Saturday 18th April 2026
Blog Page 1692

Kerry: From Kitten to Kat-ona

0

From munching cockroaches in the jungle to snorting coke and singing what could arguably be dubbed karaoke, the name Kerry Katona conjures some controversial images. Katona has been in the limelight since she first rose to stardom nearly fifteen years ago as a member of pop sensation Atomic Kitten, at the young and innocent (or not-so-innocent, in Katona’s case) age of seventeen. Yes, we all remember the songs. (Well, I remember the songs, and they’re probably still being played in Park End.) She’s appeared in pretty much every reality show you can think of and seems to have lived about seven lives in one (what else could we expect from a former Kitten?). A former self-confessed drug addict, however, the limelight hasn’t always been positive.

Despite this, it’s hard to believe that this bubbly, open and down-to-earth woman sitting in front of me is the same one that hit the headlines five years ago for a very notorious This Morning interview in which her slurred speech provoked accusations. Katona has come an incredibly long way in the past three years, cleaning up her act with the help of Nik and Eva Speakman, two highly optimistic life coaches who have cured hundreds of patients over the course of their twenty year career, not least Kym Marsh, as well as somebody suffering from a severe case of button phobia. Overcoming bipolar disorder, a heavy drug addiction and an extremely controlling ex-husband, Mark Croft, Katona turned her life around with the help of these “Schema Conditioning Psychotherapists.”

Katona didn’t have an easy upbringing. “My first memory is when my mum slit her wrists”, she openly states. She was three. She frequently witnessed her mum taking drugs, and it’s easy to see how Katona’s problems began.

When I ask her about her Atomic Kitten days, she laughs as if it were something wholly alien to her. For a moment I get the sickening fear I’ve got the wrong girl. “What?!” It turns out it’s just so long ago nobody really asks her about it any more. “I was out in a night-club and a guy came and asked me if I wanted to be a backing dancer for his band. I went along and started pretending to play the keyboard, wearing revealing clothes. He asked me if I wanted to front a new band and I said ‘Oh okay, thank you so much.’” At just seventeen, Katona had never been to an audition before.

“But I went along with my page three photographs, my wicked sense of humour and my amazing singing voice. I told a few jokes, sang a few songs and became the founding member of Atomic Kitten”, she declares with bags of light-hearted irony. Four weeks after getting Natasha Hamilton on board, the band got a record deal. Had she done any professional singing before? “I’d only sung in local karaoke bars. I used to go around to all the pubs entering the competitions.”

When I ask her somewhat tentatively if she is still in touch with the other band members, the answer is positive. “I spoke to Liz today!” I ask her yet more tentatively if she would consider a return to the music industry. “Absolutely, watch this space. More likely than unlikely.” I start to get more than a little excited at the vague prospect of a reunion and an excuse to break out all those explosive (or, one might say, atomic) nineties dance routines classily choreographed in my school playground.

We move swiftly on to Katona’s experiences in I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here. What made her willingly volunteer to live for sixteen days in an Australian rainforest with venomous spiders, witchetty grubs and, deadliest of all, Jordan and Peter? Contrariness, it would seem.

“Everybody said I wouldn’t do it. I like to prove people wrong. I got a phone call for the third series inviting me to the audition, so I thought I’d go along.” She got through. “I shat myself”, she jokes. “I was in hospitals having panic attacks! And when I got there, especially when it came to the eating challenge, what actually got me through was knowing that everyone at home was watching it and saying, ‘she won’t do that’, and I thought, ‘just watch!’”

The hardest part? “Missing my kids. I missed Lilly’s 1st birthday.” And what did then-husband Brian McFadden think? “He didn’t want me to do it.” We briskly move away from a subject that I can tell is a touchy one.

And yet Katona certainly did prove people wrong, going on to be crowned Queen of the Jungle in the infamous series that saw Jordan the glamour model and Peter Andre the one-hit-wonder become Katie Price the horse-lover and, well, Peter Andre the two-hit-wonder.

Katona is extremely modest. Eva Speakman thinks that’s what people liked about her. “Obviously we didn’t know you then, but we watched that whole show and you just became the nation’s sweetheart.” “I still am!” Katona jovially replies. “I didn’t get it or understand it. I thought the viewers had forgotten that I was in there, I didn’t have a story line. I actually sat there thinking, ‘I don’t think they’re showing me on the TV you know.’” Did she watch any of it afterwards? Yes. “I thought ‘Oh my God I’m such a tit!’ It was like watching back your home videos. I didn’t actually get picked to do many challenges because I was just awesome”, she states, again with more than a hint of irony.

Much of the interview is filled with these hearty laughs and self-mocking statements. Katona is entertaining and energetic, and I get the feeling she is one of those admirably good-humoured people who knows how to laugh at her (self-confessedly hilarious) self. Swigging away at her lager and lime while Eve and Nick sip their tea, Katona pokes fun at them; “Oh yes thanks for the cups of tea! Whatever!”

I grill her on Celebrity Big Brother. “I enjoyed I’m A Celebrity more.” Why? “Because I won that, I only came runner-up in Big Brother!” About the experience, she says, “Big Brother was a bit like rehab. I felt quite intimidated, even though in the jungle I was with Katie Price, one of the biggest glamour models ever. We were all stripped of our makeup there though.” I ask her what it was like to be under constant surveillance. “You completely forget about the cameras.” Katona says the hardest thing was not knowing what was happening in the outside world. As she recalls getting to speak to her daughter on her tenth birthday, she gesticulates in a melodramatic crying impression that is characteristic of her unashamedly outgoing personality.

Katona admits she did Big Brother partly for the money. She was declared bankrupt in 2008 during a tough period of her life whilst still with ex-husband Mark Croft and still fully in the midst of her addictions.

So what has Katona learnt from battling with her painful past? “Never believe what you’re told.” Katona was diagnosed with the “worst case” of bipolar disorder and told she would be on prescription drugs for the rest of her life. When she met The Speakmans, that all changed. Using a treatment that consists in identifying “schema” (unconscious memories dating back to childhood that influence the way we behave) they work with patients to condition the mind into perceiving more positively. The therapists worked on changing Katona’s first memory, one which had produced feelings of inadequacy. By conditioning that “schema”, their story was one of success. “There’s always a resolution”, says Eva. Her support for the new, reformed Katona is clear. “I love listening to the way you talk now. You’re really positive.”

 

Eva and Nik Speakman have treated each other to cure their own phobias and are firm believers of nurture over nature. “I came from a challenging background”, states Eva Speakman. “I was a smoker and a drinker. I turned it around through what we learnt. I listened to this tape about creating your life and I was amazed at how it helped transform me.”

Katona has a new autobiography, Still Standing, coming out on November 22nd. When I ask her what it was like to write of her painful experiences, her response is immediate, and markedly less jovial than before; “horrendous.”

“I absolutely hated it”. She says that her first autobiography, Too Much Too Young, published in 2006, was a lot easier; “it was like therapy. After I did it I thought, that’s not really my fault, it was my childhood and it was out of my control. This second book is so raw and honest. It is about things that I chose to do. When it got read back to me I felt so ashamed and embarrassed by it. It’s like I don’t even know who this person is in the first half of the book.”

Yet Katona remains positive. “I’ve been open and honest, and I’ve come out the other end. In a way I’m glad it’s there in black and white, on paper, in a book. If I ever feel like going down that road again, I can read it and think sod that for a bag of… whatever the saying is.” And in a flash Katona is joking and giggling and back to her jolly old self.

When I ask Katona how living in the public eye has affected her, she makes this comparison; “If you walk outside and trip over running to the bus stop, the old lady sees you. I trip over and the whole world sees me. But there might not be any difference in our personal lives.”

And her first experiences of public exposure? “We’d been doing The Big Breakfast for a week and we went to a nightclub. I hated it, I had Tom, Dick and Harry constantly asking me for pictures, I didn’t like the attention, so I started having more drinks before going out, doing lines.” It seems the constant public exposure made its mark on Katona.

“I’m not an arrogant person, I’m not ignorant”, she states. Eva Speakman defends her unquestioningly: “She is one of the most genuine, endearing, kind and, believe it or not, normal people you could ever wish to meet. Kerry actually hasn’t changed. The public’s perception has, but she hasn’t. She has no delusions of grandeur. What I love about Kerry is that if people ask her for a picture, she’s always so accommodating, so kind. She makes every single person that comes up to her feel like an individual. She’s really inspirational, honestly.”

And I can’t help believing her. There’s no pretence about Katona, and her brutal, energetic honesty about a dark past is admirable. Of course, she makes a characteristic joke that she’s only prepared to have a picture if she’s being paid “a fiver” for it. Yet I know instantly that Katona is joking. After a short period of time I’ve already warmed to the genuine, open and seemingly light-hearted woman that was, just a few years ago, at the extreme end of the bipolar spectrum and on the brink of death. Katona has most certainly turned her life around, and something tells me she’s not going to back down now.

Fan-tash-tic!

0

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6188%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6189%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

Martha Newson shows
us how Movember
should be done, at the
2012 British Beard
and Moustache
Championships

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6190%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6191%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6192%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6193%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6194%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6195%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

 

 

Screenwriters Losing the Plot

0

 

n a recent episode of Mythbusters, the TV show that attempts to prove/debunk popular misconceptions, the presenters took on a singularly contentious task. They were to ascertain whether Rose and Jack could both have fitted on that floating door at the end of Titanic. The subject has been something of a running joke on the internet for years, with many opining that both could easily have fitted, but it also seems to be a point of irritation for the film’s director, James Cameron, who recently muttered that it was a question of buoyancy, not space, and of keeping enough of the body out of the water (80%) to avoid hypothermia 
The Mythbusters team found that indeed, buoyancy was an issue; that is, until they had the bright idea to slide Rose’s lifejacket under the door. Hey presto, extra buoyancy; they could have both survived. Unfortunately, James Cameron’s response to this wasn’t an indulgent chuckle; nor did he allow for any change in the interpretation of the film’s ending. Instead, he said (to paraphrase),“Well, maybe we screwed up on that; we should have made the door smaller. But the fact is, the script says he’s gonna die. He was a goner.” 
Some of the connotations of Cameron’s statements are a little troubling. He could have noted the unlikelihood of Rose coming up with such an ingenious solution in the middle of a freezing ocean; perhaps even acknowledging that the possibility of Jack’s survival heightens the tragedy of his demise. But for Cameron, it is enough to say that it happened because it had to happen; because that’s what the script demanded. For me, this has a negative impact on my exprerience of the film: rather than the writing justifying the events that happen, they just happen and the audience is left to try and justify them in their own heads, or, rather, as James Cameron seems to suggest, forgo becoming engaged at all and accept things as they come.
It’s similar to problems I had with the recent run of Doctor Who, particularly the last episode. At the end of ‘The Angels Take Manhattan’, long-time companions Amy and Rory were banished to 1938, with only the explanation that the titular hero couldn’t travel back in time to reach them due to a paradox previously created. Sure, that seems implausible but it’s a science-fiction show; you have to try and embrace these ridiculous rules. However, viewers were quick to point out a gaping problem with this ending: if the Doctor couldn’t return to 1938 New York, couldn’t he go and visit, say, five years later? Or could he not even visit another country in the same year? Presumably there is some sci-fi timey-wimey reason that this couldn’t happen, but it isn’t made clear.
 As it is, if Doctor Who ever returns to a World War II setting (pretty likely), the emotional impact of the episode will be completely undermined. As it stands, it was hard to feel sorrow for the departure of the Ponds, except in the immediate void caused by their absence. If anything, though, this was more frustrating than upsetting; there wasn’t a good enough reason for their departure in the writing, so it seemed unnecessary. With some more explanation, or a different ending, it wouldn’t have – if, for example, the script actually had the cojones to kill them off there’d be little issue at all.  Instead, in its increasingly desperate bids to exit characters conclusively without frightening the horses by actually killing anybody (we’ve had alternate reality and magic alien memory wipe of death previously), Doctor Who sabotages its own efficacy.
The issue with both Doctor Who’s finale and Jack’s death in Titanic is that they threaten the suspension of disbelief needed to enjoy these films. In these and the many other narratively challenged productions, it’s possible to become very aware that things are happening because they have to, rather than because the plot up to that point means that these events have been justified. It’s a jolting realisation, seeing behind the curtain like this, and in my mind it really undermines the potency of both endings. It’s more explicit in Doctor Who – even in genre productions, we as the audience need to understand and accept why things had to happen the way that they did; that characters reason in a way we might in the same situation.
 The really annoying thing about the Titanic door debacle is that even with the Mythbusters findings, it would be possible to justify Jack’s death. It’s just that James Cameron’s pig-headed response implies that doing so is pointless; that blind acceptance is preferable to any degree of critical engagement. And that’s a terrible attitude in any creative medium.

In a recent episode of Mythbusters, the TV show that attempts to prove/debunk popular misconceptions, the presenters took on a singularly contentious task. They were to ascertain whether Rose and Jack could both have fitted on that floating door at the end of Titanic. The subject has been something of a running joke on the internet for years, with many opining that both could easily have fitted, but it also seems to be a point of irritation for the film’s director, James Cameron, who recently muttered that it was a question of buoyancy, not space, and of keeping enough of the body out of the water (80%) to avoid hypothermia.

The Mythbusters team found that indeed, buoyancy was an issue; that is, until they had the bright idea to slide Rose’s lifejacket under the door. Hey presto, extra buoyancy; they could have both survived. Unfortunately, James Cameron’s response to this wasn’t an indulgent chuckle; nor did he allow for any change in the interpretation of the film’s ending. Instead, he said (to paraphrase),“Well, maybe we screwed up on that; we should have made the door smaller. But the fact is, the script says he’s gonna die. He was a goner.” 

Some of the connotations of Cameron’s statements are a little troubling. He could have noted the unlikelihood of Rose coming up with such an ingenious solution in the middle of a freezing ocean; perhaps even acknowledging that the possibility of Jack’s survival heightens the tragedy of his demise. But for Cameron, it is enough to say that it happened because it had to happen; because that’s what the script demanded. For me, this has a negative impact on my exprerience of the film: rather than the writing justifying the events that happen, they just happen and the audience is left to try and justify them in their own heads, or, rather, as James Cameron seems to suggest, forgo becoming engaged at all and accept things as they come.

It’s similar to problems I had with the recent run of Doctor Who, particularly the last episode. At the end of ‘The Angels Take Manhattan’, long-time companions Amy and Rory were banished to 1938, with only the explanation that the titular hero couldn’t travel back in time to reach them due to a paradox previously created. Sure, that seems implausible but it’s a science-fiction show; you have to try and embrace these ridiculous rules. However, viewers were quick to point out a gaping problem with this ending: if the Doctor couldn’t return to 1938 New York, couldn’t he go and visit, say, five years later? Or could he not even visit another country in the same year? Presumably there is some sci-fi timey-wimey reason that this couldn’t happen, but it isn’t made clear. 

As it is, if Doctor Who ever returns to a World War II setting (pretty likely), the emotional impact of the episode will be completely undermined. As it stands, it was hard to feel sorrow for the departure of the Ponds, except in the immediate void caused by their absence. If anything, though, this was more frustrating than upsetting; there wasn’t a good enough reason for their departure in the writing, so it seemed unnecessary. With some more explanation, or a different ending, it wouldn’t have – if, for example, the script actually had the cojones to kill them off there’d be little issue at all.  Instead, in its increasingly desperate bids to exit characters conclusively without frightening the horses by actually killing anybody (we’ve had alternate reality and magic alien memory wipe of death previously), Doctor Who sabotages its own efficacy.

The issue with both Doctor Who’s finale and Jack’s death in Titanic is that they threaten the suspension of disbelief needed to enjoy these films. In these and the many other narratively challenged productions, it’s possible to become very aware that things are happening because they have to, rather than because the plot up to that point means that these events have been justified. It’s a jolting realisation, seeing behind the curtain like this, and in my mind it really undermines the potency of both endings. It’s more explicit in Doctor Who – even in genre productions, we as the audience need to understand and accept why things had to happen the way that they did; that characters reason in a way we might in the same situation. 

The really annoying thing about the Titanic door debacle is that even with the Mythbusters findings, it would be possible to justify Jack’s death. It’s just that James Cameron’s pig-headed response implies that doing so is pointless; that blind acceptance is preferable to any degree of critical engagement. And that’s a terrible attitude in any creative medium.

 

Series Review: The Thick of It

0

Just another day at the fuckoffice’ was one description of the events in the seventh episode of this series of The Thick of It. But this wasn’t just another day; this was the last day. After four series of sweary, satirical brilliance, Iannucci’s show is leaving the building with its head held high and its audience wanting more. Something its legendary anti-hero didn’t manage to emulate. 

Things started to unwind for Tucker in the penultimate inquiry special, in which he was ultimately reduced to that most dire and desperate of inquiry responses: ‘I don’t recall.’ In the finale, the Malc-iovellian genius rapidly ran out of options. Capaldi has been enthralling since day one, but his acting in the second half of this series has been remarkable, especially his blistering rant to Ollie about the deadening effect of his job, and his final moments when, after an undignified arrest, he prepared to make a last statement to the baying press-pack. Staring at them through hollow eyes, he finally muttered ‘It doesn’t matter’, and swept off screen. 
Stuart and Glen were the other casualties of Tickellgate but neither was going to go quietly. Stuart’s rant struck a chord with many as he described his doomed attempts to rebrand the nasty party: ‘You can take out a sexist beam here…replace the odd homophobic roof tile, but in the end the foundations are built on what I can only describe as a solid bed of cunts.’ And Glen – who’s always come closest to having what could vaguely resemble some morals – finally went Glental, in a deranged and hilarious rant at his colleagues. The whole speech was fantastic, though the gem saved for Peter might just be the highlight: ‘Peter, it’s been dreadful. I hope your cock falls off.’ 
The series showed that no one – no matter how conniving and ruthless – wins at politics for long. Even the briefly exultant gang at DoSAC managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again, as their fleetingly successful policy backfired. ‘What a shit day’ were the show’s appropriate closing words. It was bleak but brilliant. 
If you haven’t seen this show, buy the box set and watch the lot. If you have, buy the box set and watch the lot again. TV of this quality doesn’t come around every day. And so farewell then, The Thick of It. Or, as Malcolm would have it, fuckety bye.

Things started to unwind for Tucker in the penultimate inquiry special, in which he was ultimately reduced to that most dire and desperate of inquiry responses: ‘I don’t recall.’ In the finale, the Malc-iovellian genius rapidly ran out of options. Capaldi has been enthralling since day one, but his acting in the second half of this series has been remarkable, especially his blistering rant to Ollie about the deadening effect of his job, and his final moments when, after an undignified arrest, he prepared to make a last statement to the baying press-pack. Staring at them through hollow eyes, he finally muttered ‘It doesn’t matter’, and swept off screen.

Stuart and Glen were the other casualties of Tickellgate but neither was going to go quietly. Stuart’s rant struck a chord with many as he described his doomed attempts to rebrand the nasty party: ‘You can take out a sexist beam here…replace the odd homophobic roof tile, but in the end the foundations are built on what I can only describe as a solid bed of cunts.’ And Glen – who’s always come closest to having what could vaguely resemble some morals – finally went Glental, in a deranged and hilarious rant at his colleagues. The whole speech was fantastic, though the gem saved for Peter might just be the highlight: ‘Peter, it’s been dreadful. I hope your cock falls off.’ 

The series showed that no one – no matter how conniving and ruthless – wins at politics for long. Even the briefly exultant gang at DoSAC managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again, as their fleetingly successful policy backfired. ‘What a shit day’ were the show’s appropriate closing words. It was bleak but it was brilliant. 

If you haven’t seen this show, buy the box set and watch the lot. If you have, buy the box set and watch the lot again. TV of this quality doesn’t come around every day. And so farewell then, The Thick of It. Or, as Malcolm would have it, fuckety bye.

Review: The Casual Vacancy

0

Warning: contains over 200 F-words, 10 mentions of heroin, and zero references to Horcruxes. Yes, to say that Miss Rowling has moved somewhat away from the sugar-coated kisses of Cho Chang and the Boy wizard would be an understatement.  This is Harry minus the magic, with plenty of casual sex, self-harming and regular drug taking, and all embellished with profanities that put Voldemort and his naughty wizard mouth to shame. School robes are replaced by stringy thongs, turreted Hogwarts with the tripled-storied Winterdown Comprehensive, and that strange man turning up on the doorstep is less likely to be your friendly magical groundskeeper, and more likely to be your local drug dealer. Sorry Hagrid.

It’s a tale about the muggles, a change from the happy-go-lucky boundary of the fantasy genre and a ticket into the seedier territory of realism. And why not? After more than a decade of writing about owls and broomsticks surely JK deserves to dabble in other genres. But the problem with The Casual Vacancy isn’t to do with the change in content, it isn’t even to do with the “miraculously unguarded vagina’s” or the “the gossamer cocoon” condom. It’s to do with the generality of her characters, and the caricature of the real world that they create.

The absence of any kind of moderation is ultimately the novel’s undoing. It’s set in pretty Pagford, with Hogsmeade-esque cobbled streets, picturesque buildings and a community church. It even boasts its very own authentic twelfth-century abbey and residents can enjoy the gentle tones of undisrupted birdsong on their morning rambles. So far, so English idyll. But behind the twitching curtains and hanging baskets, Pagford-Privet Drive is nothing more than a breeding ground for bitter rivalry, sexual frustration and badly concealed racism. 

Just around the corner from Pagford is the public housing project known as the Fields. It’s a sprawling estate filled with dirty terrace blocks, boarded windows and is “swamped by the offspring of scroungers”. The plot wrestles with the question of who should have responsibility for this deprived area and unfortunately for its residents, the main man committed to saving the Fields dies on page five.

The death of Liberal Barry Fairbrother creates a ‘casual vacancy’ on the parish council, and the brawl for who will fill this vacancy, and for the future of the Fields, begins.  From page one of Harry Potter, JK makes it clear her stance on the middle classes, the author introducing readers to a bigoted couple whose opposition to magic verges on fanatical. This extends into the pompous characterisation in her new book, top baddie revealed as obese deli owner Howard Mollison, who dons a deerstalker – just in case readers fail to grasp how middleclass he is. 

In a sense, Rowling’s desperate attempt to leave fantasy behind her comes full circle again. Because her novel is fantasy. The Casual Vacancy may have replaced magical prowess for the more conventional skill of IT, but the events that take place in the novel are too extreme to ever be called real. Satirical of Pagford, maybe, but one gets the impression that Rowling doesn’t mean to mock the residents of the Fields or their situations when she includes prostitution, drug taking, drowning and suicide all under one title. 

The only problem with approaching Pagford as drenched in snobbery and hypocrisy, is that the tone jars. It makes what is clearly meant to be a novel about the real world, display less realism than the Ministry of Magic. The Fields are meant to show the “seamy underside” in all its sincerity, and not be undermined with moralistic steamrolling and condemnation of dinner party chatter of its neighbouring town. It’s meant to show a neighbourhood with all its peeling cream paint, petty crime and prostitution, with individuals who are not, as Rowling says they often are, “discussed as this homogeneous mash, like porridge.”

Why then, does JK insist on serving this porridge? Any diversity in the mash is lost to the fact this book is laden with extreme stereotypes and stock situations. Krystal, for example, is one of the novel’s main driving forces. She’s rude; openly aggressive and intimidated by big words and Rowling attempts to justify why this is. But the backstory is repetitive and generic, and although her mother can remember the precise dosage of methadone she is on and not her daughter’s age, we feel too distanced from Krystal’s life to see the fiction as reality, to emphasize why she steals, why she wants to get pregnant, and why she copulates within metres of her four-year-old brother.

As one of many twenty-something’s who grew up with Harry and Co, I had graduated the scholarship of Hogwarts and demanded more. It’s easy to overlook the clunky prose, or the fact JK decides to put whole paragraphs in ellipsis (annoying), but harder to forgive the impression that Rowling is furiously rebelling from the realm of witchcraft and wizardry. Expletives feel forced, the sex scenes fictional, the grotesque too sought for and the references to Rihanna and her umbrella too try hard. It would have been interesting for readers – and for Rowling – if The Casual Vacancy was published under a pseudonym, without Rowling’s need to reassure her readers that this is an adult novel, and without readers striving to find constant comparisons with the best-selling series of all time.

The book isn’t bad by all accounts. Once one gets passed the initial hurdle of archetypal characterisation and the painstakingly drawn out first half, the novel actually becomes quite engaging. Rowling tries to show us that vacancies exist all around, and are not confined to the ballot box: in Robbie’s cardboard boxes, in Parminder’s self-harming daughter, in Kay’s futile relationship.  Rowling highlights, albeit with an awful sadness, that gulfs are ever present in everyone’s shared experiences, and that every human being is tied together by their own mortality. The casual vacancy is a vacancy that cannot be filled by the wave of a magic wand. There is no magic, no spell to make the pitiless stockpile situations go away, no Dobby to come and accio the bad. It is ruthless and it is terribly clichéd, but it is well worth a read.  

‘Being offensive is not an offence’

0

I’m pretty easily offended. Honestly, I’m very thin-skinned. I’ve had people hurl obscenities at me when they drove past me down the road. Quite upsetting at the time. Somebody once undermined my wittily insightful point in YouTube comments. Ouch. Just recently, I was directed towards a blog called lookatmyfuckingredtrousers, in which a particular sartorial choice is roundly mocked. I’d just recently purchased a rather dashing pair of burgundy chords, so of course my immediate reaction was one of dismay and annoyance. I, like anyone, get annoyed and upset when something offends me. But that’s just part of life. As Stephen Fry once said, ‘Being offensive is not an offence.’ Except, increasingly, it is.

Recently, there have been a number of cases where people have been prosecuted under various legislatures for offending others. For example, Barry Thew was sentenced to four months for wearing a t-shirt that seemed to celebrate the death of police officers; another man was arrested for asking a police officer if he knew his horse was gay. Another man was charged for playing Christian dvds in his Christian cafe. Most importantly, though, in October Matthew Woods was sentenced for six months in prison for posting offensive messages on his facebook page about the April Jones case. I can’t say what they were; as is usual with these sort of cases the public never get to see for themselves what language is deemed so offensive (though that’s an argument for another time), but they were cruel and uncalled for. And what Woods did is illegal, under section 127 of the 2003 Communications act, which states that it is a crime to send  ‘by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’. 

What’s more disturbing is the justification for his custodial sentence, given as ‘The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused.’ In other words, because of the large amount of people he is considered to have offended, his crime is worse. So what about all the people who weren’t bothered?

On a basic level, offense is hugely subjective.  Offensiveness varies between cultures; in the middle ages, taboo language largely revolved around desecrations of religion and sickness (a plague on both your houses! Is a far more offensive line than we might allow for; in modern terms it’s more applicable with ‘I hope you all die of AIDs’); even today, what is considered offensive differs from country to country. Even between individuals, it is hugely variable. For somebody who’s recently lost a relative to cancer, any frank talk on that matter could be seen as offensive. Equally, someone making a joke about, say, Middlesborough could hugely insult anyone from that area through generalisation. Some wags in the media have taken this to its extreme in suggesting that they found Justice Hudson’s decision in the Woods case hugely offensive, and are demanding his arrest.

Even ignoring personal subjectivity, many things can be seen as offensive; criticism, for example, no matter how well-intentioned and constructive can be quite hurtful. Equally, any kind of disagreement can be offensive: who can honestly say they haven’t been piqued by some arrogant politico dismissing their ideology with the wave of a hand? This applies to religion, too – recently ( in a case that was later thrown out of court due to the high levels of publicity), a student was arrested under section 5 of the public disorder act for labelling Scientology a ‘cult’ on a protest. The reasoning is that somebody could have been offended by the sign; well yes, presumably they could. They don’t believe their religion is a cult, and based on that they almost certainly would be offended.

So what?

There are laws in place to deal with significant, threatening behaviour, discrimination or incitement. But should it really be a legal matter if our feelings are hurt? If you’re upset by something, don’t form a mob and rush someone’s house (as happened to Matthew Woods); just accept that whoever it was is unpleasant and move on. Nobody is claiming that what Woods or many others have said was inoffensive, but life is full of unpleasantness. People are being charged for the kind of things that, if heard in conversation, might lead to an argument, or just a passive-aggressive sidle away. We don’t need these disproportionate attempts at social engineering, because they won’t work; people will always be unkind, and we will always have upsetting things said about us. Trying to stop people having their feelings hurt by sending people to prison does nothing but set dangerous precedents for free speech.

I know that these cases aren’t black and white censorship issues, and I know it’s not as if people’s right to air grievances is being infringed upon. But if we start imprisoning people for saying things we don’t like, we set legal precedents that are the first step on a long progression to a world where we’re no longer able to express ourselves freely for fear of arrest. It may seem melodramatic, but I don’t want to live in a society where people aren’t free to insult me. Life is upsetting, but that shouldn’t give us a right to censor the cruel. Democracy requires more voices, not less.

Demo2012: Protest for the sake of protest?

0

#Demo2012 is scheduled for the 21st of November, and will see thousands of students descend on the capital to have their voices heard. The problem with the protest is that their voices do not seem to be putting forward a coherent message in any sense. This protest does not seem to be fighting any particular issue merely offering an opportunity for disgruntled students to vent. For this reason it is hard to criticise any of their goals, as no one really knows what they are beyond the 3 banner headlines ‘Education, Employment and Empowerment’ which spans such a huge section of social policy it all seems a little diffused and ineffectual. The last event on this scale in the UK was a direct reaction to events in parliament; the tuition fee rise, which let us not forget, is two years old now. This protest does not seem to have a stimulus, mandate or reason, beyond protest for the sake of protest. This is not a defence of the Coalitions policy but a critique of the direction this protest is taking and how it is counterproductive.

Firstly if the protest does not know what it wants, with a set of clear demands then how can any parliament be expected to listen and respond. A comparison could be made between this and the Occupy movement, which did not seem to have any particular demands beyond having their opinions and obvious dissatisfaction heard. The difference being that the Occupy movement scapegoated the bankers and their greed, something which the public can easily latch onto. Whereas student protests run the very serious risk of demonising themselves; last time students marched, the news stories surrounded the outbreaks of violence across the city of London, and all the work of those who protested peacefully was tarnished with a highly negative brush.

Are there not better uses of resources that will help to achieve some of the aims that students are so concerned by? Will the funding of outreach programmes better help pressured students, rather than a protest which will have no benefit to the movement’s cause (used in its most nebulous sense).

Student bodies were of huge importance to issues such as the civil rights movements, groups such as SNCC were influential in pioneering the sit-ins and other critical events. What was key was that they were built around a core set of ideals with an ultimate goal, in that instance racial equality. The fact that student unions are supporting this motion as whole bodies seems somewhat ludicrous as these bodies represent huge bands of people, many of whom accept the fee rises and do not feel victimised. In the same way that the students who protest, are not all violent, students cannot be grouped by our unions into this bracket that we are all being unfairly persecuted, as not all students feel this way. It is not the beliefs that are the issue, it is the method for getting them heard.

Council awarded living wage certification

0

Oxford City Council has been accredited with becoming the first authority in the county to ensure that its employees are paid the ‘living wage’ of at least £8 an hour. The announcement comes ahead of the national Living Wage Week, which will take place across the UK between November 4 and 10. Oxford City Council implemented the scheme in 2009. Recently, the council has had to make other budget cuts in order to raise its lowest level of pay from £7.20 to £8.01 an hour, which is 81p above the UK Living wage for outside of London. The current minimum wage across the country is £6.19 for those over 21.

Leader of the council, Bob Price, said, “We’re pleased our initiative has been formally recognised and the positive effects this policy has had on supporting the city’s economy.” He explained the motivations behind the living wage, commenting, “We were aware that the national minimum wage could not reflect the much higher housing costs in Oxford and other major urban centres. We wanted to ensure that our minimum pay rates, and those of our contractors, took account of this major difference in what a low salary can provide as a standard of living.’

“The impact on our employees has been very positive and the quality of our staff reflects the terms and conditions offered,” he added. “We would certainly like to see all employers adopt a Living Wage Minimum that reflects the reality of local living costs especially in the Thames Valley area,” he concluded.

Rhys Moore, director of the Living Wage Foundation, told the Oxford Mail, “The benefits to staff and business are clear. I welcome the leadership shown by Oxford City Council on this.” At the time of the council’s decision to adopt the living wage Oxfordshire Chamber of Commerce president Nigel Wild said he applauded Oxford City Council for taking the measure. He commented, “But I think businesses are having to cut their cloth accordingly at the moment and if they haven’t got the money, they can’t raise wages. Most people are taking the view that simply having a job is better than no job.”

The living wage is a voluntary rate of pay that some employers give their staff and is designed to enable workers to afford a basic standard of living. It is calculated by a formula from the National Income Standard, which is authorised by the Rowntree Trust, and takes into account factors such as cost of housing, council tax and transport. Oxford City Council is the only one of Oxfordshire’s six local authorities to have gained accreditation.

Tom Coy, Exeter Welfare Officer, welcomed the announcement: “it’s great that the council has recognized how expensive it can be to live in Oxford and has raised the wage it pays to its employees accordingly.” Barney Grimpson, a second year Economics and Management student commented, “It’s a shame that the university has not followed suit. It is scandalous that the second biggest employer in the city has not committed to paying its staff a wage which reflects their costs of living.”

The Oxford Living Wage Campaign aims to build an alliance of workers and students to campaining for a living wage for all employees of Oxford University. The campaign highlights that working poverty is a growing problem in the UK. 61% of children living in poverty live in working households. 18 out of 38 Oxford colleges are confirmed as currently paying their staff the living wage.

Last week, Joshua Calder-Travis, representing the Oxford Living Wage Campaign, criticised recuitment adverts published in The Oxford Student, which stated “Because of my story, scouts across the university are now paid a Living Wage”. Calder-Travis claimed that 16 colleges did not pay Living Wage to all employees, with a further four failing to respond. Information on contractor wages was difficult to obtain. He said ‘Through discussions with employees, and information gathered in other ways, we have come to believe that the majority of staff employed in this way are not paid a Living Wage.’

‘People who are employed to clean libraries and departments often finish work before students arrive. As such there is little chance that students will ever have met the person that cleans their department. It is these staff which the Oxford Student’s claim that ‘scouts across the university are paid a Living Wage’ overlooks, along with all the staff at a further sixteen to twenty colleges.’ He therefore suggested ‘the statement published in the Oxford Student paper is both highly misleading and deeply harmful to building a community in Oxford where everyone is paid fairly.’

Isaac Delestre, Editor of the Oxford Student, refuted these allegations, saying that the quote itself had not actually said that all scouts in the university were paid a living wage. He added that the paper had helped, for example, to ensure staff at St John’s were paid a living wage.

Oxbridge applications rise

0

Record numbers of students are applying to the most competitive courses and universities according to figures from UCAS. Courses at Oxbridge and medical courses have seen the largest increase in applicants; almost 57,000 applied to Oxford or Cambridge or to the dentistry, medicine, or veterinary science courses before the 15 October deadline.

This is a 2% increase over applications for the same courses at the same time last year. There was a drop in applications last year. However, figures show that this trend is likely to change as students target degree subjects and universities leading to well-paid careers, and expect better value for money in return for increased fees.

Dr Julia Paolitto, speaking for the University, said, “over the last couple of years applications to Oxford have held steady at just over 17,000 – prior to that we saw a significant increase in the number of applicants. Importantly, while applications for 2012 entry went down significantly across the sector, Oxford saw virtually no decline in applications, and has held steady again this year.”

Dr Paolitto continued, “Application figures suggest that potential applicants have recognised that Oxford offers a fantastic, world-class education and is incredibly affordable as well.”

Scottish applications, despite large subsidies, were down by 1%. Applications from Wales dropped by 3.9%, and those from Northern Ireland increased of 2%.

Demand from European students, who pay the same fees as British students, was up by 1.8% while applications from students outside the EU also rose by 5.1% despite having to pay considerably higher fees.

‘The New Snow Trip’ opens to all

0

A new Oxford University ski trip is hoping to attract students this year. ‘The New Snow Trip’ was originally only open to New College, before extending to Magdalen in 2011 and St Hilda’s in 2012. Now the trip is open to all Oxford University students.The trip will take place on the 15th-23rd March 2013 in Val D’Isere.

The base price for the trip is £359, which includes 6 days accommodation, a lift pass, travel and several extras. Trip organisers managed to get a low price because of New College’s relationship with the tour operator ‘Off the Piste’, which they have used for the last 3 years. Events such as a Toboggan Evening and BBQ, a Race Day, a fancy dress day, and an event at Folie Douce are planned.

Organisers are promoting the trip as a smaller, more friendly trip than Varsity, with a good social vibe, better weather, better snow, and better skiing at Easter. They also promote it on the grounds of its lack of Cambridge students. Last year the trip’s mcuh smaller capacity of 96 people was reached, but it is hoped that this year many more people will take part.

Chiara Quadranti, the President of The New Snow Trip, said, “Not all colleges have their own ski trip so this gives a chance for anyone to go skiing, if they missed out on Varsity or if Varsity is not for them.

“We want to provide students with a fresh alternative. While Varsity is huge, quasi-corporate and intimidating (to some) we want to propose another option: something a bit different, more likeable, more personal.

“We want to set up something that could appeal to the same audience, i.e. the whole of Oxford, but with a very different vibe.”

Harry Browne, a St Hilda’s student who went on the trip two years ago, said, “The atmosphere is different from Varsity because it’s smaller and you know everyone. But it’s still lash on the mountains.”

Matthew Kain, from New College, went last year, said, “Better snow, no dirty Tabs, same lash – should appeal for people who actually want to go skiing rather than watching some crap like Ms Dynamite.”

Midori Takenaka, a rep from Corpus Christi, told Cherwell, “The New Snow Trip is definitely not trying to compete with Varsity. The organising team are all students, and so the trip has been designed in a very student-friendly way. We are confident that the trip will prove to be a success, as it has been in previous years.” 

Last year the Varsity trip sold out within 8 hours, and 3,200 students attended. However, this year tickets did not sell out.

Varsity President Simon Bushell told Cherwell, “The Varsity Trip is run on a not-for-profit basis entirely by student volunteers who aim to put on the best week possible for the participants of Varsity Trip, and we always strive to improve on last year’s trip. With six years of trips of over 1000 people, and over 90 years since the first Varsity Trip, we certainly have a lot of history to build on.

‘As with the much improved booking system, we are working hard to respond to all of the feedback we had from last year’s trip, and this experience is one of the advantages of going on Varsity Trip.

“One of the reasons Varsity Trip is so enjoyable is that it combines an intimate skiing experience with friends, with most participants sharing rooms or corridors with people from the same college, while giving an amazing opportunity to meet new people!”