THE FACE OF ’23

MuralOkay, enough. The disappearance/abduction and death/murder of Nicola Bulley was unquestionably a tragic affair that saw a 45-year-old ordinary mother of two vanish when walking her dog beside a river in the Lancashire village she knew as home before her mortal remains were discovered in the same body of water just under a month later. Yes, you heard right – Nicola Bulley was ordinary. And I don’t use that word as a putdown or a sneering criticism; most people are ordinary, which is why extraordinary folk stand out; they’ve got plenty to be measured against. When David Bowie passed away in 2016, there was a global outpouring of emotion that reflected the impact this great artist had had upon the lives of millions of people he never met in person for the best part of half-a-century; it’s not unusual for the death of a pop cultural colossus to provoke such a reaction. In the last 100 years, we’ve seen it happen with everyone from Rudolph Valentino to Elvis Presley or from James Dean to John Lennon. The growth of the mass media during these characters’ lifetimes enabled their particular talents to touch individuals from all walks of life, way beyond their own inner circles; as consumers, we develop a uniquely intimate relationship with such figures and naturally mourn their loss as though they were personal friends.

Within hours of Bowie’s death, a mural appeared on a wall in his birthplace of Brixton, one that portrayed him in his iconic Aladdin Sane guise; to me, as a Bowie fan, this didn’t seem like some vicarious exercise on the part of the anonymous artist; I didn’t feel as though they were getting off on someone else’s grief, muscling in on the private mourning of family and friends like some voyeuristic vampire; it seemed to exemplify the fact that Bowie as an artist meant a hell of a lot to a hell of a lot of people and it was understandable that the more creative amongst them might seek to express that meaning through their art. Besides, there was the David Bowie his confidantes knew and there was the David Bowie the general public knew; the former were familiar with a man the rest of us weren’t; we had Ziggy Stardust or Aladdin Sane or Major Tom or the Thin White Duke, and that’s who we were mourning, tied-up as those personas were with different stages of our own lives, as much a part of our collective growing-up as any genuine personal friends who constituted the cast of characters around us at the time. There’s a difference between marking the passing of an extraordinary person like David Bowie by painting a mural in his hometown and doing likewise by painting a mural of Nicola Bulley in hers.

Such a mural appeared last week in Essex, and one that it has to be said wasn’t exactly a flattering or especially accurate portrait of the deceased 45-year-old. To be honest, it was pretty awful going by the photograph at the head of this post. But, even taking poor artistry into consideration, one has to wonder what prompted that kind of misguided ‘tribute’. The artist himself had a tenuous connection to Bulley, having attended the same school as her and apparently being an acquaintance of her sister, though why he felt compelled to make such a public statement is perhaps a sign of our times. This swiftly-assembled makeshift shrine is destined to draw strangers to it like moths to the proverbial flame, armed with candles for a vigil evoking the spirit of other recent victims selected as posthumous media darlings such as Sarah Everard. Considering the vast numbers of people who must vanish without a trace every year – some of whom are not notably photogenic – it’s interesting how the media hones in on a small handful and decides which of them makes the final round of canonization, like a pseudo-Sugar/Cowell panel of judges on some grotesque reality show.

Unlike David Bowie, there was no public face of Nicola Bulley during her lifetime; she touched the lives of nobody beyond those she had met in person until she disappeared and her tellingly attractive features began to be plastered across every media platform, both mainstream and social. If we accept she was already dead by the time her face became public property in the manner of a billboard campaign for a chic perfume, the fact is Nicola Bulley had done nothing to warrant such excessive overexposure; she only became known to those outside of her small world when she was gone, which again emphasises that it is not Nicola Bulley the person who is being mourned by the general public, but the media creation who probably bears little resemblance to the actual human being who allegedly met her fate by the River Wyre. Nicola Bulley herself had no hand in her sudden transformation into the latest media craze, which makes it all the more sad that whoever she happened to be has been permanently buried beneath the bullshit. Those who actually knew the person rather than the hurriedly-manufactured new pin-up girl for the cult of victimhood are currently in mourning in the same way thousands are in mourning every day for the loss of loved ones, yet the family and friends of Nicola Bulley have to contend with the intrusion of not only the MSM and their notorious lack of sensitivity, but online ghouls who have claimed a woman they never met as yet another post-Diana instant saint.

Facebook and Twitter exchanges between those who wasted little time in elevating the ghost of Nicola Bulley to her saintly status and those who find the whole circus nauseating and somewhat sick have been perversely entertaining, if a sorry barometer of where we are now. The rush to promote the Bulley franchise – the swift manufacturing of T-shirts and placards and the speedy setting-up of a GoFundMe platform encouraging complete strangers to pay for the funeral – has been achieved with undignified haste, a well-oiled machine primed to respond to such OTT coverage. It gives the unsettling impression that everything Nicola Bulley might have done in the privacy of her 45 years has been posthumously reduced to the level of a packet of fish fingers or a tin of baked beans, her face sold in the public arena in the same cold, cynical way as an inanimate object gathering dust on a supermarket shelf. But, again, this is not unique. It happens with every chosen victim both the MSM and social media take a shine to; barely a month ago, the murder of transgender teenager Brianna Grey in Warrington was seized upon by Trans activists, her sad ending stolen from her family and friends and claimed by those who only saw her horrible death as a new cause to attach their rainbow ribbons to.

In a way, it seems almost fitting when one takes the nature of the reporting on, and the fallout from, the Nicola Bulley case that somebody was arrested and then named and shamed for shooting footage on their phone of police retrieving Bulley’s body from the river before inevitably uploading it online. Is anyone truly surprised that whoever shot such footage either did so or saw fit to upload it when Nicola Bulley had already been stripped of her humanity and her basic ordinariness and rebranded as a hip dead icon ala Bruce Lee? That’s all this reprehensible individual saw, a way to grab a piece of the media action after non-stop 24/7 coverage for the best part of a month; how were their awful actions any different from the endless, distasteful Fleet Street speculation or the lyrical waxing on social media of St Nicola by bandwagon-jumping disciples who were only made aware of a normal, anonymous middle-aged mother once her death mask became the face of ’23?

I’ve no doubt the mainstream media’s mutation into a beast that never sleeps as a means of competing with the even more unscrupulous medium of social media is as responsible for this current situation as newspapers desperate to reverse dwindling circulation figures; Fleet Street has always had a hard-faced survival instinct that will see it chase whatever story it thinks will spare it from death row, and when an unfortunate ordinary woman is nominated as this year’s model, there’s nothing anyone who actually knew her can do about it anymore.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

GOOD SPORTS

Dickie DaviesFor a generation, Dickie Davies was the face of sport on television, whilst for more than one generation John Motson was the voice of one specific sport on the same medium; that both should pass away within a week of each other is one of those timely coincidences that often occur and make my job easier. A rather heartless admission, true, but the number of times a paucity for inspiration re a Winegum post is salvaged at the eleventh hour by the death of a famous face is remarkable; even the recent post covering the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon was eased by the passing of Raquel Welch being announced as I was writing it. On the eve of taking a week’s break and busy cursing Wee Nicola for intruding upon my preparations, hearing a celluloid sex symbol of old had shuffled off this mortal coil meant a post I hadn’t intended to write could be completed with a tad more haste than if I’d had to delve even further into the Krankie career to pad it out. So, yet again the Grim Reaper came to my rescue. And, as the march of time proceeds on its relentless pace, the collective childhood furniture is reshuffled once more and continues to become more threadbare as another pair bites the dust.

Dickie Davies fronted ‘World of Sport’ on ITV for 17 years, from 1968 until the Saturday afternoon rival to ‘Grandstand’ was axed in 1985. With his pseudo-Jason King moustache, sideburns and coiffed barnet combination (not forgetting the distinctive silver streak running through that admirable mane), Davies was one of the most instantly recognisable television personalities of his era, inspiring all the notable impressionists and comedians of the day to do their own take on the unmistakable image – the best being an especially memorable and characteristically bawdy interpretation by Benny Hill. Davies had come up through the regional ranks of ITV in the early 60s and by the time he became the permanent host of ‘World of Sport’ after a few years as understudy for the programme’s first frontman Eamonn Andrews, the show had carved a unique niche for itself in comparison to its competitor over on the BBC. With ‘Grandstand’ already marking a decade on air once Davies settled into the ‘World of Sport’ hot-seat, ITV’s rival had worked out a way to navigate the Beeb’s monopoly of major sporting events by promoting more obscure sports, none more so than wrestling.

The prospect of fat sweaty men in leotards throwing each other around the ring never sounded much like enticing entertainment on paper, yet ITV’s Saturday afternoon coverage made unlikely stars of the likes of Big Daddy, Giant Haystacks and Kendo Nagasaki and remains a more vivid memory in recollections amongst people of a certain age than whatever was showing over on ‘Grandstand’ at the same time. As with Frank Bough on ‘Grandstand’, Dickie Davies was the perfect safe pair of hands to link the various sports being covered, and the fact he was a permanent fixture in the nation’s living rooms for a decade and-a-half helped establish the programme as a lynchpin of the Saturday schedules as much as ‘Doctor Who’ or ‘Parkinson’. If you saw Dickie Davies on the screen, you knew what day of the week it was. As befitting a presenter on the more openly showbizzy commercial television, Davies also didn’t appear to take himself too seriously either, often sharing the screen with funny men like Eric Morecambe or Freddie Starr and even once appearing as himself in an episode of the early 70s Adam Faith drama, ‘Budgie’.

With the BBC owning football highlights with ‘Match of the Day’ on a Saturday night, ITV’s equivalent was a more scatty affair on a Sunday lunchtime, as each major ITV region had its own soccer show, meaning their commentators were less well-known nationwide than the BBC’s mainstays. Kenneth Wolstenholme was in possession of one of the most familiar voices in British broadcasting during his lengthy stint as the Corporation’s premier commentator on the national game, but by the early 70s Wolstenholme had gone and the likes of David Coleman and newcomer Barry Davies were being entrusted with the big games. Due to Britain being a three-channel television nation, there were naturally fewer jobs in TV sport to go round, and once these men reached the pinnacle of their profession by grabbing a seat behind the microphone they tended to stay there; in the process, their voices came to define the sports they covered. Think of cricket television coverage and one thinks of Jim Laker or Richie Benaud; pause for Formula One, and it’s still Murray Walker’s excitable tones one hears; Wimbledon – Dan Maskell; athletics – Ron Pickering; and so on. With football receiving more coverage than any other sport, there were a few more options, even in the 1970s, with Brian Moore ITV’s sole household name. In the wake of Kenneth Wolstenholme’s departure, however, the BBC needed a new voice; and in 1971, they found it.

John Motson emerged from the world of local newspapers before joining BBC radio and was quickly picked-up by BBC TV as back-up for Coleman and Davies; his voice was first heard on ‘Match of the Day’ in October 1971, but it was in February 1972 that Motson received his big break, commentating on what most anticipated would be a walkover for First Division Newcastle United when they turned up at non-League Hereford United for an FA Cup 3rd Round replay. After Newcastle took a predictable lead via hairy hit-man Malcolm MacDonald, Hereford midfielder Ronnie Radford launched a rocket that sailed over the quagmire of a pitch and into the back of the Newcastle net, taking the game into extra-time, which saw a shock 2-1 win for the home side. That Radford goal has been replayed every FA Cup 3rd Round weekend ever since, with Motson’s commentary as seared on the memory as the parka-clad kids invading the pitch.

Due to repeated plays of the Ronnie Radford rocket, Motson soon found himself being handed more prestigious matches and he eventually commentated on his first FA Cup Final in 1977, being handed the Wembley microphone as a permanent presence from 1979 onwards. As David Coleman left football and devoted more of his time to commentating on athletics and presenting ‘A Question of Sport’, Motson was promoted to the position of the Beeb’s main football voice; unlike his contemporaries – such as Barry Davies, who often commentated on the early rounds at Wimbledon – Motson was a one-sport man, something which enabled him to indulge in his nerdish obsession with statistics, the peppering of which throughout a match soon became a hallmark of his commentary. With Barry Davies firmly in second place, John Motson was unchallenged in the top spot until he finally retired from live games in 2008; during his career, ‘Motty’ covered 10 World Cup tournaments as well as endless domestic League and Cup matches, finally hanging-up his microphone for good in 2017. By then, he was one of the last such commentators solely associated with a single sport to the point whereby it was hard to imagine a big game without his occasionally hysterical tones attached to it.

Both Dickie Davies and John Motson were products of a very different television era, an era in which TV coverage of sport was restricted in comparison to the multi-channel miasma we find ourselves in today. Whilst many undoubtedly relish the wall-to-wall broadcasts of their chosen game and subscribe in their millions for the privilege of watching it, I personally feel less was more. I could name a tiny handful of present day sports commentators, but I seriously doubt I could do an impression of any of them; the clamour of voices is so overwhelming that none of them stay in the memory long enough. As for those that front the shows…well, let’s just say they’re no Dickie Davies.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

HOMEWARD BOUND

BegumAlthough a phrase that has become more commonplace in recent years where desperate Z-list celebrities and even the living rooms of plebs on the telly are concerned, ‘makeover’ has nonetheless been a routine PR tool in showbiz circles ever since the dawn of mass media. Hollywood effectively wrote the manual, formulating a familiar device to extend careers as Tinsel Town’s leading ladies received makeovers via the magic of the lighting men on set, keeping the ageing process at bay before excessive cosmetic surgery found a way to do it for them. In the 21st century, most post-Madonna female pop stars seem to ‘get sexy’ when seeking to re-launch their fading stock, and squeaky-clean members of clean-cut boy-bands usually embark on solo careers by forgetting to shave whilst suddenly acquiring a Maori-like range of tattoos, supposedly to signify ‘street cred’ – all examples of the makeover in action. Turd-polishers have never had it so good these days, though I would imagine even the most experienced would have faced an unusually tough challenge when entrusted with transforming a Jihadi bride into a sexy R&B siren.

Okay, so the team behind Shamima Begum’s makeover didn’t exactly team her up with Jay-Z and persuade her to filter her vocals through the tiresome Auto-tune machinery; but there was no mistaking the look Ms Begum’s posse were aiming for when she resurfaced shorn of her regulation burqa, dressed in the style most girls her age would have seamlessly slipped into had they not had their adolescence disrupted by signing-up to an Islamic death cult. Sure, Shamima had followed a not-uncommon path by becoming a teenage mother, even if the grotesque circumstances and tragic outcome of her brief parenthood singled her out from her contemporaries. But a large part of the campaign to regain her British citizenship was a cleverly-orchestrated effort aimed at portraying Shamima Begum as ‘just’ an ordinary girl via her dress sense, not to mention rebranding her as that most profitable personality in the current celebrity firmament, the Victim.

As befitting someone seeking rehabilitation in the eyes of the general public following such widespread and extreme demonisation, Shamima Begum has been embraced by the left-leaning quarters of the MSM, with the usual suspects queuing-up to declare their support; the BBC even gave her a platform to state her case with a podcast. Their argument is that, as an impressionable 15-year-old at the time of her conversion to ISIS and her flight to Syria, Shamima Begum was essentially ‘trafficked’ and didn’t know what she was letting herself in for; by the time it belatedly dawned on her what her role in the Jihadi hierarchy amounted to, it was too late. Of course, teenage girls going astray and running away from home is hardly a scenario unique to this day and age, though the majority of young ladies who do so tend to be either in search of the bright lights or have fallen under the spell of a bad boy from the wrong side of the tracks. Joining an organisation whose…erm…negative elements had been heavily publicised at the time of Shamima Begum’s conversion, leaving her comfortable Western home to relocate to a war-zone, doesn’t really adhere to the standard pattern.

I recall penning a post on this subject four or five years back and the arguments haven’t really changed in the wake of the latest legal ruling that has ruled out Shamima Begum returning to the UK. As I said back then, ISIS were well-known as barbaric mass-murderers when they encroached upon Shamima Begum’s radar, so it’s not as though she could claim absolute ignorance of their aims and intentions, even if her tender years perhaps lacked the nous to see through the romantic Islamic imagery they no doubt employed to entice new recruits. And even if she was still a schoolgirl, Shamima Begum nevertheless managed to organise and successfully undertake an escape to Turkey, which suggests she possessed the kind of intelligence and skills in excess of most 15-year-olds, many of whom find keeping their bedrooms tidy a Herculean task way beyond their abilities. Shamima Begum demonstrated she was exceptionally talented in organisational terms, and this is where the ‘grooming’ narrative favoured by her supporters doesn’t necessarily hold up. Certainly, she was seduced by the Dark Web propaganda of ISIS in the same way the perpetrators of US high-school massacres are tipped over the edge by far-right websites; but one could argue the environment in which Shamima Begum was raised had primed her to respond in the way she did to this propaganda as much as troubled teens surrounded by a normalised gun culture respond to white supremacist dogma in America. Shamima Begum had grown up in a ‘multicultural’ society that had repeatedly left immigrant communities to their own devices for fear of racism accusations, a situation of separatist faith schools and in-house policing that led to the turning of blind eyes to grooming gangs on one hand and the easy radicalisation of vulnerable adolescents by unscrupulous hate-preachers on the other.

If one looks at the Shamima Begum saga from this angle, then it’s hard not to conclude she is indeed a victim; but does that excuse her actions or warrant what effectively amounts to a pardon? The newest setback to her rehabilitation has come via a court ruling upholding the decision of then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid to strip Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship in 2019. That decision was made on the grounds that Ms Begum posed a threat to British security should she be allowed to return from the Syrian refugee camp she’s been detained in for the past five years. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission essentially came to the same findings as last time round in 2020; Mr Justice Jay announced the Commission’s position with an acknowledgement that the circumstances of Shamima Begum are far from being the straightforward issue both her supporters and detractors are keen to paint it as being.

‘This commission concluded there was a credible suspicion that Ms Begum had been trafficked to Syria,’ said Justice Jay. ‘The motive for bringing her to Syria was sexual exploitation to which, as a child, she could not give her valid consent. The commission also concluded that there were arguable breaches of duty on the part of various state bodies in permitting Ms Begum to leave the country as she did and eventually cross the border from Turkey into Syria.’ The Judge went on to state that Sajid Javid’s decision to strip Shamima Begum of her British nationality remained founded in genuine security concerns that even the trafficking aspect of the story didn’t render redundant. ‘There is some merit in the argument that those advising the secretary of state see this as a black and white issue,’ he added, ‘when many would say that there are shades of grey…if asked to evaluate all the circumstances of Ms Begum’s case, reasonable people with knowledge of all the relevant evidence will differ, in particular in relation to the issue of the extent to which her travel to Syria was voluntary and the weight to be given to that factor in the context of all others.’

It goes without saying that Shamima Begum’s legal team intend to fight on. They still stand by their belief that the decision of the Home Secretary in 2019 had left their client ‘de facto stateless’, with the counterargument by the British Government being that, as she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, they weren’t legally required to retain her rights as a UK citizen anyway. The case for Shamima Begum to be recognised as a child exploitation victim is one that the likes of Amnesty International is also in favour of, and I’ve no doubt this sorry story is far from over. The current makeover of Shamima Begum appears to have faltered, but there are undoubtedly several makeovers yet to come; and as Ms Begum herself remains indefinitely detained in Syria, the question of how responsible the 23-year-old is for the actions of her 15-year-old self is still a potent one. We all have our teenage skeletons in our adult closets, but most are merely embarrassing fashion statements; if that were all Shamima Begum’s closet contained, she’d have been back home a long time ago.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

END OF THE (HIGH) ROAD

SturgeonWhere Scots are concerned, it seems that for every Bannockburn, there’s a Darien Venture; or a Culloden; or Scotland Vs Peru 1978; or Scotland Vs Iran 1978; or Scotland Vs Costa Rica 1990; or the Gender Recognition Bill 2023. Continuous electoral success that was only momentarily derailed by the brief Tory resurgence spearheaded by Ruth Davidson in 2017 suggested Nicola Sturgeon’s lengthy tenure as SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland was destined to climax with her being crowned queen of an independent Scotland come the next ‘once in a generation’ referendum. And now it’s all over. Wee Nicola has announced she will be bringing the curtain down on her stellar political career without having seen through the fanatical obsession of every committed Scottish Nationalist to its ultimate conclusion, one that appears to take precedence over every other issue that elected leaders of countries are supposed to devote their time and energy to.

Nicola Sturgeon may have cited ‘personal reasons’ as the explanation for her sudden resignation, but the suicidal decision to promote a bill that has been received with such vociferous opposition beyond minority Woke circles has seen her poll ratings plummet and the ramifications of her tunnel vision on the Trans issue severely dent her credibility. The case of convicted double rapist Adam Graham underlined how spineless capitulation to the Trans lobby can result in the unsurprising, cynical exploitation of naive, ill-thought-out proposals by opportunistic criminals eager to save their own grubby skins rather than striking a blow for Identity Politics. Restyling himself as ‘Isla Bryson’ and dressing in drag to symbolise his overnight embrace of his feminine side saw this reprehensible individual rewarded with a safe passage to a women’s prison; here be the dark flipside of instant self-identification being legitimised without the need for the kind of surgical procedures that sort out the genuine article from the dilettante.

Such was the outrage that rightly greeted the Adam/Isla fiasco that it rebounded on Sturgeon and her bill, especially when it emerged that the SNP had rejected an amendment that would have prevented accused sex offenders from acquiring a ‘gender recognition certificate’ when waiting for their trial; a violent male rapist being dispatched to a women’s prison simply because he conveniently decides he was born in the wrong body before being sentenced is a situation that would only go forth and multiply were the proposals put forward in Scotland’s gender recognition bill to be enshrined in law; and the farcical outcome of the Adam Graham sentencing was hardly likely to endear one of the chief advocates of the bill to the general public. Nicola Sturgeon’s popularity north of the border undoubtedly suffered as a result of this calamitous misfire, and it’s difficult not to conclude that her unexpected decision to step down has come about via a realisation that taking a nihilistic detour from her long-standing ‘mission’ has cost her dearly.

Not that this has been the first such misfire on Sturgeon’s part, however. Along with the similarly left-leaning administration governing Wales, the SNP revealed its true authoritarian colours during the pandemic, imposing severe restrictions on the public that even exceeded the admittedly draconian measures imposed south of the border. Coupled with the party’s shabby record on a variety of outstanding issues that remain something of a stain on Scotland’s supposedly ‘progressive’ status in comparison to England, the SNP’s pandemic performance highlighted the error in handing power to a party that cloaks its intolerant, illiberal intentions in the guise of tolerance and liberalism. From the party’s abysmal handling of Scotland’s drug problem to its persistent curbs on personal choice – including alcohol, sugary foodstuffs, cigarettes and free speech – the SNP, and Sturgeon in particular, has routinely exposed itself as being one of the most regressive ruling parties in British political history – since Cromwell’s ‘reign’, anyway.

But it is the question of independence that has overridden every other concern since the SNP wrestled power from Labour in Scotland, when under the stewardship of Alex Salmond. Relations between the two SNP leaders appears to have soured considerably since Nicola Sturgeon’s telling silence and apparent lack of support during her predecessor’s courtroom challenge to those who accused him of inappropriate behaviour when in office, and one imagines there will be few tears shed for Sturgeon in the Salmond household now that she has chosen to fall on her sword. Independence is the SNP’s raison d’être, the sole reason it exists; and whilst frantically extolling the virtues of such an obsession on the fringes is a commonplace sight in politics, few – other than perhaps Sinn Féin in Ulster – have been presented with such a prestigious platform from which to broadcast their message; the SNP’s inability to devote adequate time and effort to everyday issues beyond the prime concern – and its absolute incompetence in dealing with them – has only laid bare the lack of flexibility and basic political nous at the heart of nationalist movements. Yes, Sturgeon came across as an impressive orator when lined-up next to a piss-poor parade of production-line careerists like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband during the televised party debates of 2015; but – as a female friend of mine once said – how can you trust someone who always wears the same bloody earrings? It takes a woman to notice these things.

RAQUEL WELCH (1940-2023)

Raquel WelchBack in the days when a man could get away with observations of a lady’s physical assets by uttering such statements as ‘You don’t get many of them to the pound’, the name of Raquel Welch routinely cropped-up as an example of a female public figure renowned for being…erm…well-endowed. Yes, Dolly Parton may have eventually superseded Ms Welch as the most prominent example, but for the latter half of the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s, Raquel Welch was celebrated as the prime copyright-holder of the attributes many men value in the opposite sex. I suppose her memorable appearance in Hammer’s ‘One Million Years B.C.’, the historically-inaccurate yet undeniably enjoyable 1966 outing for Ray Harryhausen’s stop-motion dinosaurs, sealed her reputation. The fur ‘bikini’ she wore for the duration of the movie as a prehistoric pin-up girl became one of the decade’s most iconic sartorial statements and a pop cultural snapshot that opened doors for the actress whilst simultaneously leading her down some fairly limiting and narrow alleyways.

For a period following ‘One Million Years B.C.’, Welch was a big enough name to have the luxury of choosing roles showing a side of her that transcended the sex symbol stereotype; like Marilyn Monroe before her, she exhibited a flair for comic acting that shone in films such as Peter Cook and Dudley Moore’s ‘Bedazzled’, the 1970 adaptation of Gore Vidal’s sex-change novel ‘Myra Breckinridge’, and Richard Lester’s light-hearted, swashbuckling version of ‘The Three Musketeers’; yes, she played upon her sex appeal even in comedy outings, but it was nice to see she didn’t take herself too seriously. On the other hand, many little boys of a certain age might recall her appearance in one of those serious sci-fi fantasy films that always seemed to be screened on TV in the 1970s, ‘Fantastic Voyage’, the one where a submarine crew are shrunk and injected into the brain of an injured scientist.

The death of Raquel Welch at the age of 82 – ‘following a short illness’ as press releases often say – feels like one more door closing on an innocent era that the over-politicised Hollywood of the here and now seems determined to prevent us from ever revisiting. Still, I’ve no doubt some channel somewhere will be showing ‘One Million Years B.C.’ even as you read this. Go watch it – again.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

UP, UP AND AWAY

80 DaysI’ve often noticed a list of around 20 incidents that may or may not form part of the life experience routinely appears on Twitter, whereby the user is encouraged to count the number of said incidents they themselves have encountered. They usually consist of things like ‘Have you ever been arrested/ridden in a stolen car/had a tattoo/had a one-night stand/taken illegal substances’ and so on. One item absent from this list is ‘Have you ever travelled in a hot-air balloon’, to which I would sadly answer in the negative, for I’ve always fancied it. I guess my fondness for this uniquely serene form of air travel was piqued by childhood exposure to a memorable episode of ‘Mr Benn’, whereby the gentlemanly hero’s latest adventure via the costume shop is to take part in a Victorian balloon race; naturally, one of his opponents is a moustache-twirling villain who cheats, though the bad guy obviously gets his comeuppance in order to prevent him from stealing the race – and Mr Benn ends up winning it. As was characteristic of this perennially charming series, the depictions of the balloon race itself are exquisitely sketched, and seductive enough to provoke a craving in the viewer to follow suit. Despite their somewhat archaic qualities – and lack of speed when compared to the flying machines that came after them – balloons retain an appeal that reflects the need for life to occasionally slow down a little, something that was brilliantly captured in the Jimmy Webb song that gives this post its title; this has not always been the case, however.

Amongst the many memorable images that stand as a visual legacy of the propaganda war against Napoleonic France, there’s a marvellously imaginative illustration depicting how the French would engineer an invasion of Britain. Along with the expected sailing fleet, the picture shows an embryonic Channel Tunnel through which enemy troops charge, tapping into time-honoured fears that such an enterprise would find Britannia’s borders repeatedly breached by the Continent’s undesirables. Also adding to the paranoia, the skies are littered with balloons. A relatively new and novel method of transport that was still associated with adventurous aristocrats attempting to outdo each other in setting records and staging audacious bets, the balloon’s potential as a weapon of war was nevertheless rapidly recognised. Considering the first cross-Channel balloon journey was staged in 1785 (by Jean-Pierre Blanchard and Dr John Jeffries), it’s no wonder this groundbreaking invention was viewed as a possible addition to naval and military advantage in the gruelling global conflict between Britain and France that spanned the first 15 years of the 19th century.

After a short spell as novelty playthings for the rich and reckless, balloons soon comprised the first tentative steps in the evolution of aerial warfare, a development that would gradually reduce the need for traditional and extensive human cannon fodder. Whilst the superior speed of the modern jet fighter and cruise missile may have eventually superseded the more sedate pace of the balloon, the original airborne vehicle had long since proven it had other uses – primarily as an ideal tool for intelligence-gathering. The French had observed the movements of the Austrian Army from the air as far back as 1794, and though the aircraft into which such balloons evolved – the airship – had an extremely brief period as the military’s prime weapon for aerial bombing, the balloon itself had largely been utilised as a means of spying on the enemy during conflict, such as in the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War in the second half of the 19th century.

Now that the hi-tech 21st century is well into its third decade, one imagines the well-established use of drones and spy satellites would have long since rendered the humble balloon as little more than a museum piece when it comes to eavesdropping on the opposition. However, North America suddenly appears to be receiving several unwelcome visitors in the skies; and it seems rather fitting that China, with its pioneering role in the ancient origins of ballooning, should be named and shamed as the suspected culprit behind this unexpected resurgence of balloon espionage. In the past ten days, US fighter jets have shot down three unmanned high-altitude balloons sailing over American airspace – in South Carolina, Alaska and Michigan – as well as one in Canada. Such is the mystery surrounding these flying objects that, along with the accusatory finger aimed at China, there has also been speculation of ‘extraterrestrial’ involvement; the Pentagon initially didn’t rule it out, though the White House was quick to quash this fanciful element of the story. ‘There is no indication of aliens or extraterrestrial activity with these recent takedowns’, said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. ‘I wanted to be sure the American people knew that and it is important for us to say that from here.’

John Kirby, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, claimed the object downed on 4 February was a spy balloon, though the three subsequent balloons only posed a threat to aircraft rather than anything (or anyone) on terra-firma, and were shot down for that reason alone. Despite the claims of Mr Kirby, the possibility the other three balloons may have been conducting surveillance has not been officially ruled out. The sketchy descriptions of all four suggest objects far removed from the familiar pleasure cruisers most of us still associate balloons with being, as well as differing from standard weather balloons employed as a means of monitoring the climate. The first certainly appeared to fit the accepted criteria of a spy balloon, described as a solar-powered craft 200 ft tall and possessing surveillance equipment and antennas. The second sounds more mysterious, though – said to be the size of a small car; the third was apparently cylindrical, and the fourth was described as an octagonal structure. No wonder the UFO rumours are taking their time to die down. Moreover, the search for debris that could provide experts with a clearer picture of what they’re dealing with is being hampered by the fact most fell from the skies over remote terrain, but it is at least contributing towards heated speculation.

In comparison to the aircraft that superseded the balloon as a military weapon, the slower speed of the balloon gives it an advantage in hovering over the area of interest for a more sustained period; as well as being a far cheaper and dispensable flying object, balloons used for surveillance can also fly at an altitude way above the average heights routinely used by both military and civilian aircraft – a fact which somewhat contradicts the reasons given for shooting down three of the four balloons to have visited the US this past week or so. Commercial airliners typically fly at around 40,000 ft, whilst fighter planes tend to operate in the region of 65,000 ft. High-altitude balloons on the other hand can fly as high as between 80,000 and 120,000 ft. Up, up and away indeed.

In an age that has seen the advancement of technology for surveillance purposes grow increasingly ingenious in hiding its presence from those being spied upon, it seems somewhat strange for China – if indeed China is responsible – to launch something as visible as balloons into American airspace. However, one of the theories doing the rounds is that whoever is responsible for the presence of the balloons over North America sent them on their way as a means of highlighting the shortcomings of US security in the air. The US Government hasn’t responded to this ‘test’ (if indeed it was) by acknowledging its failings; instead, by pointing the finger at China, relations between the two superpowers have hit a bit of a rocky patch, with an American diplomat cancelling a planned visit to Beijing next week; in response, China has issued claims that the US has sent at least 10 similar balloons into Chinese airspace in recent months. Whoever turns out to be responsible for this surprising incursion, it’s all a long way from Mr Benn’s balloon race, and a reminder that even the most seemingly benign form of air travel still has the potential to be weaponised, however ‘beautiful’ the balloon might be.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

DISHONOURABLE MEMBER

JaredI guess one overlooked consequence of 13 years of Tory misrule is that being exposed to such a rich barrel of rotten apples means all corruption in public office is inevitably painted blue. How easy it is to forget the Labour MPs that have fallen foul of the law, not least those who were named and shamed (and, in one or two cases, imprisoned) following the expenses’ scandal. So, considering the supposedly ‘nobler’ alternative to the Tories could well end up in government a year or two from now, it’s rather timely to be reminded that some of their own are just as capable of crookedness as those on the other side of the House. Take Jared O’Mara – you remember him, of course; he’s the one-time ginger geezer who caused one of the biggest upsets of the 2017 General Election by ousting Nick Clegg. Well, yesterday he was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to four years in the clink. Convicted on six counts that the judge described as ‘cynical, deliberate and dishonest’, the former MP for Sheffield Hallam had stooped to play the mental health card as a defence for his actions, but it didn’t wash. Said Judge Tom Bayliss in his summing-up: ‘I have concluded that, although Jared O’Mara was without doubt suffering from autism at the time of the offences, that does not reduce culpability.’

Even before the cocaine habit that he bent the rules to fund became public knowledge, Jared O’Mara’s political career had ground to a premature halt in a matter of months following the surfacing of archaic tweets of a sexist nature along with allegations of sexual harassment. After a period of suspension, he stepped down at the 2019 General Election. Whereas his predecessor in the constituency was rejected due to the sacrifice of pre-Election Lib Dem promises on the altar of coalition, it rapidly emerged his successor was one of those Honourable Members who has little time for his constituents, his attitude towards them being described as one of ‘vile, inexcusable contempt’ by a former aide. In O’Mara’s case, revelations at his trial suggested it was no wonder he didn’t bother, considering he devoted most days to a steady ‘rock ‘n’ roll’ diet of five grams of cocaine and a bottle of vodka. The ex-nightclub manager evidently didn’t alter his lifestyle to fit his new responsibilities and carried on regardless. But it was the deception he employed to screw cash from the public purse that elevated his actions above mere hedonistic hubris.

O’Mara’s defence lawyer attributed his client’s behaviour to being ill-equipped when it came to ‘the stresses and strains of public life’, which is a fair enough explanation for an individual to turn to a chemical crutch; but O’Mara didn’t simply sink into substance abuse, something which many might have expressed sympathy towards had he received treatment and then emerged rehabilitated. For someone allegedly suffering from autism on top of an expensive drug habit, O’Mara displayed a clear and calculated business head when attempting to claim taxpayers’ money in the region of £24,000 for a nonexistent charity called Confident About Autism South Yorkshire; this fake organisation was a front for a friend of his he’d falsely named as his constituency support officer, though said friend appeared to have had his name taken in vain, as the jury cleared him of any part in the fraud. Another acquaintance on behalf of whom O’Mara had attempted to extract cash totalling £4,650 from Ipsa in relation to PR work that was never actually undertaken was less fortunate, found guilty of three counts of fraud and receiving a 15-month suspended sentence.

Understandably desperate to blame his actions on his ‘condition’, Jared O’Mara’s barrister Mark Kelly KC said, ‘When he felt he was being hounded by the media…he felt under pressure for certain circumstances that had come to light; he resorted to taking drugs and alcohol, distancing himself in many respects from those around him. These circumstances were very difficult circumstances for him to cope with, with his particular disabilities.’ This approach, however, failed to convince either judge or jury; the mental health card was not an adequate excuse, something Tom Bayliss KC emphasised in his conclusions. ‘You, Jared O’Mara,’ said the judge, ‘are a highly intelligent man. You were, I am quite sure, able to exercise appropriate judgement, to make rational choices, and to understand the nature and consequences of your actions. You may have occasionally behaved bizarrely or demonstrated disordered thought, but whether that was caused by your disorder or by your consumption of drugs – or both – is neither here nor there so far as this fraud is concerned. You knew perfectly well what you were doing with this fraud, you were behaving rationally, if dishonestly, and you were using your autism diagnosis to extract money from Ipsa to fund your cocaine and alcohol-driven lifestyle. It was deliberate, it was cynical and it was dishonest.’

The judge’s summing-up seems a fairly succinct summary of Jared O’Mara’s character and yet another sober warning when it comes to endemic Labour Party policy of selecting a candidate not on the grounds of merit but on box-ticking. In O’Mara’s case, his playing of the mental health card satisfied the criteria of the Momentum-dominated National Executive Committee, who went over the heads of the local constituency party to select him for the seat; his surprise success in winning it eased concerns, but his unsuitability was quickly exposed. One suspects a party so immersed in the ideology of Identity Politics probably won’t learn from its mistake.

BURT BACHARACH (1928-2023)

BurtThe emergence of the self-contained pop music artist in the early 60s undeniably dealt a body blow to the dominance of Tin Pan Alley; but the best of the professional songwriters were a resilient bunch and found there were still outlets for their talents. Not all of the bands at the forefront of the Beat boom and British Invasion contained in-house hit machines, and there were also what used to be called ‘girl singers’ in abundance – young, spunky sirens for whom the elegant standards of the 50s were old hat; the likes of Dusty Springfield, Lulu, Cilla Black, Sandie Shaw, Petula Clark and others were in need of their own standards, ones that reflected the changing mood of the 60s; and few songwriters delivered what was required better than Burt Bacharach, whose death at the grand old age of 94 was announced yesterday.

It would be easy to pay tribute to Bacharach by simply listing the staggering roll-call of hits that flowed from his genius melodic mind; although the 60s saw the end of the era in which standards were shared between all the great song stylists so that no performer could claim theirs was the definitive interpretation, Burt Bacharach’s songs – the most well-known being collaborations with lyricist Hal David – would still find themselves in the set-lists of most solo singers, whether or not they’d had the hit version. And sometimes the original recording would inspire a cover that would then be regarded as the definitive article; this occurred when The Carpenters had their breakthrough with ‘Close to You’, which was first recorded by the woman who served as Bacharach’s muse for several years, Dionne Warwick. Bacharach managed to achieve an almost symbiotic relationship with the women he wrote for; prior to his partnership with Warwick, his day-job had been arranger and bandleader for Marlene Dietrich when the Teutonic chanteuse was still touring the world’s concert halls; it was a steady income for Bacharach, but he knew he needed to devote his full-time to what he was best at – penning instant classics.

Bacharach was pivotal to what became known as ‘easy listening’ as the 60s progressed, which was basically the old pre-rock ‘n’ roll grownup pop coolly restyled for the new decade; his songs often seem tailor-made for a very 60s ‘Lounge-core’ vision of suave 30-something men in bachelor pads, handing a Martini to a languid lady in false eyelashes as a prelude to laying her clean as a whistle. His winning streak may have waned by the 70s, but his phenomenal output prior to that left behind a breathtaking legacy that will remain the gold standard of pop songs while ever there are people still around to listen to them.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/793847208

THE BEST OF BRITISH

Jack Hawkins 2A very early post on here – albeit one which had been ‘remixed’ following a previous appearance elsewhere – discussed the appeal of old monochrome movies during their BBC2 heyday as a Saturday afternoon alternative to sport; the title of said post escapes me, but I recall it was illustrated with an iconic shot of the young Lauren Bacall, and it’s one that continues to attract visitors to this day. I seem to recall it contained a recommendation in the comments section to check out what was then a fledgling digital channel called Talking Pictures TV. Once this obscure channel (abbreviated to TPTV) eventually became available on the Free View service and began to be featured in the bewildering labyrinth of Radio Times listings, I decided I’d check it out. Familiar with archive channels stretching all the way back to the cable era of the 90s, I expected the usual narrow range of obvious vintage shows that are routinely wheeled-out on an endlessly repeated loop. What a pleasant surprise, therefore, to discover some of TPTV’s prime-time programmes include the likes of ‘Public Eye’ with Alfred Burke, ‘Justice’ with Margaret Lockwood, and ‘Maigret’ with Rupert Davies.

Of the this trio, ‘Public Eye’ I know and love via the DVD box-set (and have indeed penned a post on it), ‘Justice’ I remember from childhood (mainly due to Ms Lockwood’s beauty spot) but hadn’t seen since then, and ‘Maigret’ I’d heard of but never seen at all. However, what all three have in common is an extended exile from the schedules of the mainstream television channels they once served as reliable ratings-pullers. I shouldn’t imagine any have been sighted on BBC1, BBC2 or ITV for the best part of half-a-century; I certainly can’t remember them being rerun in my lifetime. Now that BBC4 appears to have thrown the towel in as a refuge for the malnourished TV intellect and has been reduced to a repeat channel, I would’ve thought one or all of the trio might have been given an outing simply because they’re not as over-familiar as so many of the archive shows exhumed in the absence of new programmes. But BBC4’s loss is TPTV’s gain, and the station has now also started to rerun ‘Crown Court’, another fondly-recalled series that has been a notable absentee from digital schedules since the distant days of Legal TV.

What strikes me, as it so often does when viewing TV dramas produced in the 60s or 70s, is how ‘grown-up’ so many of them are; of course, today’s television executives appear to labour under the misapprehension that this description equates with sex and swearing, the predictable post-watershed ‘freedom of expression’ that sometimes seems to be shoehorned into a 9pm mini-series as a convenient distraction from the lack of both engaging characters and storylines. But the phrase has a different meaning when applied to these vintage shows, most of which treat the audience as though it has a level of intelligence a tad higher than that of a child with special needs. The viewer is required – and able – to pay attention without being bombarded by MTV-style fast-cutting that can often give the impression one is watching a trailer for the programme rather than the actual programme itself.

Not only are the plots and dialogue of archive shows generally of a smarter standard, but a hallmark of these dramas is the abundance of memorable characters who might appear in a solitary episode or merely the one scene; many make the kind of impact that could easily have led to them being singled out for a spin-off series, but they never were. By contrast, it’s increasingly difficult to remember or even care about the characters that clog-up their contemporary equivalents. I’ve sat through many a Sunday night drama in recent years and most were forgotten the moment the final credits sped past. But they’ve become such a part of television’s dramatic wallpaper over the past couple of decades that I suppose the audience is now so conditioned to their tropes that an accidental encounter with a different kind of dramatic animal might provoke confusion. With this in mind, the presentation of the gems excavated by TPTV usually comes with a pre-broadcast warning that they might actually contain language, terminology and references that could shock or offend modern sensibilities, ones that evidently have no problem with the word ‘fuck’ but might be triggered by a brief snippet of commonplace 70s slang that is now verboten in polite society. To be fair, these are few and far between and pretty mild to say the least; they’re certainly not in the same league as the litany of unrepeatable insults that once littered the likes of ‘Love Thy Neighbour’.

Perhaps one reason why these shows still work in comparison to their forgettable successors is the writers of them were able to draw on a vast and varied life experience that had brought them into contact with a wide range of characters they could then recreate on screen; none of these scribes attended ‘creative writing’ courses in order to learn how to pen formulaic scripts peppered with two-dimensional ciphers for the current ideology; few even attended university. Instead, they’d done a variety of jobs beforehand or had enjoyed/endured military service, either reluctantly or voluntarily; or they may have simply absorbed the rich lingo of a working-class upbringing, as Tony Warren did when he created ‘Coronation Street’ and placed many an unforgettable line in the mouth of Ena Sharples – a towering character of such vivid, flesh-and-blood believability she seems virtually Shakespearean when stood alongside the cardboard cut-outs that provide ‘soaps’ with their production-line archetypes today.

Talking Pictures TV doesn’t just offer a welcome window for the shows that mainstream television forgot, however; its speciality is the motion picture, though here too there is a refreshing lack of the usual suspects. Not only does it have a Saturday morning slot for all those long-buried cinema serials that kept more than one generation of un-chaperoned kids entertained for several hours at the local fleapit, it also gives rare screen-time to a wealth of British movies produced in the 50s that feature a cast of once-notable mainstays both major and minor. That ever-dependable embodiment of stiff-upper lip, old-school Englishness with a square jaw to match, Jack Hawkins, is an ever-present in such films, but so are character actors whose careers stretched into the rep company of 70s British TV such as Glyn Houston, Sydney Tafler and John Stratton. Although immediate post-war British cinema devoted a sizeable chunk of its output to re-telling many stories from WWII – and has acquired a retrospective reputation for being something of a one-trick pony as a consequence – what TPTV does so well is remind the viewer that contemporary crime was as much a source of material as recent military conflict. Moreover, it provides the evidence that Ealing Studios didn’t merely produce its celebrated comedies.

The 50s British B movies – or to use a kinder term, the support pictures – that TPTV screens are enjoyable for numerous reasons, though it’s often the decor that gives a clearer picture of the way life was lived before many of us arrived. It’s in the heavyweight Bakelite telephones, the buildings blackened by a century of industrial discharge, the vanished street furniture of the era, the men in their mac-and-hat ensembles, and the constant fog of smoke from both cigarettes and chimneys. Some of that survived into my own childhood, but for a 21st century boy or girl tuning-in, the Britain of this period must be like looking at transmissions from another planet; were I teenager today, however, I’d find that alien quality part of the appeal. Maybe some do, though I wouldn’t know. All I do know is that I, like many others, have found Talking Pictures TV to be a true alternative to a TV landscape cluttered with more and more of the same so-called choice of viewing; and long may there be an alternative. We need it.

© The Editor

PS: Upon publishing this post, I was informed it was the 1,000th Winegum post. Fancy that!

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/793847208

WHO’S THE DADDY NOW?

ArchieA TV interview Paul McCartney gave to Russell Harty in the early 80s contains an anecdote from Macca that underlines how the parent/teacher relationship has often been a strained one. In it, he recalled how the young George Harrison had been caned at school in a manner that appeared extreme to his father once he saw the wound, even in an era wherein most dads regarded corporal punishment as not only a necessity but a good thing. Apparently, Mr Harrison turned up at school the following day, entered the classroom, asked the teacher if he was the man who’d scarred his son, requested the teacher step outside for a quiet word, and then laid him out with a single punch. As McCartney remembered, little George’s old man was unsurprisingly an instant hero to the kids who were witness to this incident, and I’ve a feeling no police or lawyers were dragged onto the scene thereafter; this was simply how men resolved disagreements back then. Mr Harrison had made his point and that was the end of the matter. In theory, parents and teachers work in consort to ensure a child receives the best education and is eased back onto the right path should they stray; in practice, the two parties can sometimes vary in their beliefs as to how much influence the other should exert over the child, and as Paul McCartney’s colourful recollection proves, this is no new development.

Having been lumbered with home schooling during lockdown and simultaneously observed the lingering negative effects on their child’s education due to the unnecessarily lengthy disruption of it, I do wonder how sympathetic parents really are to teachers adding their names to the endless round of strike action. Of late, the balance of power over the child has been gradually tilting in favour of the teacher, with some parents consciously feeling their natural and traditional rights slipping out of their hands. The negative perception of the family unit widely held within what one might call ‘Woke’ circles preys upon their paranoia when they suspect many of their child’s teachers subscribe to this ideology, and could well be enthusiastic salesmen for it. Under-fire parents are increasingly mistrusted as guardians and protectors, liable to steer their child away from the current consensus promoted by the teaching profession, as it is by all other institutions in thrall to it; the parent is coming to be viewed as an obstacle to indoctrination.

The gender zealots represent a serious assault on parenting, when parents are criticised for denying their kids the right to opt for new pronouns at best and surgery at worst if they suddenly decide they’ve been born in the wrong body; the so-called ‘transgender child’ is a sinister fabrication that appears to be one more concerted effort to wrestle authority away from the parent, and the fact some schools and/or individual teachers seemingly endorse this pernicious development gives cause for further concern on the part of parents. Numerous reports have claimed some schools have allowed pupils to change gender in the school environment without their parents even being notified; in several cases, parents have been prevented from finding out what lessons their children have been taught on ‘gender identity’ in sex education classes. There is the understandable worry of involuntary indoctrination when it comes to this particular issue, with the teacher acting as substitute parent and filling the child’s head with the fantasy reality of the Trans activist.

Were I a parent myself, I’d no doubt be concerned if confronted by this scenario, and I sympathise with every parent who is. At the same time, however, I’m pretty sure there are plenty of parents out there who see nothing wrong with this dubious trend and are more than happy that the curriculum now mirrors their own belief system – and any parent who disagrees with it is naturally a right-wing, transphobic bigot. It certainly sounds like a manipulative exploitation of the pliable infant mind with a specific dogma that such an undeveloped mind really shouldn’t be exposed to, and one that simply didn’t exist when the majority of us were enduring ‘the happiest days of our lives’. On the other hand, hasn’t involuntary indoctrination always been crucial to the school experience? Haven’t those who attend, say, Catholic schools always had the Good Book drilled into them against their will? And whilst the Bible admittedly contains many a memorable story, there’s no more proof any of those tales are rooted in truth than the most fanciful Trans twisting of biological fact is. One could almost argue nothing has really changed in the classroom bar the nature of the ideology.

The different dogma drilled into me as a school-kid was enforced with the same degree of inflexible, authoritarian vigour as is employed for today’s dogma. For all the talk of indoctrination children are now being exposed to, I’d argue indoctrination was just as pivotal to education back then; what are schools anyway but training camps to breed obedient little citizens? Back then, it was obey and submit to any adult in a suit or uniform; don’t answer them back, bow down before their authority – whether teacher or parent or policeman or priest – and never, under any circumstances, question their right to issue commands; they don’t need to earn your respect, for they engender it in you through fear and intimidation. That’s the same sadistic educational model that stirred enough long-term resentment in someone like Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters to eventually come out in a damning indictment of the schooling system such as ‘Another Brick in the Wall’. The fact the song sat atop the UK singles chart for five weeks over the Christmas period of 1979 suggests its observations still rang true with school-kids 20 years on from Waters’ own school-days – and, as one of them at the time, I can confirm they most definitely did.

The enforcement of the ideology that parent and teacher largely shared in my own childhood was done so with absolute conviction on their part; there was never a doubt in their minds that they were right and anyone who opposed their philosophy was wrong. In this sense, their unswerving conviction was identical to the immovable righteousness that runs through the upside down, opposite ideology of today, the one that reverses the players and replaces the parent at the pinnacle of the moral pyramid with the child – aided and abetted by the teacher. Even when the products of campus rebellion against the old order eventually entered the teaching profession in the shape of the bearded ‘hippie generation’ of teachers that began to appear as the 1970s progressed, once absorbed into the system they were just as quick to wield the cane as their older colleagues, which suggested the power invested in the teacher corrupted even those who professed to detest it.

Despite the shared beliefs of that era, there were still differences between parent and teacher that divided them. My own old man always mistrusted well-spoken, well-educated types he encountered on parent evenings, dismissing them as ‘clever’ and perhaps reacting in a manner that reflected his self-confessed grudge against his social ‘betters’ as well as his longstanding difficulty with authority, something that had hampered his own schooldays. He never punched a teacher on my behalf like George Harrison’s dad, but his opinion of some teachers he met at my school was often no better than mine. Still, I had to accept their authority and abide by it – and the use of corporal punishment was deemed a more effective deterrent than the naughty step. Of course, some kids emerged from this system scarred but unscathed in their opposition to it, whereas others who had never questioned it fulfilled the contract and did indeed become obedient little citizens. I should imagine there are a fair few being schooled right now who are resistant and will be released no more convinced or converted than they were when in the thick of it. For the majority, however, we won’t know for another few years yet just how damaging the current model will prove to be.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/793847208