Not Mid Morning Matters

JD in the Morning, off air…

Boozy Bristol after dark

It’s the Wild West out there on the streets of Bristol at night, especially at the weekend. Lawless, drunken, riddled with drugs, sex, all fueled by cheap booze and falling morality. It is the beginning of the end and every town is like it.

No. This is just plain wrong. I was wrong, the Sodom and Gomorrah image we are being sold is wrong. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself, so said Franklin D Roosevelt and he would say the same about the streets of Bristol on a Saturday night, had he seen what I saw.

The reason I went out was to test the assertion that Bristol city centre is full of young, drunk, drugged people who are badly behaved and off their heads on drink. Alcohol costs the city millions in management and health issues; it causes many social problems and leads to crime and general lawlessness. Yes this may happen, but it is not the whole story. The late night economy in Bristol, with bars open until 5am and clubs closing at 6am is a result of changing attitudes, culture and laws. Bristol is responding to this and doing rather well because of it too.

The Habourside was my first port of call, a mixture of bars and restaurants all offering a differing propositions for the young and the not so young. I went into two of the bars and they were busy, happy places and both were a mixture of all ages. The door staff outside a bar on Park Street I spoke to earlier had told me that Habourside is where the Saturday nights out start, or on Corn Street. What I saw was a lot of people having a very good time, some quite loudly. And I saw a lot of young women, in groups, in black dresses moving, well more teetering on infeasible shoes from bar to bar. Then it changed.

As the night headed towards the witching hour the gender balance changed. It was men in a the majority, young men in their 20’ and early 30’s, loud and boisterous but I would venture no more loud than I was when I was that age, or Mods were in the 60’s or 80’s, or Teddy boys were in the 50’s. Twas ever thus? The bars were now full and ques forming inside and out, good-natured and patient.

Then it was off to College Green and Park Street, now much busier than when I walked down it earlier in the evening. Outside the bars young men and women were smoking and the sweet smell of cannabis that had intermittently wafted around me all night returned again. I spoke to a young girl who was celebrating her 19th birthday with two friends. She was out to get ‘wasted’. That was her answer to my question about how she would judge her night to be a good night. She was not alone. Another group said the same, so did a stag party in fancy dress outside The Hippodrome. They were walking by as theatre-goers left a performance by the French Ballet. Both were having their own versions of a good night. There was and is room for all.

As I walked up Park Street there were many young women dressed for the summer on a cold November night mixing with men in Christmas jumpers, stag and hen parties all queuing to get in to the bar or club they would stay in until they could drink no more. They jostled with each other and the on coming traffic. The more sober supported those who had peaked too soon. Many had peaked to soon or were about to start the final ascent of Mount Booze. By now every bar or club had long, good-natured ques and pavements were a mix of the happy, the merry and the drunk with small, trickling steaming streams emanating from dark shop doorways trickling down towards College Green.

Was it intimidating? No. Was it a night out I could enjoy? Yes. Did I feel safe? Yes. There was police visible on foot and horseback, every bar had door personnel, and the crowds were out for a good time and were mostly having one.

Here are my concerns.

Speaking to a group of young men and then a group of young girls standing in a long queue outside a club on Clifton Triangle it was the money they spent to have a good time. One young man spent half his weekly wage on each Saturday night out, the same for another young woman. Neither was ‘foolish’ or ‘feckless’ or a front-page image for a black top tabloid paper. Nights out in Bristol are what they live for. Drinking was part of that, before they went out and while they were out.

Bristol has seen a 42% increase in hospital admissions attributable to alcohol in the last 6 years so something is clearly wrong, but it’s not just the city centre’s fault.

We all have a problem with alcohol and this week on BBC Radio Bristol I’m going to try to make sense of why.

Rape is wrong, right?

Rape is wrong, right?.

Rape is wrong, right?

I have had busy couple of weeks, covering many different topics too on my BBC programme but one topic has struck a chord with my listeners more than any other.

Rape.

On the phone in element of Thursdays programme we discussed the ‘this is not an excuse’ campaign launched in Bristol. The four different hard-hitting billboard posters throughout the city follows the success of the campaign in Scotland, based on a Rape Crisis message. It provoked the expected response but we also heard all sides of the issue. And we heard from victims too who we could not put to air, but I hope we helped. We took calls from victims of rape who have never reported the crime committed against them.

Rape is wrong. The posters are hard-hitting and if you have yet to see them I would urge you to take a look at thisisnotanexcuse.org.uk. Please take a long, hard, thought-provoking look. Then consider the message.

It is quite simple. There is no excuse for rape. None. It is a crime, it is about power, subjugation, it has no place in any society and the only person to blame is the perpetrator. Simple. But no, it’s not simple. If only it was really that simple. To make it that simple is wrong.

There should be NO doubt that ANY victim of rape, be they a woman or man (40 men got raped in the West in the last year as well as 420 women) be guilty. But is the perpetrator of this crime wholly and totally guilty for his or her actions? Yes, women can rape too. Is every rapist just guilty and it is for them alone to stand and fall by their horrendous crime and accept that they alone are the singular instigator and mastermind? Or are we all, in some way, guilty for an over sexualized society where sex sells everything, breasts and bums are on show in daily newspapers and porn is a couple of clicks away on any PC or tablet? Is it really acceptable to dress in a way that celebrates being attractive as nothing more than ‘get it here’ sex? To answer that last question is to go out in any of our towns or cities in the West on a Saturday night and reach your own conclusion.

Rape is about power and it is not about sex. But sex is the route to this power. You should be able to wear what you want, where you want without fear of attack or worse. And ‘no’ should mean ‘no’. Rape is not a feminist issue, a police matter or a poster campaign. It is about all of us and the blackest part of our today.

Most rapes are silent, not violent and between those who know each other. Only 15% of all rapes are ever reported. This has to be about more than just the shame and the intimacy of being the victim of the most violating of crimes. It must be about how we judge sex, all sex has become and what it means from our daily newspapers, TV, social media through to easily accessible porn. The message is that if you have sex, you must have wanted it, because we all do. That is the how the sexual message is sold. And the not reporting of the crime of rape is the consequence because the victim thinks it is their fault. It isn’t.

Rape is unacceptable. Any victim should feel that she or he can report the crime, be treated fairly and respectfully through the due process of criminal law and that the outcome reflects the nature of the crime. The only bit of this we have got right so far is that rape is unacceptable. The rest is slow work in progress.

This says more about our society today than many other things.

It’s party conference season; don’t all yawn at once!

John Darvall's avatarNot Mid Morning Matters

It is that party conference time of year again and chances are you couldn’t give stuff.

Much like bankers, whether you like them or not, you need politicians. Yet never have we been so disengaged with politics as a nation. More people are members of the RSPB than are members of the main Westminster political parties. Birds get us going but running our country, paying tax, social responsibility, security, health, education… ‘Not me mate, I’m twitching’ or trying to give a badger with a bad cough a good home. Maybe we should elect a Great Tit or a badger to parliament. Might that get your vote?

As the political parties try and work out how they are going to get the money they need to do their work and to convince us that there ideas and policies are best for us, we the majority frankly don’t seem to care. If…

View original post 355 more words

This last week has been about the weak.

This last week has been about the weak..

This last week has been about the weak.

In Westminster last week the Leader of the opposition was called weak by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister was called weak by the Leader of the Opposition. Next week neither will be there as they will both have a note from their mum’s saying they ‘can’t go as they are being bullied’.

Also it is the weak and vulnerable who will suffer with the coming winter fuel bills of the big six energy companies and their average of 9.2% increases in energy prices. What is actually being done about that? Naff all in reality. The ‘Big 6’ effectively said ‘not me mate’, Labour’s price freeze idea is totally potty as it can never work in the global energy market of today, the Coalition’s proposal of a competition review will take 12 months to reach a conclusion and shifting the Green tax into general taxation only mean you will pay more, just differently. It is going to be a long, cold winter for many so warm, snuggly Christmas jumpers might not be such a bad present idea this year.

All this has occurred against the background of Russell Brand calling for a revolution against the political class of today, those who seek to make a profit and pretty much anyone who is not him or who think like him. Free speech is a wonderful thing.

Yet it is free speech that is actually under threat by the very actions of those who benefit most from it, make money out of it and use it to fill the pages of our daily and Sunday papers.

Whether we end up the Royal Charter to govern and control the actions of the press, or they continue to ‘mark their own homework’ as the campaign group Hacked Off call it, one thing is for certain. Thanks to the actions of some journalists and maybe others on trial right now, our press and journalism will never be the same again in the UK.

But this is far bigger problem than just our UK press.

The world looks to us for a free press. Our tradition of free speech and a free press first gained its printed voice in the mewing 17th century newspapers and in the articles of Milton against the puritanical views of Cromwell and his the English Republic. If our press falls under parliamentary control other governments will use our newly ‘state controlled’ media as the very example they need to control, govern, censor what can and can’t be printed. Then it will be the same for broadcasting. Mr Brand may yet get his revolution, but perhaps not quite on the terms he was elucidating.

Why did all this happen? Why did the press do what they did? What made it okay for the press to rifle through the bins of Steve Coogan, ‘convict’ Bristol’s Christopher Jefferies on a series of front pages or hack into the phone of the then missing school girl Milly Dowler? You.

You bought the papers. You bought the stories. You chose the front page of the paper, you fed the beast. It is all down to you. And it’s down to me too. No paper, no journalist, no editor would have done any of the things revealed in the Leveson enquiry if you didn’t buy them.

So now we may not have lost the sensational headlines, but we have lost threatening, penetrating investigative journalism, challenging opinion and, most of all, the freedom of the press that we all enjoyed, maybe just a little too much.

The press will be weak from this last week.

You are going to have pay more tax.

In the west, Bath and North East Somerset have revealed that they are looking to cut spending on early years provision by £2.3 million over the next two years. Bristol City Council is now facing further budget cuts of £90 million on top of what they have already have cut. Central Government will also have to cut more public services and welfare if the country is ever likely to pay back the debt. All rather bleak isn’t it?

Does it have to be like this? Could you pay more?

There are a number of painful realities we all need to face here. If you or the country borrow money then you have to pay it back. The only way to do that is by using the money you earn to do it. If you don’t earn enough you either prioritize your income so you pay what you’ve borrowed back or you have to earn more money to do it. The reality is hard and, for many, very difficult but there is no other way, other than to extend the length of time you pay the debt back. This will always cost you more money.

There are those who think public services are a right and public money grows on trees. There answer is to tax the wealthy more to pay for it. The trotting out of ‘tax the bankers bonuses more’ is a very popular solution offered to the public spending shortfall. That, like the idea of the Big Society, is utter tosh.

If you want an NHS that does what you want and when you want it you have to pay for it. If you want trains with seat you can sit on, at times you want to go then you have to pay for it. If you want local services, real and proper care for your elderly relatives or loved ones, decent schools or the rubbish collected on time then you have to pay for it. And there are only two ways. Either you pay more tax, buy it yourself or you give more to charity. We all have to pay more or give more. It’s worth remembering that less than 100 years ago charity provided health care, education, social mobility and social care before central government decided it could do it better.

HMRC have released some figures that don’t sit well with the silly cries of bankers paying more tax on their bonuses or with the premise of the big society filling in the gap. Out of almost 30 million people now working just 703,000 people will earn at least £100,000 or more this year through wages, bonuses, self-employed income, dividends, rents and interest. Of those, 320,000 will make at least £150,000 and 287,000 of these will pay the 45p top rate. This IS loads more than the 236,000 that paid the 50p tax rate in 2010-11.

This may surprise you too. Just 18,000 people will earn over £1m, which is up on the 13,000 in the previous two years and it was 10,000 in 2010.

But this is the killer number to the argument that rich need to pay more income tax than you. The 6,000 people on £2m or more will pay more in income tax (£13.2bn) than you and the 12.5m other taxpayers who earn under £20,000 a year. They are coughing up less with cumulative £11.5bn.

Simply, the top 1 per cent of UK earners have 13.7 per cent of all income but they pay a record 29.8 per cent of all income tax. In 2004-05, the top 1 per cent paid 21.4 per cent of all income tax. So who is taxed more and paying more? It is certainly not the 2 million more who will pay no tax at all in the next year compare to last year.

One last thing; these top earners are most likely to buy the services they need and are paying tax to the government for those who can’t. So should these top pay more tax? Your answer to that is most likely to be yes, but then you should pay more tax too if you want the things that are being cut. Or maybe we should hand it all over to charities to provide as it use to be.

One last thing. £35 billion in tax goes uncollected every year.

Painful, isn’t it.

Are feminists getting in the way?

So it’s ‘a land of hope and Tory’ or ‘Britain, we can do better than this’. Is it me or is there more than a hint of blue versus red coming up on the horizon? Might this get you and I involved in the debate about which way we want to country to go after May 2015?

The debate I had on my radio programme this week about women in politics being so poorly represented was very interesting. The facts are stark. In Parliament there are just 146 female MP’s out of 650 and in two councils in the West women struggle to reach 25% of total councillors. And all of this is against the backdrop of the vote for women being 100 not out, equality legislation being in place for almost 40 years and women making up 51% of the population.

Something is wrong.

Is it that it is a ‘man’s world’, white, middle class and women can’t break through that often discussed and deployed glass ceiling? That is just too easy an excuse and frankly insulting to women, and to men. The argument that men employ in their own image is dated, tired and will never win against the reality of women achieving what they feel they want to achieve. If it really is that simple the courts would be full as the equality laws are there to protect women and men too.

There are fundamental differences between the sexes (apart from the obvious) and rather than trying to constantly seek sexual parity, those very differences should be encouraged, celebrated, nurtured and used for the benefit of all. Rather than the ‘ists’ demanding the same rights and, by default, the same opportunities, maybe we should all use ALL our gender differences and celebrate those differences to encourage women to take part in politics, business or the community. Its culture, not sex and culture is the responsibility of both sexes.

One thing for certain is that ‘having it all’ is not an option as it will never work. The human condition is that the more you have the more you want, so whether you are a man or a woman you will never be happy.

A real difference that comes up again and again is that men ‘do’ while women think and then ‘do’. You see this with instructions for making something. Men will invariably just crack on and make it happen while women will read the instructions and then make it happen. The result is the same, mostly, but women consider the result and the route before embarking more than men.

The constant men versus women feminist charge of ‘it’s not good enough’ and ‘something must be done’ never really deals with the many ‘whys’ and fails to appeal the majority who feel ‘I’m all right thanks, my gender is not an issue to me so leave me alone, please’. Are women who want to be mothers and stay at home doing that most vital role wrong, letting down the sisterhood? Men can do that role too. I would love the chance.

The biggest danger of all is that someone decides to set a target or a quota or we end up with positive discrimination for women. That just makes the situation worse for everyone, creates resentment and perpetuates ‘the fight’ the ‘ists’ love to have. And positive discrimination is still discrimination, and that is wrong for all those who are excluded.

There is one more thing that may upset feminists. Some women, maybe the majority of women just don’t want to be part of the equality world because they rather like the world they have.Does that make them wrong? Feminism, which I fully support, has given women many valuable things that they wouldn’t otherwise have, but to challenge women that they are not doing enough and still blaming men for not allowing them to do it is just not good enough, a bit like not cleaning behind the fridge.

Social media is anything BUT social.

In the last week we have learnt that Twitter will go the way of Facebook. It will be floated on the stock market and it will make heaps of cash for its creators. What started as a wacky idea, so the story is told or should that be sold to you and me, evolves into another bit of social media growing up and coming of age, with a very big price tag. That great modern voice of today is wrong on this one. It is about the money, money, money.

Millions of people have got on board the social media trend; they have friends and followers and judge themselves by the numbers of friends and followers they have. And if you don’t have enough, you can actually buy some. Then you can have even more friends and followers hanging on your every update, like or tweet as you share your world with all those who you may naively think are hanging on your every thought, word, deed, and tweet. Is this the 21st century at its best?

No.

Then there is the appalling bullying on social media, by cowards and rampant ‘ists’ who hide behind silly names and ridiculous prejudices or twisted views of reasonable ideas or faiths. See my earlier blog on ‘isms’ and ‘ists’.

The painful reality for you and me is that we have actually got few real friends and those who aren’t real friends don’t really give a stuff about you. A real friend is the one you call at 3am and they say ‘where are you’ and ‘I’m coming to get you’.

Social media is a con trick, pure and simple. Have you ever responded to an advert? Have you ever clicked on a link and thought ‘I must have that’? At best it may subtly influence you but there is no tangible link between adverts on social media and success. Please prove me wrong. Please. I beg of you.

But there is a bigger con that is on here. It is one of self-delusion and one that, if you really think about it, is true. NOTHING beats talking with real friends face to face or on the phone, telling real friends about a book, film, new restaurant, your latest change of washing up liquid. They know you speak the truth. Followers and friends on social media will never ever have that power yet social media cries this power to you. The reality is that it’s nothing more than the King’s new clothes and I call it ‘in the altogether’.

The value of Twitter, Facebook, et al is spreading information to the like minded and that’s it big win. You can let people know what is happening, a 21st century notice board or parish magazine, but nothing else. It is certainly not source of real friends or followers. Ask yourself this one last question. How many of these digital hoards and digital hangers would you invite into your home for dinner?

One last point that shows social media does have some value. In the last three weeks four stories have been covered on my daily BBC programme thanks to twitter and tweets sent to me, and there are two more stories coming to the boil, one of which will be very big indeed. I can say no more now but I will, on twitter (which is linked to Facebook) when I can.

It’s party conference season; don’t all yawn at once!

It is that party conference time of year again and chances are you couldn’t give stuff.

Much like bankers, whether you like them or not, you need politicians. Yet never have we been so disengaged with politics as a nation. More people are members of the RSPB than are members of the main Westminster political parties. Birds get us going but running our country, paying tax, social responsibility, security, health, education… ‘Not me mate, I’m twitching’ or trying to give a badger with a bad cough a good home. Maybe we should elect a Great Tit or a badger to parliament. Might that get your vote?

As the political parties try and work out how they are going to get the money they need to do their work and to convince us that there ideas and policies are best for us, we the majority frankly don’t seem to care. If you can name five principles that each of the three main political parties stand for then you are better than me and, I’d venture, most of their dwindling membership and MPs.

The cost of politics is ridiculous and how any party can try and outspend the other just to make their point seems silly if not futile. An idea costs nothing and a good idea is priceless. So a political party selling its ideas and putting itself in hock to do so is, frankly, potty.

Now it looks likley that, thanks to the spat that Labour is having with the very hands that not only feed it but created it in the first place, all parties are going to have to review how they are funded and are facing taking the big money out of politics. This means it will be down to the little money, or you and me to pay for it.

If election turnout is anything to go by (and just look at the local council, Police and Crime Commissioner or Bristol Mayor elections held in the West in the last 12 months to see just how bad it has got) it all feels like paying for a gym membership you never use; a good idea at the time but on reflection, you can’t be bothered.

Here is an idea and it’s free. If you want us to vote, for us to pay for democracy then make it about something we can either believe in or campaign against. Make politics about ideas that stimulate debate and not about playing spot the miniscule difference between the parties.

Our politicians are mostly good people, drawn to public service and the real desire to make an actual difference but their respective party seems to stop all that. Most of all our politicians need to make us think, make us care, make is talk and make us debate. Some do and you can name them but what most of them do at the moment is make us think ‘what is the point’, and that is not the democracy that so many have died for to protect.