the planet bringing opera to the people. He got his money from the toffee-nosed upper class, but he did not forget ordinary folk. He was involved in humanitarian work in Bosnia, Kosovo, Guatemala, Armenia and Iraq, and even crashed a U2 concert in Dublin to ask the band to play at his annual "Pavarotti and Friends" charity event in his home town. He set up a music centre in Mostar, Bosnia, specifically to bring about peace through music and the United Nations made him a Messenger of Peace, involving tackling child exploitation, poverty and HIV/AIDS.

He had his share of scandals, including leaving his wife of 35 years for another, younger woman, and was in all but name denounced by the Italian people for tax irregularities. However, despite this backdrop he remained a person of the people, a showman and a double world record holder - 165 curtain calls being one (!!!) and the biggest selling classical record of all time. Although the estimated crowd of half a million in New York for a concert in 1993 is probably also a record.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1581651.stm

Three remarkable people, three reasons why the world is a sadder place today.

May they rest in peace.

Saturday 1 September 2007

Greetings from La Serenissima

So I haven’t written much recently… I’ve been pretty busy this summer giving intensive courses and the weather was so bad I didn’t mind too much. However I’ve got a month off so I decided to go to Venice for a while and do some work on my book. That hasn’t worked either as the person I have come with doesn’t have the ability to walk into a museum alone so I have to go everywhere. Still, there’s a lot to see here if you don’t mind the appalling manners of the tourists. I kind of sympathise with the Venetians – it must be quite a frustrating life coming out of your own house and being swept away by a group of foreigners. But Venetians are a noble race of people and wonderfully tolerant.

I knew it was going to be special when I stepped off the airplane and even before going through to luggage collection smelled the invisible yet overpowering aroma of mother’s cooking. That for me was a special moment – just getting off the plane and the “Welcome to Italy” sign had been replaced with the smell of home cooking.

I have many Italian students and I could never understand why they were so naïve about food. Many of them have barely tried food from outside Italy, let alone great cuisines like Chinese, Indian and northern European. So I wanted to find out why. This was another reason for my trip here, to see why Italians are such gastro-snobs. Yet having spent eight days here, I have come to appreciate that they might have a point. It is of course no reason to avoid other cuisines, and I still find it such a shame to be so parochial in your food tastes, but you can actually understand why.

When you see the food in the shops, when you see the perfection of the presentation of the meal on the plate before you, it really puts some other places to shame. And furthermore, they hardly import. All the fruit is Mediterranean, all the meat is local, and all the vegetables are from neighbouring regions. And therefore the milk tastes not of thickened water but of milk, the fish tastes not of ammonia but of fish, the red peppers taste of red peppers, not of preservative. The meat is the same size when you take it out of the pan as when it was dropped in there, the wine fills your nostrils as much as it wets your mouth, and even the bread has a flavour and consistency to it superior to our stiff and hole-ridden baguettes. Over all, everything tastes like it should. For that reason I can’t understand why we have allowed our food standards to deteriorate simply for cheapness and rapidity of sale.

http://www.goslitski.net/template.cfm?action=gastronomy

So what are the essential tips for Venice?

Firstly, don’t be hypnotised by the Venice Card they sell first-time visitors over the Net for about 100 euro. Work out where you’re going to go and entry prices and compare it to what reductions or free entries you might get with the card. The first rule of a holiday is: never plan!

Secondly, obey local habits and try to integrate – you’ll be treated like a local then: walk on the right hand side of the narrow streets and alleys, learn some Italian, wear decent clothes, don’t stand on the bridges ogling your map, and don’t drop litter.

Thirdly, remember this is Italy. I can’t count the amount of people I saw buying fast food but to me that would be an insult. Would you go to Belgium and drink Heineken? No. Well in Italy you would do well to try as much of the local produce as you can. But don’t follow guide book suggestions as they’re mostly paid by the establishments to advertise. We came across a group of French schoolchildren who were hanging round the embankment at the Fondamenta Nova, chatting and running about. It was evident their teachers had let them loose for the evening to explore the city and they had just decided to encamp themselves on the promenade. But it got worse. The owner of the trattoria where we were said they had been there all day. Imagine going to a city like Venice and only sitting on the bank chatting to the same people who you can see every day of the year...? And then four of them said they were going off to look for a McDonald's. I choked on an olive.

On this note though I would like to point out one particular Trattoria called Al Vecio Portal, close to San Zaccaria. The garden out back is serene and gets nice and dark at night, but let’s move away from the cliché stuff and concentrate on the menu. It’s not a very big menu, but that’s because they do it with love. Any menu which has more than three pages of food is offering too much to be of any quality. The fish is the greatest thing on the menu and the waiter fillets it in front of you. I watched him doing it in the garden at ten at night on Friday. Now that’d turn a lot of women on: imagine being able to say you can de-bone a fish in the dark… A couple of other things on the menu to point out are the rustic starter and the fragola: a creamy fruit dish which will just precipitate those “desires” one gets after dinner in a place like Venice.

My favourite part of Venice are the less touristy areas around the Arsenale and Cannaregio. There are some wonderful places to sit day or night and get away from the tourists, who insist on conglomerating in the area between the Rialto Bridge and St Mark’s Square. I would like to point you in the direction of the Church of Madonna dell'Orto, and close by is the church of Sant'Alvise, which both have more history that entire Belgian towns. Tintoretto is buried in one of the churches - I won't tell you which, because I'd hope you'd visit both, but when you look around that particular church, it makes you wonder about the dedication and discipline of the artists of that time.

A couple of days ago I visited the Doge’s Palace, expecting a collection of dusty old relics and some paintings. That’s what was there, but a thousand times more glorious. The most overwhelming sensations of my life took place in the Notre Dame in Paris, St Paul’s Cathedral in London, Rouen Cathedral and the Thistle Chapel in Edinburgh, but I got the mini-shakes in the Sala del Maggio Consiglio in the Doge’s Palace. It is enormous. One of the biggest rooms in the world, it is 54 metres long and about 25 metres wide. You could hold a cricket match in there. And the works of art on the walls were breathtaking. As for the rest of the palace, be careful of the vampires in curators’ outfits circling round you, whose only job it seems, is to stop you from taking photos, so that we spend more money in their shop. Well I can tell you no bespectacled curator is going to stop me from taking home a photo of a Tintoretto masterpiece. I held my camera round my neck and took photos from chest height. Luckily my sense of orientation is passable, so I got some pretty good ones in there. If you do intend going to the Doge’s Palace, get your tickets in advance or you can wait a good hour to get in. A Venice Pass is handy in this instance.

One thing about Venice is the parochial feel you get from living in a city on an island. OK, there are lots of tourists but they go away after a few days, never to return. The side streets and squares where local people live are full of life at certain times of the day, then suddenly they’re sweeping up – usually about three in the afternoon – ready for siesta. This place is simply so internationally known and yet it is just like any other city where people live on top of each other. The kids play football against the walls of the squares, the parents sit peacefully sipping latte macchiato knowing someone is not going to get away from the scene so quickly with their children, and the streets are positively thick with the smell of nonna’s cooking.

I took a trip to Murano, an island not far from Venice and went round the shops looking at the various glass objects for sale. It is a nice island for visiting but forget buying anything more than earrings or a small vase unless you’ve emptied the contents of your savings account. Not far from there is the island of San Michele, where Venice’s dead are interred. Some very interesting people are buried there too – Sir Ashley Clarke, British Ambassador to Italy in the fifties and sixties and founder of the Venice In Peril fund, Ezra Pound, Igor Stravinsky and Joseph Brodsky. San Michele’s cemetery is divided up into denominations, and the Protestant part (called "accattolico" - acatholic - by the cemetery staff) is the most neglected. A shame really, as the people in there are the most interesting, and it’s probably the most visited section.

In any case, Venice is really worth a visit if you like good food, architecture, walking, art, boats, clothes, jewellery and photography. I have taken more than a thousand photos here and I’m sure some of them will be found in my upcoming exhibition in the autumn and on my website. I'm off to Prague on Monday but I will be back on Wednesday and then I promise to write more often.

Monday 13 August 2007

Night Clubs? I'd rather read a book!

I went to town the other day for a concert in the Old Market. It was really nice - people filled the square and the atmosphere was great. The acoustics in the Old Market in Leuven are unbelievably good. What makes it the concert goer's place of choice are the 36 bars and cafés all round the side of it. However, attention was soon brought on one particular café which likes to label itself as a rock venue. They decided to have their own little music in there, despite it being no less than 100 metres from the stage. Those standing near the place kept complaining about the lack of respect, the high level of noise and the blablabla, but to no avail. When the police came along, they said they could do nothing because it was within the decibel limits of the centre of town.

Do what???

In the end the people standing round that area moved to the other side of the square and the concert carried on regardless. At the end I decided to go inside. I was offered to buy a drink. I declined. When they asked me why, and paying customers alone were allowed in, I said that as they had penetrated the concert without being invited, so I had entered their café in the same manner. I went to the bathroom while in there and took a beer mat. They felt rather indignant. It also meant that the following concert the day after was actually a much more audible affair.

But it is a wider thing than just that - the emoes who choose to stand in a night club listening to deafening music and shouting at people they barely know seem to have all missed the point. Firstly listening to music is about enjoying it. Dancing is supposed to be a healthy activity. And finally, attitudes of people in there extend outside, to buses, High Streets and even homes.

These individuals try to look and act "cool".

I'll tell you how cool these people are: apart from being the perfect adverts for bringing back social skills classes in school, these badly developed neo-embryos have very difficult lives ahead of them. Those who go deaf from the over-exposure to many decibels of bass will undoubtedly find it difficult to interact in the future. Those who have to shout over the noise will take their habits out with them, especially as they also will be talking to deaf people. The testosterone and adrenaline built up in there will become an addiction leading to greater levels of thrill requirements. As these people are generally parked by their parents at an early age in front of the television or Playstation in order for their co-creators (parents is too strong a word) to have a quiet life, these devices take over their roles. Their friends become role-models and performers their idols. Imagine Snoop Dogg is your son's ideal dinner companion... Or worse, your daughter's.

If I really wanted the experience of a night club without going, I could always take the following steps:

  1. Lick out an ashtray - has the effect of French kissing someone in there but doesn't give you any sores on the lips afterwards.
  2. Picnic beside runway 2 at Heathrow Airport - the noise level should be fairly comparable to a night club, but I don't have to listen to awful "music".
  3. Give your favourite charity 50 euro - that's how much you'd lose, but in this case it'll go towards something beneficial, not the mafioso who runs the joint.

Besides, what can a night club give me that will improve my life? Please answer, I'd love to know!

Tuesday 17 July 2007

Something is rotten in the state of Russia

I have been a few times to Russia and found the place to be a mix of glory and hopelessness. People would moan about their circumstances on the one hand but on the other find happiness in far more interesting pastimes than we have here. With Russians you can talk about everything. They are intelligent, educated (mostly) and very welcoming people. But they just have one main flaw. They never question their leadership, even when that dipsomaniac Yeltsin was there. The foreign policy of Russia was holy to them - their politicians blindly revered and their actions always cheered. Russians will not see anything wrong in their government's recent behaviour towards Estonia, Ukraine or Georgia. They are, after all, Mother Russia, the centre of the earth and the only real country that matters. The Soviet Union might be dead, but the territories around it are still claimed by its people, especially those living there.

Stalin had a policy to keep the USSR together forever. One strand of that policy was to deport people to different parts of the USSR in an effort to bind the people to each other. There were Georgians in Siberia, Kazaks in Lithuania and Armenians in Moscow. But in the late 20th century and even more so now, it has made the ethnic groups more polarised than ever. What is the most striking point about it all is that most Russians do not bother to learn the language of the sovereign state they now find themselves in. A sizeable population of Russians can be found in the Baltic states, and they argue for the reconstitution of those independent nations to Russia, or the establishment of Russian as an official language.

Another strand of Stalin's policy was to make the manufacture of products more intra-national. So as soon as the USSR broke up, it became almost impossible even to build a television set there. The screen might be manufactured in Tadjikistan, the knobs and connections in Latvia, the internal parts in Uzbekistan and the frame in Novosibirsk before being put together in an assembly unit in Kaluga.

This blind-leading-the blind (or leading-the-blinded) attitude has caused untold ethnic problems in the Russian mindset, to the extent that they seem to blame Western Europe, NATO and the US for their isolation today. It has never occurred to them that in fact the EU has been trying to bring them closer, that NATO wants co-operation and the US would like to make Russia a main trading partner. Nor does it occur to them that they could have a far bigger and better say in world politics if they would stop acting so hurt by surrounding countries' alignment to the EU and similar bodies.

To cry wolf over Georgia was one thing. To then do it to Ukraine smacked of sour grapes, but Estonia, a fully paid-up member of the EU, was childish and spiteful. All over the repositioning of a Soviet war memorial. Estonia does not want to be reminded of its oppressed past. Its people are forward-thinking and independent-minded. But now the Russians are getting on a major EU, NATO, UN and Commonwealth country, Britain. The repercussions are enormous. I hope nothing too dramatic comes of the latest Russian toy-throwing rant, and I don't think it will. Everyone has too much to lose, but serious consequences could follow. Russia may have put its reliability as a provider of energy back ten years. Countries will think twice before importing gas, preferring to go to a less volatile supplier. Would Korea stop supplying cars to your country if its government was upset by something your leader did? Or even said?

As for the British government, it used to be quite resolute on these matters under Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher and back. Since then there has been a half-hearted response to diplomacy. But in this case you get the feeling that someone is going to stand up to the belligerence. Gordon Brown seems like the type of PM who won't take fools lightly. And David Miliband is a straight-talking Foreign Minister with a great deal of substance and resolve. Listening to him on BBC this weekend he never avoided a question with long-winded rhetoric, the tradition of the past. The Gordon Brown government has shown itself to be inspirational, capable and no-nonsense. I cannot see it rolling over to get its tummy tickled. And with the Germans suffering a similar incident this week, Russia has the ball in its court. However the Germans don't want to rock the boat because they're in too deeply with Russia already. France, meanwhile, has stuck its neck out and told them a thing or two about etiquette. Vive la France!

Furthermore, the Russians have delayed their reaction already 36 hours (at the time of writing) since a UK newspaper revealed that Mr Berezovsky was victim of an attempted assassination in the last few weeks. Boy, they must be feeling a little bruised...

And what will this response be? Either the Russians will totally close off their embassy in London which will mean it will be hard for UK nationals to go there and vice-versa, or they are right now going around all the Russian companies telling them to pull out of the UK or they will be classed as traitors.

UPDATE THURSDAY 19th JULY:
So the Russians' response is to expel four British diplomats... Come on Vlad, show us your nasty side - you know you want to ;-)

Tuesday 10 July 2007

Sports mad Brits do it again

The UK is arguably the epicentre of sport spectatorship, but this weekend it took a giant leap towards being true. The men's final of Wimbledon, the Formula 1 Grand Prix at Silverstone and that annual anabolic carousel, the Tour de France, all took place in the country over the same weekend. An estimated four million people lined the streets of London and Kent as the cyclists flashed through at lightning speed, past the street parties, garden tea gatherings, village fêtes and town centre carnivals. Once they had all gone through (don't blink, or you'll miss it), people went back to their celebrations thinking "what was that all about?" But still, the longest annual sporting event had passed through their place. It was the best attended and most enthusiastically greeted "Grand Départ" ever according to the world press. Ken Livingstone said it would definitely come back to the UK within the next few years, and as it went so well he didn't think they'd have to lobby very hard. Imagine, even the race organiser was lost for words. It took a lot of courage for him to declare London the start of the 2007 race so soon after Paris lost the 2012 Olympic bid, and my hat goes off to him for doing it.

Up at Silverstone, the deafening noise of the cars was drowned out by the earth-shattering sounds of spectators' horns greeting the Finnish Ferrari driver Kimi Raikkonen. Another quarter-million people in and around the place going mad over yet another podium finish for Lewis Hamilton, F1's brightest young star.

Deep in London's leafy suburb of Wimbledon, the usually tepid crowd is whooping like Texans at a barbecue because a Brit, Jamie Murray, has won the mixed doubles with his Slavic partner Jelena Jankovic. It is the last game to be played there this year in the weird-looking roofless Centre Court.

That was just this weekend. But all through the summer Brits take to the stands at cricket matches, golf tournaments, rowing regattas, athletics meetings, even darts competitions. It seems that the British number one hobby is spectating at sports events. And who can blame them? They organise them so well. Take the London Marathon. Not only is it the most watched city marathon of the year, it is also the most oversubscribed. For the simple reason that Brits have a penchant for being a little mad. You see, they don't only take part in it to say they've run 26 miles or indeed because they want to keep fit. The British love to raise money for good causes. They dress up in Roman soldier outfits or as a camel with two people in the same suit, or they play a musical instrument as they run round London collecting sponsorship money for all types of charities, from leukaemia to a damaged church roof. And the locals come out to cheer these eccentric runners on. Marvellous.

In Belgium there is something called the "Dodentocht", or "March of the Dead" which takes place every year from Bornem. The aim is to go 100 kilometres around Flanders in 24 hours. Nice idea, except that many just do it for the hell of it. If it was in the UK, they would feel ashamed if they didn't do it for charity.

In the Summer Olympic Games over the last decade and a half, the highest amount of non-local spectators was British. This was one of the deciding factors in awarding the 2012 Games to London. And it deserves them. London was made for sport and sport was made for London. I for one can't wait for 2012, where I will make a prediction: the largest gathering of people in Europe was an estimated 5 million for the Pope's funeral in April 2005. Second was Princess Diana's funeral in 1997, which attracted 3 million. The largest gathering of people in a European city for a non-political event or a funeral was the Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2003, with an estimated 1.5 million people on the streets. The most amount of tickets sold for an Olympic Games ever was 8.3 million in Atlanta in 1996. I am convinced these records will all be broken in 2012.

Thursday 5 July 2007

Is religion dying?

When a powerful thing is losing control, it usually acts out of character, like the Soviet Union. Or it gets more aggressive, like the National Union of Mineworkers under Mrs Thatcher. Or it simply looks out of place, like the Conservative Party of the late nineties. Religion seems to be all these at the moment.

For a start, many of its teachings are obsolete in the 21st Century, like eating pork. It was well known that the consumption of pork was a bad thing two or three thousand years ago because it carried a bacterium which gave humans ringworm, tapeworm or other nasty viruses. These days pork is safer than lamb, chicken or beef (which of the four farm animals mentioned has had least scandal-hit headlines recently?) but that doesn't seem to matter to some. They blindly carry on avoiding pork because it was written millennia ago by someone who did a good impression of being hotlined to the Almighty.

But considering we are living in realistic times where we have enough evidence to disprove all theories of "intelligent design", certain areas of the world insist on their theory being the only true fact. Consider for a moment that we were put here by an intelligent deity. Where did the deity come from? Who created the deity? The chicken and the egg question comes racing to mind. If we look at the facts as they stand, we live in a world where we can still marvel at the natural beauty around us. But how did it get there is the fundamental question we are still trying to answer. We have done well. In 60 years, we have gone from warmongering, argumentative politics through an unprecedented age of discovery and invention, to a position now where we can take a look at the flower pots in our garden from satellite photos on the Internet.

Throughout our history, technology was developed due to wars, but in the last 20 years we have left that behind and moved to a higher plane. We no longer need to advance our bellicose ambitions and research and development is carried out mainly by anoraks, geeks and techies in offices, labs and garages, in the hope a new vaccine, a new piece of software, or a new gadget can take the world by storm. A total change from the days of Von Braun and Einstein. But some have missed the point. We have unfortunately got rid of our own wars for them to be replaced by oppressive fear of attack from the disaffected fringes of one of the principle religions of history. And it is a shame because we should be living side-by-side. Instead we have allowed certain members of the human race to think we are against them and their religion.

On the opposite side of this, we have the wacky world of fundamental christianity. A recent article in the press reported that an edited version of the film "The Queen" was made specifically for airlines because three passengers complained about the use of the phrase "God bless you", which in their opinion was blasphemy. In Poland, some schools and universities are being singled out for not being catholic enough, because they haven't downgraded Darwin in favour of the Creation.

No wonder many young and dynamic Poles are packing up and moving to Germany, Britain or Ireland. Religion is trying to be noticed because it realises it is losing the debate. But it is doing it in the wrong way, from the contraception debate to abortion to exploding bombs to the censuring of innocent film scripts. Religion has played a part in keeping us controlled over the years, from retaining Latin as the sole language of the Church, to the Spanish Inquisition, to propaganda about contraception in developing countries.

We have trod a very rocky path to keep these religious people happy. We have bent over backwards to encourage them to play an active part in our society, but it seems that they prefer to stick with their own kind, they think they are the only ones who can be right and they take offence at being told others might just have a point. And that goes for conflicts the world over too, from Northern Ireland to Iraq to Vietnam to Afghanistan to Palestine/Israel: most wars are about ideology. It doesn't matter what ideology you have, but about winning. That's why technology used to favour religion, until the secular society took it off their hands in the late twentieth century.

If we look carefully at the facts though, we will see that even in the Bible Belt churches, young people there have a better sense of duty, a better mental state and a more stable life environment than ordinary non-believers. So we do need to weigh up the facts. The only thing people of religion need to remember is that the Abrahamic religions worship the same God, but their ideology is different. They need to take a step back from their urges to enforce hegemony and say with one voice, "I might not agree with you, but I will die with my boots on to protect your right to believe that."

They won't though, because they all think they're right!

Wednesday 4 July 2007

Ten reasons to love the BBC

The British Broadcasting Corporation has been a part of the national fabric for many years now, and since her inception has withstood not only the test of time, but has carried out her duties with magnificence and ultra-professionalism. She is the broadcaster many national television companies try to emulate. The one which comes closest, in my opinion, is the VRT of the Dutch-speaking Belgian community. So what has the BBC given us?

  1. She was the number one morale booster in the Second World War, providing radio broadcasts to the Allied Forces overseas as well as assuring Charles De Gaulle could send radio messages back to France from his HQ in London. She remained on air all through the dark days of the Blitz while all around was being bombed, and she (probably) was the main reason why Londoners kept their spirits high, providing entertaining shows as well as important radio transmissions on the situation as it stood. But she turned disastrous events like the Dunkirk withdrawal into spectacular acts of bravery by stressing the audacity of the shippers who crossed into enemy territory to collect the defeated men.
  2. She actually started experimental TV broadcasting before the Second World War but stopped at the outbreak of war as it was feared the transmissions would interfere with other signals and make it easier for the enemy to use the signal as a guide. A Mickey Mouse special was on at the time the signal was abandoned and one of the first programmes to be transmitted when TV was resumed in June 1946 was that very same feature. But first up came Jasmine Bligh, who apparently said, "Good afternoon everybody, do you remember me?" Another show a little later in that period featured an announcer, Leslie Mitchell, who, referring to the war, said, "As I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted..."
  3. Discovery, development and execution of young talent has always been the main reason the BBC has stayed in touch with the modern world and yet it has some of the oldest traditions the the media world, for example the BBC Proms season, the largest classical music festival in the world. As for young talent, she has never ceased to let the most up-to-date screenwriters, playwrights, comedians, radio broadcasters and TV presenters have a free hand in their airtime. One of the earliest, and most celebrated, would be the Goon Show which ran for nine years from 1951. It was even exported to NBC in the USA. From that one show, fifty years of comedy was born which tried to copy it, outdo it, or evolve from it. Michael Bentine, Harry Secombe, Peter Sellars and Spike Milligan were the comedians behind the Goon Show and the successors to that show would be Monty Python, the Pink Panther, Not The Nine O'Clock News, and many others.
  4. Bringing great events to our homes is a talent only the BBC knows how to do. When I watch coverage of historical occasions, sports tournaments or breaking news on other channels, there is often that little something missing: continuity. On the BBC, it seems to glide from one place to the next as though it was an effortless act of logic. But in fact, it is simply because of the meticulous planning done by the backroom staff. Some of the most memorable events have been shown live on the BBC over the years, for which we don't give enough thanks: the BBC was the first broadcaster in Afghanistan after the recapturing of Kabul; the Queen's coronation was the first major live broadcast anywhere; and guess who refused to leave Belgrade when the Kosovo war broke out?
  5. Major sporting events have been the greatest pull over the years, none more so than the popularisation of previously obscure sports like snooker, golf and darts. The BBC has been at every Olympic Games since they were first reported on; she has been at Wimbledon every year without fail; she has been the champion of the smaller event too, bringing us rowing, curling, decathlon and making household names out of Sir Steve Redgrave, Rhona Martin and Daley Thompson.
  6. She has played a part in the intrigue of modern politics, never afraid to ask difficult questions, never avoiding to interrogate politicians until they succumbed. On one famous occasion just before the general election of 1997, Jeremy Paxman, also known as The Rottweiler, asked the then prisons minister Michael Howard the same question thirteen times on TV, each time receiving an evasive reply. The BBC has been known to get on the nerves of US presidents, who are often quizzed politely by American press and television journalists. However, the fundamental reason behind it all is that she assures us that the questions the general public would most like answered are put to the interviewee.
  7. She has supported some untried talent and given it airtime, like allowing John Peel to play unknown music on his radio show http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peel and bringing some of the Edinburgh Festival discoveries to wider audiences. Some of those are: Rowan Atkinson, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, Steve Coogan and Emma Thompson. Many performers are found through the Cambridge University Footlights - probably the greatest talent factory in the world. To name but a few, Sir David Frost, Clive James, Ben Miller, Eric Idle and Griff Rhys Jones, and most on the list above from the Edinburgh Fringe.
  8. She is paid for by, and solely by, the British people, through a licence fee which costs about £120 per year. That's TEN POUNDS A MONTH! And people still complain... But complaints are also aired on the BBC. Points of View, a weekly programme airing people's grievances, gives us an insight into the kind of letters and emails she receives from her viewers and listeners.
  9. She runs the most visited website in the world which is not a search engine or an online email provider. The ones above her are Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft affiliates. In fact, she has TWO entries in the top ten - her news website and her homepage. And what a website it is. You can listen to radio on there and see the news, like any other serious broadcaster. But you can also learn languages, read about history, gardening, astronomy, travel, literature, finance, sport, weather, education, science, health, technology and anything else you can think of.
  10. Her efforts over the years have brought us some of the most memorable television. I could name them all, but here are a few:

BBC Wildlife: The BBC has the largest collection of wildlife and nature footage at her offices in Bristol, and along with the unforgettable voice of Sir David Attenborough, has made us delight in the habits of the meerkats, shed a tear for the solitude of the polar bear, wonder at the meticulousness of the bird of paradise and bring into our homes the phenomena of our planet.

BBC News: Every hour of the day someone somewhere is working on an article for BBC News online, filming for a news report or editing a documentary. She has more reporters worldwide than any other broadcaster and is to be found in more homes and hotel rooms than all the rest.

BBC Films: Billy Elliot, Wild About Harry, My Summer Of Love, Match Point, Mrs Henderson Presents... Need I say more???

BBC Drama: Silent Witness, Life On Mars, Jane Eyre, Rome, Spooks, Pride and Prejudice, Bleak House, Doctor Who?, The Virgin Queen, Waking The Dead... ditto.

BBC Personalities: John Motson (football commentator), Gary Lineker (broadcaster and ex-footballer), Terry Wogan (broadcaster, radio DJ, Eurovision presenter), John Simpson (news reporter), Alan Johnston (news correspondent recently released from Gaza), Daniel Craig (now James Bond), James Nesbitt (accomplished actor) Dame Judi Dench (Oscar-winning actress), Catherine Tate (comedian), Anne Robinson (dangerous primetime quiz redhead), and I'm sure I could sit here until morning writing more but I won't.

Simply because if you don't know the BBC, you simply haven't lived!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

Monday 2 July 2007

Should Rome have a monopoly on beatification?

Yesterday Princess Diana would have become 46 years of age but for the tragic events of 31st August 1997, which brought speechlessness to usually stoic BBC newsreaders, a lump to the throat of the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, a silent response from the Royal Family and a mass outpouring of grief from the general public. Ordinary people flew around the world to be at her funeral, world leaders sat among charity workers and hundreds of thousands of people lined the streets in an unprecedented (and unrepeatable) act of togetherness which made London the temporary epicentre of the world.

I was there too. All night. How could I miss such an event if I was only half an hour away by train?

I remember it well, and I don't regret one sleepless second of it. I met two friends of mine, Marketa from the Czech Republic and Anne from France and together we had a hot drink at one of the plethora of cafés which stayed open to feed the world the night before. It was one of the only times in history where London was crimeless, apart from the odd pickpocket and shameless flower peddlar. By midnight the streets looked like Disney had recreated a life-size sellout car-free London themepark - in London itself. We walked around bewondering the immensity of it all, the sheer numbers camping out along the streets, in the parks, in doorways of offices.

A little after, we found ourselves outside the HQ itself: Buckingham Palace. It was here that we chose to spend the remainder of the night. When we arrived there were relatively few people, and we chose to sit beside a musician strumming ballads on his guitar. Let us not forget, that week had been a week where most people in the city had not really gone to work. They mostly couldn't face it. But there were more people in the capital that night than at any time of the working week. But here we were quite alone at the Victoria Memorial. As the playing went on, more and more people came to join, sing along, sway, hold hands or simply listen. By about 2, we must have numbered sixty or more. The pagans celebrate the circle as a symbol of protection, a forcefield against the outside evil forces. And there we were on the greatest circle of them all, emotionally vulnerable but as a group indestructable. We all shared our food and drink together like some new form of communion. I brought a bottle of Becherovka to keep the chill away, Marketa had some sandwiches with her and Anne had a neat little picnic. I had some tortilla española, Polish vodka, North African unleavened bread and Hungarian salami from the assorted members of the human race who, just for that night, were together as they would never be again.

We sang "Candle In The Wind" and other soulful songs when the music stopped for a second. Someone (it might even have been me) recommended singing the National Anthem. If I remember rightly, there was no hesitation. Someone started us off and then the lot of us rose to our feet and belted it out twice. I was impressed how many foreigners knew the words. As we were nearing the end of the Anthem, a light came on in the Palace. I will never forget that moment. It felt as if Her Majesty the Queen herself were saying, "Don't worry, I'm here." Of course, it might have just been a security guard checking the rooms or the Queen Mother getting up to adjust her colostomy bag, or the Duke of Edinburgh looking for his shotgun, but at the time it felt like She was giving us her blessing.

The time passed quickly and the sun soon started to make its arrival imminent. It was going to be a glorious high summer morning. The puddles from recent rain had vanished and the constant sound of all of London's humanity murmuring had reduced to a dawn lull. It was then that we headed off to Hyde Park, where we wanted to watch the funeral on the large screens the BBC had, in her time-honoured fashion, selflessly placed in various open spaces around the city. I have so much to thank the BBC for over the years, but that is for a future article. The three of us, who had been unusually quiet overnight, headed off hurriedly to acquire a good position somewhere near the biggest screen in London.

I thought we would be too late, but we alloted ourselves a prime place a hundred metres back from the screen, and BBC News had already started broadcasting there to keep us occupied while we awaited what I would quite rationally and realistically call the world's greatest funeral since Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi. And maybe including his too. People from the sixties talk about the Kennedy Moment (that everyone knows what they were doing when they heard JFK was assassinated), well I'm sure the Diana Moment surpassed even that. This was a woman who was even known by some remote tribes of the rain forests, who even got airtime on North Korean television (North Korean TV is well known for providing news rather belatedly, and showed a thirty-minute highlights programme of the Football World Cup in 1998 two months after the event - if the BBC did that there would be a lot of letters!).

We sat there around the other people sharing more food out watching coverage of the early morning events, pundits and correspondents telling us what others were doing around the world, famous people reminiscing about their moments with Diana, or charity workers talking about her visits, presenters informing us of the schedule. We watched as the gentry filed into Westminster Abbey and the world's leaders arrived with their escorts and bodyguards. At exactly the right time, the soldiers opened the gates and out came the gun carriage, normally associated with great war leaders, like Churchill, Nelson or Wellington, this time paradoxically for a princess of peace.

Behind her came the royal accompaniment. Brave boys William and Harry looking like men far before their time, bemused, bewildered, betrayed; her brother Earl Spencer hardly able to walk, dignified with his head held high; Prince Charles looking like a startled fish out of water; the Duke of Edinburgh completing the lineup. It was like an identification parade at a police station. Which one of these three men was the perpetrator? Apparently Prince Charles had spent the week roaming around the hills of Scotland feeling full of guilt and self-recrimination. The two boys had been obviously protected from the press because they had not been seen all week. Earl Spencer had occupied himself with the banalities of the administration.

As they entered into the London streets, a small group of hysterical individuals started wailing and throwing rose petals at the coffin. We started to wonder if that was going to be the precedent, but fortunately the rest passed off with dignity. As they progressed along towards Hyde Park, the thousands of people in the vicinity of the southern side of the space rushed towards the roadside to catch a glimpse of her passing. We three followed the wave towards the road barriers, the only empty area of streetside barricades until we arrived en masse. This was the only, rarest and strangest moment of excitement we had had in the fifteen hours we had been in London. We were all, without exception, there to see her. The only time I saw the Princess of Wales was in a coffin. I barely looked at the others, transfixed by her alone, even after death. The feeling of seeing her was enough fulfillment and we all processed back to our abandoned picnic places, rucksacks and foldable chairs, which were, of course, all still there, untouched. That was a day when even the thieves took a day off.

As she approached the final part of her journey to the Abbey, the bell of the tower was rung a pre-calculated number of times. Precisely upon the final stroke of the bell, the military stopped at the entrance. It was one of a string of impressive events of that day. Not least what was to happen next. The music which accompanied her up the aisle of the Abbey was so impressive, repressive, oppressive, that it was the moment even the stoniest of hearts let their tears flow. I was losing litres through my eyes and was not ashamed. Most of the funeral was a blur of hypocritical religious mumbo-jumbo which the princess would have had to accept simply because it was her funeral.

Then Sir Elton John stepped up to the piano and sang "Candle In The Wind", a song originally dedicated to Marilyn Monroe but rather controversially re-worded for Diana. Most people thought "Your Song" to be more appropriate, including the proxy-assassins at the tabloid newspapers, as that was genuinely one of her favourite songs and the reason why Sir Elton was there at all.

Earl Spencer climbed the stairs of the pulpit and began his eulogy, perhaps in time seen as the defining moment of the day and which made the shortlist of the Guardian's Great Speeches of the Twentieth Century, where he joins a line-up of great men and women like Sir Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King and Jawaharlal Nehru.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/greatspeeches/story/0,,2060134,00.html

As his pained words flowed out, rising above his shaken voice, the world sat transfixed at the eloquence, simplicity and raw power of his speech. He did not hold in his grief. He spoke for everyone and did not revert to hidden messages. And then people were no longer sitting. They were standing all over London, applauding. The growing applause dopplered its way towards the doors of the Abbey and then inside that formal, stuffy sanctum where it brought dignitaries out of protocol, also clapping probably embarrassed to be seen not to, just how Diana would have liked it. Although the rest of the funeral was a typical royal ceremony, those moments were unforgettable. As the service finished, people drifted back to normality, back to the pubs, cafés and railway stations. Reality set in, paradoxically bringing the solidarity shown before crashing to the ground as cars, buses, even white vans, reclaimed their positions as the city's chief noisemakers.

By early afternoon, reality had hit hardest on my own energy levels, artificially pumped up for that most surreal night and saddest of mornings. We three went our separate ways and I took one of the extra trains provided to carry British citizens out of London, dawdled aimlessly in a homeward direction and collapsed in my bed, despite the raging sunshine outside. I slept in a way I had not been able to all week - finally in the most peaceful of circumstances.

You are now wondering why I chose that title. It was playing on my mind yesterday while watching the concert for Diana at Wembley Stadium, the home of modern folklore. Despite the film "The Queen", which did no favours to Diana and virtually turned her into a manic depressive, manipulative little maid, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. She surely became depressed and fairly unpopular in The House due to how she was treated, although I don't think she did herself many favours. I am sure she was tricked into marrying Charles, whom she loved dearly despite his lack of amorous advances. Once she had produced an heir, a handsome successor, she was surplus to requirements, although she could have been a much more admired figure in the royal household if she had Played The Game. But that wasn't her style. She hated all the formalities and protocols. When she went on holiday to Klosters with Sarah Ferguson and the four children once, the tabloid press lambasted her and especially "Fergie" for "giggling like schoolgirls" and behaving like ordinary people, not super-royals. What did they expect? That they would ski in golden boots and go to bed at nine?

And for this reason I believe we have seen exactly how a Messiah could have been manufactured for us 2000 years ago. When you see the photos of Diana shaking hands with leprosy sufferers, AIDS patients, terminally ill children; when she walks in landmine clearance zones, visits youth theatres, takes her boys to a theme park and makes them queue up with the rest, this rings a very familiar bell. It is now, in her death, that she is the humble member of the royalty who was one of the people. All the television documentary witnesses, like the parents of terminally ill patients, right up to ex-presidents, queued up to tell of how she touched their lives so readily, how she was the true divinity which saved their hospital from closing, or which got crucial publicity for their plight in the media, or which lit up the face of a dying boy. Didn't some Jewish man do similar things two thousand years before?

For People's Princess read King of the Jews, for Queen of Hearts, read Lamb of God. We are getting ourselves a secular saint. Would this be the example of how the story of Jesus Christ was purveyed, embellished with a few miracles and urban myths? Don't forget, in those days, in order to Big Someone Up, they had to have performed some mighty things. That meant even if they were bending reality, like being able to walk on water, knowing where a huge shoal of fish was and performing life-saving surgery on your friend's daughter, this meant the person was great.

I see nothing wrong in making legends out of mere mortals, but I see a great moral corruption in turning the tabloid press (who never gave her a moment's peace) into the pharisees, the royal biographers as the Gospel writers, Britain into Judea, and the individuals she met into the Lazaruses, lepers and disciples. But this seems to be what is happening. A new phase in the rehabilitation, a beatification from the masses. I truly believe there are individuals who deserve special status in our respect, who we should try to emulate, but we are also in danger of allowing ourselves to be thrust back into a new religion just as we are finally rejecting them.

Sunday 1 July 2007

The British tabloid press: 50 years of mediocrity

It will be no surprise to read that British tabloid news is getting dumber. And dumber.

Recent evidence shows that one paper (I refuse to add the prefix "news") has devoted more webspace to Big Brother than to the recent terrorist events in London and Glasgow. Maybe they're right - slamming a burning car into a provincial airport is not the height of professional terrorism, but it seems to me a trifle more important than whether Attention Seeking Clown No 1 has succeeded in beating Attention Seeking Clown No 2 in the "bedding" of Annoyingly Unsophisticated Airhead No 1.

However, journalists will try any kind of questioning to get a sensational article printed. Take Wimbledon, for instance. The finest tournament in tennis seems to be suffering from over-excited middle-aged pervo-papas looking for the Ultimate Article On Underwear. I read in the Guardian that after Justine Hénin had won her match on Centre Court against Ms Vesnina, she was asked "apart from tennis, do you have any special talents or party tricks when you're not on court?" She must have been utterly flummoxed! Could you imagine, you go to Paris where they ask about your skills and flair. Florida, where they bring up your ranking, your future plans and your ability to stay in the top positions. Melbourne, where they ask intelligent questions on your style. Then you land in London and you're asked in the press conference whether you're quizzed on whether you can sing Donna Summer tunes at karaoke or walk with 5 tennis balls between your legs.

And poor Tatiana Golovin, asked ten times about her underwear. She only got twelve questions. One journalist even said he'd like a pair. Do these mercenaries know no shame? I have always found tennis players to be far more courteous, more down-to-earth than the average footballer or singer, but these savages who have been given the privilege of asking questions for a nation seem to feel they can bully tennis players into notoriety by seeking a reaction. What did they hope? That is easy to answer. If the tennis player cracked and got upset, there would be a national vilification and even scandalisation including bringing up past misdemeanours, usually about the time they threw their racquet away in despair (a sure sign of a loose wire), and if the tennis player replied politely yet confusedly to the question, they would appear the next day as the New Kournikova on the back pages, depending on what Thierry Henry was doing.

This is by no means a new thing. The catalogue of missed chances and lack of scruples by the tabloid press has been around for decades, but just a lot bigger now that competition is so deadly. Why question a famous person on the sensitive subjects when answering the question for them in a roundabout way can deliver so much more juicy headlines? Why make a fuss over them when you can tear their career apart? A soft approach has always worked far better than an embarrassing torrent of low-grade interrogation ever will.

Take Sir David Frost, who has interviewed just about everyone who ever mattered. He is still on speaking terms with most of them despite being a ruthless questioner. Why? Because he knows how to get information from people. Take his recent Al Jazeera interview with Tony Blair. He even made the former PM admit Iraq was a failure. Simply by being an intelligent, polite and erudite speaker. The only way the tabloids get this type of info is by paying extraordinary amounts of money. Otherwise they would be out of ideas.

A recommendation to tabloid editors: raise your intelligence levels, or you risk being blamed for normalising taboos and reducing intelligent debate to its lowest form - bigoted, self-righteous and totally lacking in morals.

Saturday 23 June 2007

Brussels Treaty: Mrs Thatcher lives on!

I sometimes read the tabloid press. Not because I enjoy doing so, but because I like to see what the enemy is doing. Tabloid journalism in the UK is the single biggest contributor to ignorance and naïveté amongst the average Briton, especially when it comes to the world at large.

FRONT PAGE NEWS:
SOME STAR HAS ANOTHER STAR'S BABY

SECOND PAGE NEWS:
VITRIOLIC RUBBISH ON ANYTHING WHICH WILL MAKE THIS PAPER SELL

THIRD PAGE NEWS:
NONE - JUST A NAKED LADY AND SOME SEXIST RHETORIC ABOUT HER

FOURTH TO TWELFTH PAGE NEWS:
9-PAGE FEATURE ON HOW YOU CAN IMPROVE YOUR SEX LIFE BY LISTENING TO FARM ANIMALS INTERSPERSED WITH SHORT ARTICLES ON FUNNY OR WEIRD TRIVIA

Thirteenth page news:
There's a war on in Iraq and Chirac is no longer President of France PLUS BIG ADVERT FOR PLASTIC SURGERY

FOURTEENTH TO TWENTY-FIFTH PAGE NEWS:
WHAT THE RICH, FAMOUS AND PERVERTED HAVE BEEN UP TO RECENTLY

blablabla, adverts, insurance cons, schemes to rip off old people, holiday ads, horoscopes, recipes, useless gadgets, telephone sex for sale, etc. etc.

SIXTIETH TO BACK PAGE NEWS:
SPORT, GAMBLING, RUMOURS OF BIG MONEY FOOTBALL TRANSFERS

The type of "person" who reads the tabloid press is the same one who would spend a decadent amount of money voting in TV reality shows but would find it hard to name his/her local Member of Parliament, and would have little idea as to what policies they have.

OK, I admit, this type of person exists all over Europe, but on a far greater extent in the UK. You just need to take a five-minute walk down the High Streets of Orpington, Gravesend or Chatham to realise how widespread they have become. So when I was reading several articles and forums, not only from the tabloid press, concerning this weekend's crucial European Summit and treaty, I was horrified to see how naïve people are on this matter, and how fearful they are of anything non-British.

"Sold to Europe!"
"Bliar has tied us to a European superstate" (note spelling of PM's name)
"Let's get out before it's too late!"
"No to any undemocratic treaty"
and the list goes on.

In order to see what kind of journalism breeds this lack of understanding and mind-boggling isolationism, you only need to look at a tabloid newspaper's website.

One article which made me embarrassed to be British was this one:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007280672,00.html

And I decided to write the editor an email:

Dear Mr Pascoe-Watson,

Having read your article comparing Tony Blair to either Napoleon or Wellington, I find it hard to digest that Thatcherite jingoism can still have a place in 21st century Europe.
Times have moved on now.


The world is forming into power blocs of allies, including Europe, looking after each other's interests and assuring the UK of a higher profile and a louder voice at the world table.
Mr Blair did not sign up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights because it gets in the way of his draconian clampdown on British people's legal status. It means that all the historically retarded readers of the tabloids have encouraged Mr Blair to make the UK the most spied upon Orwellian nation on Earth, and you think it is a good thing, simply because this piece of legislation was not made solely by a British politician.


Let us face matters: you would prefer an independent British police state to a European law protecting your rights to be innocent BEFORE proven guilty, unlike the recent unilateral UK Home Office decision to detain people for long periods even if they may be innocent.
The Empire is long past. English-speaking countries are no better allies, not least the US, who made the UK pay every penny back for the Second World War, and still anti-Europeans harp on about how strong allies we are. Wake up little England, and smell the coffee.


If British anti-Europeans don't like the feeling of being in Europe because they feel the rules are being made elsewhere, just remember one thing: fighting your corner as a member who is taken seriously is better than skulking around on the periphery where nobody wants to notice you.
The only other leader who had any objections to the procedings this weekend was Mr Kaczynski of Poland - and just ask any educated Pole what they think of him.


The only reasons why Brits are universally disliked is firstly on evidence in the tourist resorts of Ibiza, Torremolinos and Corfu, and secondly on the political stage where the contributors to forums and blogs are right now vilifying any European project, whether it be for our benefit or not. And upon viewing their appalling spelling and grammar it is no wonder: they do not seem to take in basic linguistic rules, so they'll read and agree with every acidic demagogical syllable so artfully paraphrased in the negative to suit their small, monolingual worlds they wish to wallow in.

It is sad when a once-mighty nation has more voters in the Big Brother final than in the general election. It just shows you how little people really care about what is good for them.
Still, I admire your journalistic guile! Do you really believe what you write, though?


Yours Sincerely,

Raymond Goslitski

God, I needed that. I feel so much better now.

If the European Union has one failing though, it is that it has not promoted itself in the right way. It has good ideas, some excellent in fact. But it hides its light under a bushel. It doesn't seem to let people know why it can be a force for good, and what it has done to make our European continent a good place to live in. And that is where the battle against the hardline Euro-sceptics can be won.