The Gove Debate

In the last few days, Michael Gove has decided to withdraw 20th Century American literature from the GCSE Literature syllabus. There has been much comment, from all sides of the debate, over what this means. 

Look, there is an argument that the same texts have been used for far too long and that it is time to freshen things up. On the other hand, in the light of UKIP's successes this past week, it could be argued that a nice bit of pro-British grandstanding is just what the Conservative Party requires. So what is the truth?

I don't think it actually matters which side of the argument you take but I don't see why there should be a wholesale ban (for want of a better word) on an entire class of literature. In view of this debate, and being 'between books' as it were, I took it upon myself to read 'To Kill A Mockingbird' - I saw the film years back but never read the book until now. Thirty million readers are not wrong: it really is an amazing book. I'm not going to undertake a book review here but the story, from a young tomboy's perspective, of life in 1930s southern America and the town's reactions to her father defending a black man accused of raping a white girl is eye-opening, (very) funny in parts and heart-warming. It is about class, gender and intolerance. Written when racial segregation was still widely practiced, it addresses on-going matters such as racism head-on. 

"Ni**er-lover is just one of those terms that don't mean anything—like snot-nose. It's hard to explain—ignorant, trashy people use it when they think somebody's favouring Negroes over and above themselves. It's slipped into usage with some people like ourselves, when they want a common, ugly term to label somebody."

So simply explained.

I haven't read 'Of Mice and Men' (I did read 'Grapes of Wrath' some years back) but I understand that some 90% of GCSE students have had it foisted on them since GCSEs came into being. Clearly, this will affect teaching (I mean how bloody tedious must it be to teach the same book year after year?) but is this an argument to withdraw from the whole genre? Like it or not, recent American history has had a big influence on current life and books which explain life during the Depression surely have a place in learning. And without getting into a ridiculous debate over Shakespeare's place in modern life, I can see more relevance in Steinbeck than in the works of the Bard himself.

My natural antipathy of Michael Gove aside, I just don't think he is right to withdraw from 20th Century US Literature at GCSE level. And I don't see the writings of Meera Syal (who I like tremendously as a comedienne) as an adequate replacement for the likes of Harper Lee.

Woolwich, Europe & Sergio

Yesterday afternoon, a young soldier was targeted by two men who, under the supposed banner of Islam, decided to run him down, hack him with meat cleavers and knives and attempt to behead him. Purely and simply this was an appalling, disgusting and barbaric act of murder. I watched the news last night and felt utterly sad and depressed by it. And then I went online and felt equally sad and depressed.

On Facebook, there were the usual well-meant pages set up in honour of the young man. Absolutely fine. A great way to show respect. Of course, not all the comments attached to the thread were quite so pleasant: the perpetrators were told to fuck off back to their desert shit holes; revenge was promised and of course, Britain should be for white Anglo-Saxons only. Wow! And that was just the start. This is the result of the UK's immigration policy. Too many  foreigners - they should all fuck off, etc, etc.

Its kind of ironic that as the evening progressed, the two individuals were revealed to be a pair of South Londoners. Black, but British born.

Which kind of negates the whole desert shit hole thing. Unless of course, they should have fucked off too because they're black. Then presumably so should my wife. And my two kids. I can stay. Unless of course you want to go back three generations and then I can fuck off back to Eastern Europe.

I'm not religious. I'm one of those people who thinks that Karl Marx's theory was probably right: religion is there to dictate to us and guilt-trip us into behaving in a certain way. I think you can be spiritual without being religious. I accept that some people find enormous comfort in religion and good luck to them. But please, do not impose your shit on me. Seriously, no! I must admit that I despise Islamic fundamentalism and I can relate to the argument that is often put across that these individuals hate everything about us, want their own laws and often want to kill us. Well you know what you can do then. And shut the door on your way out! But peeps, these are a tiny - but admittedly dangerous - minority. You simply cannot tar the whole of Islam with the same brush. Looking at those two yesterday, it seemed clear to me that they had been indoctrinated but were not quite bright enough to get the message straight: "You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you …. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so you can all live in peace”. YOU people, YOUR government, OUR troops. I think you'll agree, mixed messages all round. And lets be honest, there are plenty of non-Islamist groups who would whole-heartedly agree with those sentiments. And many are white and British.

What depresses me is that it felt as if this was just what a lot of people were waiting for. The moment that this awful crime was committed, the floodgates of hate opened. And of course out came the English Defence League to attack the mosques. And scream at anyone with a dark face.

It is difficult to argue against the view that there is currently insufficient control to stem immigration to the UK. Our NHS wasn't designed to pay for visitors with large families to enter the country for freebies. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect those who rule o'er us to know exactly who is in the country, where they are and what they're up to. And those who come over should contribute. Pay their way. 

Assuming that those boxes are ticked, we should welcome diversity. I like living in a cosmopolitan country. Instead of blaming migrants for taking our housing, why not put the large numbers of empty properties in the UK to good use? 

On a slightly different tack, I've been reading with interest about the long-standing disagreement between Sergio Garcia and Tiger Woods, culminating in a speech by Garcia in which he joked that during the US Open, he'd have Woods over for fried chicken every night. And guess what? America is up in arms! Garcia's a racist! From a country which practiced apartheid only 50 years ago. It was 1955 that Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give her seat up to a white woman (in a 'Blacks Only' section of a bus, don't you know). It was after Kennedy's time that matters improved. Except down South of course.

I really want Tiger Woods to break Jack Nicklaus' record for major titles. But lets be truthful: he is a morally bankrupt, ill-mannered, arrogant bastard who pushes the boundaries of fairness to win. That is why Garcia dislikes him. Woods has no right to take the moral high ground here. and America needs to wake up to itself.


                                        * R.I.P Drummer Lee Rigby *

The Politician and the Policeman

So Andrew Mitchell quit last night as Tory Chief Whip. I assume the feelings of the keepers of the peace have been suitably soothed this morning.

Let's be clear. I am very much in the camp that believes that you know a politician is lying when you can see his or her lips move. Scum. Pond life. They tell you how to live your life, how much you ought to be paid and why you need to pay more tax - the latter to make up for their previous cock-ups. Meanwhile they do what they hell they want, vote their own pay rises and my favourite, try to use 'parliamentary privilege' to hid their own misdeeds and corruption. To be fair that's not all politicians. It is however most of them.

Back to Mr Mitchell then. He allegedly called an irritating job's worth - and let's be truthful, that is what he was - a pleb. He says not, he says that he told the man that "I thought you guys were supposed to fucking help us". Seems a reasonable point considering he wasn't passing through Downing Street but actually coming out of Number 10 from a cabinet meeting. Still, it appears that the policeman on duty - clearly a sensitive soul - saw things differently. And what a fuss was made. And why, you have to ask yourself, was that?

On September 12, the Hillsborough Independent Panel published its findings following the tragic events of 15 April 1989 when 96 people lost their lives at an FA cup semi-final. It concluded - and to be honest, everyone other than the Sun's Kelvin Mackenzie already knew this - that the fault lay not with the supporters of Liverpool FC but solely, completely and utterly with the police. It catalogued the whole sorry saga - altered statements, besmirching the names of the dead and perhaps worst of all, failing to try and save up to 41 people who did not die straight away.

For the next few days following this publication, the most intense scrutiny was put on the police in this country as the extent of their dishonesty and duplicity was laid bare for all to see. Then six days later, two WPCs, attending what should have been a routine house call, were gunned down and attacked with a grenade. This was an appalling and cowardly attack on two decent coppers doing their job. It was also a gilt-edged opportunity for the police to deflect all the negative publicity away from themselves. And then the real (if you pardon the pun) 'Get out of jail free card': Andrew Mitchell gets the shits with the poor policeman and suddenly, the police are the victims.

Cynical? Me? Well it seems odd that early this week, Hillsborough once again gets mentioned. It seems that there is a real chance that both retired and serving police may well be prosecuted for their conduct over the Hillsborough tragedy. And stone me, if the Police Federation doesn't resurrect Andrew Mitchell once again. He has to go. How can anyone speak to a policeman that way? Blah blah blah.

So gone he has. Fallen on his sword. To quote the Police Federation: "It is not good to see anyone fall from public office but the decision by the Prime Minister to accept Andrew Mitchell's resignation seemed almost inevitable. Andrew Mitchell has apologised to our Metropolitan Police colleague and our colleague has accepted the apology. We hope this matter is now closed." Funny how an apology wasn't deemed good enough last week to close this matter. Still, it'll be interesting to see the sensitivity of the police at work once the prosecutions begin.