This week, after many months of being unhappy at work, I handed in my notice. To badly paraphrase Charles Dickens, it was the right thing to do, it was the wrong thing to do. Right because I could feel myself sinking into depression, it was making me ill, I couldn't do right for doing wrong in the eyes of my manager and it was starting to erode away my confidence and self-esteem. It was wrong because I don't have a job to go to, I only have a week's notice to work and ... well now I'm scrabbling around looking for a job!
But here's the thing: I'm not scared. I feel invigorated. I feel that anything is possible. The more banal truth is that I will probably temp for a while before opting to take another job that doesn't stretch my creative abilities and that I like well enough but doesn't inspire me. Why should I be any different to the vast majority of the drones? But unless and until that happens, I am determined to see the world as mine, just waiting to be claimed. I am determined to fly by the seat of my pants and believe that because I am prepared to take a chance, life might just take a chance on me.
I'm happy! I feel like a child wriggling her toes in the hot sand of the sort of beach that doesn't really exist in Britain outside of our imaginations. I know I am alive and that somehow things are going to be more than okay.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
More on 'Sink Estates'
The below was also posted earlier as a response to the suggestion that we should condemn everything that is creating "this situation", and that having done that we should have the balls to do something about it, rather than brush it under the carpet.
Right. But who here is brushing it under the carpet, and what exactly are we supposed to do as individuals. Condemenation on a talkboard is just so much hot air.
I have lots of ideas that I think might be workable and might make a difference, having seen some of them work in other situations. As a child I realised that if you put all the 'bad people' in one place it was a recipe for disaster and that you would create estates that no one wanted to live on, in order to keep the 'bad people' away from everyone else. I knew that if you wanted to make society work, you had to stop creating ghettos, you had to try and make sure that 'good' and 'bad' lived cheek by jowl, because it was far more likely that 'bad' people living in a 'good' environment would see the benefits and feel the motivation to emulate the good rather than the bad.
It's not so easy these days. Social housing is totally fucked, thanks to decades of appalling policy decisions, so estates generally become holding areas for those in need, and some of those in need are less 'socially acceptable' than others.
Things that have worked.
A 'sink estate' in the North-East was so bad that everyone who could move out did. As fewer people were left, the local authority moved them out, completely did the estate up and then offered housing to people from outside the area who didn't know of its reputation and saw it for what it could be - a decent environment in which to live and make a go of it. Pretty drastic, but it shows that an improved environment and a different perspective can work.
Education - giving people the tools and the motivation to make the most of themselves, understanding that this should not all be measured 'academically' and therefore looking to fund apprenticeships again, giving everyone the chance to learn a trade if they want to and are able to. Education is investment in the future, spend more on that than fucked up conflicts overseas.
Investment - get estate dwellers involved in doing up their estates, get them involved in setting up tenants associations that are involved in the running of the estate and have a vested interest in making the place the best it possibly can be.
Policing - invest in community policing if needs be, but make their presence felt so that everyone feels safe.
Adult education and literacy - channel this. TV adverts are all very well and good, but bring it to the places where it is most needed.
Investment in social housing and a change in the law regarding private tenants - Tenants are treated like scum by the law. Constantly having to sign tenancy agreements, never knowing when they will have to move to the next flat with all the expense that involves. Social housing was not just a net to catch those in need, but ensured that just about everyone could look forward to decent housing unless and until they decided to buy for themselves. We'll never get back to that but there needs to be a greater understanding that we need more of it.
And finally an understanding that this will all take time, that there is no quick fix and that there will always be a minority of people who don't give a fuck. For a change focus on the people who do and stop pretending that everyone is - as I said before - the lowest common denominator by virtue of their address.
As a postscript, the fact that this debate is taking place in a thread about Shannon Matthews is ... interesting isn't really the word, but it will have to do. Just as everyone who lives on a 'sink estate' isn't the scum of the earth, so most mothers with an abundance of children, possibly (shock horror) by different fathers, would not dream of behaving in the way that Ms Matthews allegedly did. Her geographical location does not make her a representative of a type of mother in any way, shape or form.
Right. But who here is brushing it under the carpet, and what exactly are we supposed to do as individuals. Condemenation on a talkboard is just so much hot air.
I have lots of ideas that I think might be workable and might make a difference, having seen some of them work in other situations. As a child I realised that if you put all the 'bad people' in one place it was a recipe for disaster and that you would create estates that no one wanted to live on, in order to keep the 'bad people' away from everyone else. I knew that if you wanted to make society work, you had to stop creating ghettos, you had to try and make sure that 'good' and 'bad' lived cheek by jowl, because it was far more likely that 'bad' people living in a 'good' environment would see the benefits and feel the motivation to emulate the good rather than the bad.
It's not so easy these days. Social housing is totally fucked, thanks to decades of appalling policy decisions, so estates generally become holding areas for those in need, and some of those in need are less 'socially acceptable' than others.
Things that have worked.
A 'sink estate' in the North-East was so bad that everyone who could move out did. As fewer people were left, the local authority moved them out, completely did the estate up and then offered housing to people from outside the area who didn't know of its reputation and saw it for what it could be - a decent environment in which to live and make a go of it. Pretty drastic, but it shows that an improved environment and a different perspective can work.
Education - giving people the tools and the motivation to make the most of themselves, understanding that this should not all be measured 'academically' and therefore looking to fund apprenticeships again, giving everyone the chance to learn a trade if they want to and are able to. Education is investment in the future, spend more on that than fucked up conflicts overseas.
Investment - get estate dwellers involved in doing up their estates, get them involved in setting up tenants associations that are involved in the running of the estate and have a vested interest in making the place the best it possibly can be.
Policing - invest in community policing if needs be, but make their presence felt so that everyone feels safe.
Adult education and literacy - channel this. TV adverts are all very well and good, but bring it to the places where it is most needed.
Investment in social housing and a change in the law regarding private tenants - Tenants are treated like scum by the law. Constantly having to sign tenancy agreements, never knowing when they will have to move to the next flat with all the expense that involves. Social housing was not just a net to catch those in need, but ensured that just about everyone could look forward to decent housing unless and until they decided to buy for themselves. We'll never get back to that but there needs to be a greater understanding that we need more of it.
And finally an understanding that this will all take time, that there is no quick fix and that there will always be a minority of people who don't give a fuck. For a change focus on the people who do and stop pretending that everyone is - as I said before - the lowest common denominator by virtue of their address.
As a postscript, the fact that this debate is taking place in a thread about Shannon Matthews is ... interesting isn't really the word, but it will have to do. Just as everyone who lives on a 'sink estate' isn't the scum of the earth, so most mothers with an abundance of children, possibly (shock horror) by different fathers, would not dream of behaving in the way that Ms Matthews allegedly did. Her geographical location does not make her a representative of a type of mother in any way, shape or form.
Karen Matthews, yet another excuse to rail at 'sink estates'
Karen Matthews has been remanded in custody, charged with child neglect and attempting to pervert the course of justice. From what we can ascertain, it would appear that her daughter, Shannon, was never kidnapped, although this is supposition, based on the fact that she has been remanded on charges - yet to be proved - that suggest this was the case. So, what we can say is that it was allegedly, a ruse, if so, it was most probably a money-making ruse and, again if these allegations are true, one in which the welfare of Shannon was an afterthought if that. There seems to be plenty to condemn Karen Matthews for.
However, in the wake of this shocking case, what we get is not just condemnation of Karen Matthews for her alleged offences, but an attempt to treat her as a typical resident of a 'sink estate'. Whatever else she is, she is far from a typical anything. The fact of having a number of children by different fathers does not turn a woman into a Karen Matthews. Ones geographical location does not make one think that the faux kidnapping of ones own daughter is a good way of making a quick buck. But that hasn't stopped the stereotyping, the call for sterilisation of young uneducated women, the cries that they should be denied benefits because that will stop them. And underlying all of this is the notion that the inhabitants of 'sink estates' are all the same. The below was posted on a talkboard earlier today:
What we are left with on these "sink estates" are those that decades of economic growth and unprecedented education have left behind. Other measures are called for - accepting there is always a small chance there is something left in the genepool there worth lavishing a uni education on.
And this was my response, this is in part what I think of the current desire to characterise all residents of these estates as potential Karen Matthews, as people who are beyond 'redemption':
No we're not. Or we're not necessarily only looking at that. Sink estates are not some homogeneous mass. All sorts of people live on them, some having a better time of it than others, many wanting to make their environment better but not having the first clue, or maybe the motivation, to do it, and some who don't give a fuck and by and large offer nothing of much or any good to society at large.
For many a sink estate is just their address and they do what they can to make the most of it. If you need housing and you get moved to a 'sink estate' you're not going to refuse it, even if that is not where you want to live. If you live on one you do not necessarily fit the stereotype that everyone conjures up when they hear the words 'sink estate'.
I was brought up on what had once been a decent estate but had become a 'sink estate' by the time we moved there. We lived there for 5 years and then moved to a better place, mostly because being transferred was easier in those days and my dad had died so we went to the top of the list on compassionate grounds. Of course it wasn't called a 'sink estate' in those days, it was more likely referred to as a shithole, but while we were there I managed to get into a grammar school and while I was well aware of everything that went on around us, the drugs, the alcohol, the muggings, burglaries and general squalor, it wasn't who my family or I were. It wasn't our next door neighbours either. It wasn't every resident on the estate then and I know it's not every resident on every 'sink estate' now.
Defining 'sink estates' by their lowest common denominator is part of the problem.
However, in the wake of this shocking case, what we get is not just condemnation of Karen Matthews for her alleged offences, but an attempt to treat her as a typical resident of a 'sink estate'. Whatever else she is, she is far from a typical anything. The fact of having a number of children by different fathers does not turn a woman into a Karen Matthews. Ones geographical location does not make one think that the faux kidnapping of ones own daughter is a good way of making a quick buck. But that hasn't stopped the stereotyping, the call for sterilisation of young uneducated women, the cries that they should be denied benefits because that will stop them. And underlying all of this is the notion that the inhabitants of 'sink estates' are all the same. The below was posted on a talkboard earlier today:
What we are left with on these "sink estates" are those that decades of economic growth and unprecedented education have left behind. Other measures are called for - accepting there is always a small chance there is something left in the genepool there worth lavishing a uni education on.
And this was my response, this is in part what I think of the current desire to characterise all residents of these estates as potential Karen Matthews, as people who are beyond 'redemption':
No we're not. Or we're not necessarily only looking at that. Sink estates are not some homogeneous mass. All sorts of people live on them, some having a better time of it than others, many wanting to make their environment better but not having the first clue, or maybe the motivation, to do it, and some who don't give a fuck and by and large offer nothing of much or any good to society at large.
For many a sink estate is just their address and they do what they can to make the most of it. If you need housing and you get moved to a 'sink estate' you're not going to refuse it, even if that is not where you want to live. If you live on one you do not necessarily fit the stereotype that everyone conjures up when they hear the words 'sink estate'.
I was brought up on what had once been a decent estate but had become a 'sink estate' by the time we moved there. We lived there for 5 years and then moved to a better place, mostly because being transferred was easier in those days and my dad had died so we went to the top of the list on compassionate grounds. Of course it wasn't called a 'sink estate' in those days, it was more likely referred to as a shithole, but while we were there I managed to get into a grammar school and while I was well aware of everything that went on around us, the drugs, the alcohol, the muggings, burglaries and general squalor, it wasn't who my family or I were. It wasn't our next door neighbours either. It wasn't every resident on the estate then and I know it's not every resident on every 'sink estate' now.
Defining 'sink estates' by their lowest common denominator is part of the problem.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Big Brother Celebrity Hijack - 3rd January Launch Show
An excellent name for the show. Maybe they'll stay with the terrorism theme and the summer version will be called Big Brother Suicide Bomber, with all the carnage that implies.
Still, if tonight's opening is anything to go by, they won't need any extra carnage. Poor old Dermott O'Leary telling us its "Genius!" and "Brilliant!" every time the camera cuts to him, when all we can really see going on is the baiting of a fat ginger Scot who is being remotely controlled by Matt Lucas and made to act like a socially retarded hunchback. Oh I'm sorry, have I forgotten to describe the concept! Pay attention now, this is the er, science bit. Where science = a bunch of gakked up twats trying to come up with a format after they discover that there isn't a celebrity in the world who's prepared to risk their career on the show anymore. So. We have a house full of allegedly talented plebs who are - and here's the hilarious bit - being controlled by celebs! Brilliant! Genius! The celebs have hijacked Big Brother! Oh, there go my sides.
The first celebrity to do this is Matt Lucas, a noted comedy Genius, a Brilliant raconteur and bald twat. He decided that the aforementioned fat ginger Scot should go into the house first because he was the one most likely to pass Matt's fiendish task. That task, is to be told to do stupid things by Matt via the medium of an earpiece and a stupid hat. Have you lost the will to live yet? I think the fat ginger Scot has. His name is John and he is a junior politician. Other talents in the house include, a racing driver, a boxer, a fashion designer, an entreprenueur with a bad weave, circus freaks and someone who wears a bikini for a living and is good at quizzes set by nazis. Apparently she can't spell Canada, but she can tell you which triangle looks like another triangle, whether Florence is older than Mary or younger than John or both, and the name of Hitler's favourite dog.
In short, this is utter shite, which is probably why its inglorious run will be occur in the relative privacy of E4. The producers don't have the brains to realise that their target audience don't want to see young people with 'talent', however dubious, they want to see desperate wannabes. Losers who are only one tit-flash away from obscurity, ranting racist bullies who they can hate while failing to see themselves in the fatally flawed freak performing for their delectation. They'll hate this bunch for having aspirations beyond sucking off a footballer and/or falling out of nightclubs covered in sick and fingering a page three reject. They'll probably laugh a little at the peurile antics of fat embryo stunt double, Lucas, they might even raise a snigger or two a the ubiquitous comedy vacuum, Jimmy Wan-Carr, but what will they make of Jake and Dinos Chapman? Brian Sewell? Joan Rivers?
It's a slo-mo car crash with a only handful of rubberneckers to watch its grim passage. But in case you think this is just an exercise in negativity, I would like to reassure you that there is one brilliantly shining silver lining to this dim and dreary cloud. It is so bad, so irredeemably fucking awful, that I am finally free from the addiction that started back in the year 2000. Thank you Endemol! Thank you, you shite-shovelling shitstains! Free at last, Free at last thank Bazelgette almighty, I'm free at last!
Still, if tonight's opening is anything to go by, they won't need any extra carnage. Poor old Dermott O'Leary telling us its "Genius!" and "Brilliant!" every time the camera cuts to him, when all we can really see going on is the baiting of a fat ginger Scot who is being remotely controlled by Matt Lucas and made to act like a socially retarded hunchback. Oh I'm sorry, have I forgotten to describe the concept! Pay attention now, this is the er, science bit. Where science = a bunch of gakked up twats trying to come up with a format after they discover that there isn't a celebrity in the world who's prepared to risk their career on the show anymore. So. We have a house full of allegedly talented plebs who are - and here's the hilarious bit - being controlled by celebs! Brilliant! Genius! The celebs have hijacked Big Brother! Oh, there go my sides.
The first celebrity to do this is Matt Lucas, a noted comedy Genius, a Brilliant raconteur and bald twat. He decided that the aforementioned fat ginger Scot should go into the house first because he was the one most likely to pass Matt's fiendish task. That task, is to be told to do stupid things by Matt via the medium of an earpiece and a stupid hat. Have you lost the will to live yet? I think the fat ginger Scot has. His name is John and he is a junior politician. Other talents in the house include, a racing driver, a boxer, a fashion designer, an entreprenueur with a bad weave, circus freaks and someone who wears a bikini for a living and is good at quizzes set by nazis. Apparently she can't spell Canada, but she can tell you which triangle looks like another triangle, whether Florence is older than Mary or younger than John or both, and the name of Hitler's favourite dog.
In short, this is utter shite, which is probably why its inglorious run will be occur in the relative privacy of E4. The producers don't have the brains to realise that their target audience don't want to see young people with 'talent', however dubious, they want to see desperate wannabes. Losers who are only one tit-flash away from obscurity, ranting racist bullies who they can hate while failing to see themselves in the fatally flawed freak performing for their delectation. They'll hate this bunch for having aspirations beyond sucking off a footballer and/or falling out of nightclubs covered in sick and fingering a page three reject. They'll probably laugh a little at the peurile antics of fat embryo stunt double, Lucas, they might even raise a snigger or two a the ubiquitous comedy vacuum, Jimmy Wan-Carr, but what will they make of Jake and Dinos Chapman? Brian Sewell? Joan Rivers?
It's a slo-mo car crash with a only handful of rubberneckers to watch its grim passage. But in case you think this is just an exercise in negativity, I would like to reassure you that there is one brilliantly shining silver lining to this dim and dreary cloud. It is so bad, so irredeemably fucking awful, that I am finally free from the addiction that started back in the year 2000. Thank you Endemol! Thank you, you shite-shovelling shitstains! Free at last, Free at last thank Bazelgette almighty, I'm free at last!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)