I am not sure how telling this is, but while out and about these last few days, I’ve noticed more and more posters and signs for the Remain campaign in people’s windows, but none for Out. I find that rather encouraging. Of course, that may only be this little corner of South-East London; if I went further afield, I might see more evidence of Outism. Yet I really hope it is a sign that things are not as worrying as the opinion polls would lead us to believe, and that most people have sense enough to vote remain. It’s only a small observation, but an encouraging one.

Today I’d just like to wish my mum a wonderful sixtieth birthday. She and dad are away at the moment, so I might not get to speak to her today, so I’ll say this here: my mother is the most wonderful mum anyone could ever wish for. I know I’m not always the most cooperative of sons; I can be downright awkward at times. But I also know my mum will always be there for me, and that her infinite, unconditional love is a constant source of power for me. These days, mum and I only see each other in the flesh every few months or so. We talk weekly on Skype, of course, chats I look forward to; but that is not the same as sitting at a table with mum with a cup of tea, catching up with the family news. Nor is it the same as standing next to her, cuddling her, feeling the same loving, tender, reassuring embrace that you felt throughout your childhood – an embrace which told you in an instant that, no matter how dire the situation, no matter how deep the cut or big the mess you had made, mum was there so everything would be okay. Those are the cuddles which remind you that you are loved, and they’re the thing I look forward to most every time I see mum. I hope mum knows that I love her too, just as much, and how lucky I feel to have her as my mother – I wouldn’t be where I am today, or have done any of the amazing things I’ve experienced, without her. Happy birthday mum – have a great day.

Yesterday was quite an interesting day. As I mentioned two or three weeks ago, I had to go up to Guy’s hospital for dental procedure. Basically, my last trip to the ‘normal’ dentist didn’t go well: I couldn’t keep my head still, so she sent me up to Guy’s for treatment under sedation.

That happened yesterday. My PA, Dom, pushed me up there in my manual chair; we got there in good time, had a quick coffee, and went in. The doctor and her assistant greeted me/us in that amiable way doctors always seem to have, I transferred into the chair, and, after some talking, they put a needle in my arm. What happened then I cannot really say: things after that are a complete blur. I thought I was fairly conscious, but before I knew it the procedure was over. What felt to me like fifteen minutes was in fact an hour or so. It was fairly surreal, but not altogether unpleasant. I could feel things going on in my mouth, but I couldn’t say what.

When it was all over, I came to pretty quickly. The odd thing is, when the doctor mentioned she was a trekkie and I responded that I had met Patrick Stewart, she said I’d already told her. I had absolutely no memory of doing so, which kind of freaked me out a bit. Nevertheless, soon we were heading home, and after a much needed burger and coffee in the nearby market, I was right as rain. My teeth are apparently not that bad (surprising given I’m always forgetting to brush my teeth), but the doc couldn’t do everything she wanted to, so I’ll have to go back in a few weeks. Now that I know what will happen, though, I’m much less apprehensive; in fact I’m sort of looking forward to it.

I came across some news late yesterday afternoon which I found utterly disappointing and quite heartbreaking: John Cleese, one of my favourite comedians and actors, has come as siding with the outists. I know it shouldn’t matter, and that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but for me this groups him with the xenophobes, nationalists, and short-sighted idiots who would take us out of the EU. I loved Cleese’s comedy, and still cherish the memory of watching Monty Python Live; but this seems like an utter betrayal of everything I thought Cleese stood for. I thought he would be better than that. How can I still laugh at, say, the parrot sketch or french taunter scene, when I know the guy who made them would have us stripped of our rights and the economy opened up to the perverse form of capitalism? This news thus taints something I once held quite sacred, and I am frankly very upset about it.

ADDENDUM: of course I can still laugh at cleese’s comedy; he’s one of the funniest men ever. One should never let politics get in the way of such things. One should be able to disagree with someone politically, yet still admire them.

I would like to register my absolute horror at this story, which has been emerging all day from the states. A gunman has killed fifty people at a gay nightclub in Orlando. While it is too early to be certain of the motive, people are saying it’s a homophobic attack. If that is the case, it’s truly appalling: how can anyone cause so much suffering just because they dislike other peoples’ sexuality. The fact that such things can still go on anywhere in the world, after so much effort has been put into trying to educate people into abandoning such outdated views, is one of the saddest things about this.

I think I’ll just direct you here today, to Lyn’s latest track. A cool, mellow piece, it amazes me how fast she produces stuff. This one, Snappy Heart, was made in just a couple of days after Lyn was inspired by a Ty Unwin video. I think it’s a lovely tune which sort of gets stuck in your head, but also chills you out. Go Listen!

Lyn and I had a great time last night. We decided to go out together, to get dinner. It was a superb evening for it: the sun was beating down, the wind was fairly calm. We made for the other side of Blackheath, where we found a great little pizzaria. I honestly think I had one of the best pizzas I’ve ever tasted there – the cheese on it was so tasty; the meat on it so perfect. On top of that, the place – called Zero Degrees – was a microbrewery, and sold a great range of beers. I only tried a couple last night, but as we left I told myself to head back there soon. Blackheath is a great little area full of character; it sort of reminded me of Maccesfield or Alderly Edge up in Cheshire. It isn’t hard to get to at all: mind you, last night, Lyn lead the way in her powerchair: the way she took us, down roads I had never seen before despite six years of exploration, made my jaw drop at her knowledge of the area. In all, then, it was a great evening out with the woman I love – one definitely worth recording. Watching Lyn grow in confidence since getting her new chair, leading the way and following her nose, is magnificent. I truly hope we have many more nights like it to come.

I have become quite attached to the keyboard I use. I’ve had it for over ten years. I told the learning support staff at Macc college that I preferred to use a Maltron expanded keyboard, so the got me one. That was in about 2002, and since then I’ve used this thing for my batchelor’s then my master’s, as well as to type most of my blog entries. I honestly think I’ve written over half a million words with it. It has stood me in good stead, and I’ve become very fond of it. I’m almost as fast as any ‘normal’ typist on it. Now, though, it’s starting to fail, repeating letters or not registering them when I press the keys. Time to get a new keyboard, I think. It won’t be easy to bid farewell to this old thing after all I’ve used it to do, but it’s time has almost come. I just emailed Maltron to ask how to buy a new one. Goodbye old girl you were great.

After last night, my deep-seated loathing for Nigel Farage is confirmed. How that pestilent, repulsive little xenophobe can have the audacity to come before the nation and tell lie after lie, barely disguising his hatred for those he sees as foreign, is beyond me. Unfortunately, though, we didn’t get the knock out blow I was hoping for: Farage managed to walk away from the argument unscathed; and while CaMoron in my eyes performed much better, he didn’t really put the debate to bed. That worries me greatly: with a day over two weeks to go, I hear some pundits are saying the outists are ahead in the polls. I hope with all my heart that they do not win. They cannot win! It would be a monumental step back for the UK, both socially and politically: Not only would we cut ourselves off from our nearest neighbours, but we’d become an individualistic, inward-looking, greed-driven nation. Farage’s comments about trading more with the commonwealth boil down to an attempt to revive the british empire. That he would prefer a racist, colonial system where britain bossed everyone about over a democratic, pluralist one tells us all we need to know about that abhorrent little xenophobe. I just hope with every fibre of my being that we aren’t stupid enough to be taken in by such folly.

A couple of days ago I came across the videos of one Stefan Molyneux on Youtube, in which he was ‘explaining’ why the UK should leave the EU. It took the form of a webcam conversation with some other guy, and they were spouting the typical right-wing, intellectually void tosh we’ve heard all before: stuff about protecting british culture from foreign influences (but oh no – they aren’t xenophobes!!) I watched about half of it, when, as usual, the old moro reflex kicking in and starting to shake with rage, I left a comment asking why these two morons should be allowed webcams when all they were going to use them for was spew such vapid nonsense over the web.

It was a stupid, facetious comment. I should have taken the time to explain why they were wrong, going through it point by inane point. But in that moment I just wanted to get something out, just to vent my anger. They were being so obnoxious and arrogant: from the way they spoke it was as if they regarded anyone who didn’t agree with them as inferior. It came across as deliberately combative, and that, to me, is like a red rag to a bull.

almost immediately, I started to get replies. Molyneux himself responded that what I said was not an argument – a valid enough point – so I flagged up what I wrote in this entry, about culture always changing, and their position reducing essentially down to a form of xenophobia. That was a mistake, as I was inundated with a tirade of abuse from others. I was even invited by one respondent to kill myself, but I stuck to my guns. Outists don’t like the folly of what they are saying pointed out, nor do xenophobes like being called xenophobes; but to frame the argument in terms of trying to protect one’s culture from those you see as ‘other’ – people whom you claim hate you – reduces down to a form of xenophobia.

In the end, though, it got too much. I was getting replies every five minutes, and I didn’t have the time or patience to try to argue my corner. There was no reasoning with them. They saw me as a liberal – one even called me a libtard – something they seemed to despise. Indeed, in one of Molyneux’ other videos he rails against what he calls ‘liberal hypocrisy, the lack of any logic or understanding hidden by the quick edits and snide, arrogant remarks. Apparently, we discriminate against white male culture in favour of minorities. Such reasoning fails to take any account of the history of oppression minorities have faced, or the considerable advantages in terms of cultural capital the white male still has. It’s an attitude i’ve encountered time and time again: as soon as anyone calls them up on their bigotry and desire to oppress, or points out the folly in their talk of wanting to ‘preserve their culture’, they cry oppression. But they do so with such arrogance and condescension that it belies the bigotry beneath: it comes across as ”i’m a white male, so I know best.”

I deleted the thread last night. It got too much; I couldn’t be asked trying to argue with these right-wing fools. They employ an inane, intellectually void type of logic which prioritises white male culture over all others, then whenever anyone points out their bias, lack of evidence or illogic, the accuse you of bias. They also claim the education system and media is biassed against them; but instead of considering that that might be because people in education and media know the folly of authoritarian nationalism, they say it’s all a big liberal conspiracy to discriminate against conservatives in favour of minorities. They seem to refuse to accept that they might be wrong, and that others might know a bit more about the world than they do.

Thus people like Molyneux make their videos, railing agains some fantasy ‘liberal elite’, spreading what boils down to hatred, acting like they are saying something intellectually coherent and getting scores of hits for doing so. They offer no sensible evidence to back up what they say, but the moment someone like me calls them up on it, the pounce, deriding the comment and demanding evidence. And the moment you supply it, they dismiss it as biassed. There is thus no point arguing.

I believe this is part of what is known as ‘the info wars’. The liberal view is in the majority, because it is logical and pluralist. Thus when conservative

authoritarianism encounters it, it considers it oppressed because it sees itself surrounded and outmatched. Rather than accepting their selves as equal to everyone else, conservative white males take to the web and start shouting their heads off, decrying things like positive discrimination and political correctness as forms of discrimination against them. They desperately want to cling to the cultural advantages that they think should be their birthright, and use the tone and style of argument they find used against them to try to do so. Tonally their videos have an air of knowing to them, but the reasoning such people use would convince only the most naive. They insist the weight of evidence is theirs, but that insistence essentially comes from their belief in their ethnic superiority; they automatically reject any more objective viewpoint questioning their superiority as socialism. To attack liberal pluralism on the grounds that it discriminates against the dominant culture boils down to a justification of their own desire to discriminate. How can you argue with someone who sees himself as superior because of his ethnicity or socioeconomic class, and demands his oppressive, discriminatory views be seen as just as valid as anyone else’s, even when they lack any form of intellectual coherence and run counter to the pluralism everyone else holds dear.

I fear I might have been wrong last week. Watching top Gear last night felt like watching a cheap imitation, like someone trying to impersonate someone else but failing miserably. Evans et al just don’t have that spark, the [i]je nu se qua[/i], that clarkson and co had, and the more they try to recapture it, the more it feels like imitation. It just isn’t the same. I thought I’d give them a chance – after all, people may have said similar things when Gene Roddenberry created star trek TNG – but, after last night, I can’t see it getting any better no matter how many chances you give it. Top Gear was Jeremy Clarkson; the show without him just seems pointless, a cheap imitation, and I don’t think I’ll watch it any more.

I never really liked John Major when he was PM, but what he said this morning on the Andrew Marr show was spot on. As reported here, he launched a blistering attack on the outists. While he stayed within the confines of decorum, I thought Major looked genuinely angry at the way Vote Leave is currently conducting itself. ”He told Andrew Marr he was ‘angry about the way the British people are being misled’ by fellow Conservative Boris Johnson and Vote Leave.” He called their campaign ‘squalid’ and ‘deceitful’, sentiments I couldn’t agree more with. The way the outists are conducting themselves, the absolute bullshit they are flinging at the nation, tells us all we need to know about this bunch of conmen. At best, it reduces down to them trying to get rid of hard-earned human rights guaranteed by the EU; at worst it is abject xenophobia. I just hope we don’t fall for their hate-filled dissembling.

I really must flag this great piece by Sir Patrick Stewart in the Guardian up. In it, he explains why he thinks it’s so vital that we do not leave the EU. He recalls the devastation world war two left, saying that we cannot risk going back to the state of affairs before it. He writes, ”And when the European Union came into existence and the UK became a member, it was for me a triumph of all those convictions that the future must be one of worldwide cooperation and unity, and here we were paving the way with the beginnings of collaboration across Europe and learning the lessons of our own history.” That is a sentiment I totally, passionately agree with. Not only is Stewart one of my favourite actors (whom I have met, by the way), he is also spot on politically.

This poll card looks quite accurate to me [img description=”undefined image” align=”centre”]/images/poll card.jpg[/img]

Just a quick language-related note today. You may have noticed me using the words ‘outist’ and ‘outism’ to refer to those who want to leave the EU. I like playing with language and creating words like that. The campaign to leave often feels like an -ism, like fascism and nazism. The problem is, it occurs to me that ‘outism’, the word, is a bit too close to ‘autism’. I must emphasise that this is not deliberate: I am not making a joke, or saying that all Vote Leave campaigners are autistic. I know from my work at school that autism is a very serious condition, and that people on the autistic spectrum go through some real emotional turmoil and hardship. Nobody told me to write this entry; I just wanted to make clear that I’m not trying to be funny, or laugh at what is often a severe disability.

If I told you that I now believed that the human race was controlled by a species of three metre high reptiles, you would probably ask what evidence I had for it. If I then said only a few people could see these reptilian beings because they operated on a different frequency of light, you would probably dismiss me as mad. It thus both bemuses and intrigues me that David Icke can make the c;aims he does. Perhaps I should just leave him to it, as most academics seem to do – he’s harmless. But as one interested in ‘the big questions’, it puzzles me that so many people take him seriously. He offers no real evidence backing up his pronouncements. Yes, humans have a smidgen of reptile DNA, and yes, snakes and reptiles crop up quite frequently in both ancient and modern texts; but to go from there to claiming that we’re secretly ruled by reptiles is a huge jump. I try to be open to any and all ideas, but those ideas must hold up to academic scrutiny. What Icke says patently does not; but instead of quietening down, he insists it is the academic/scientific process that is wrong, and that we must go beyond what is physical and observable. He says we’re somehow ‘programmed’ from birth to dismiss the type of stuff he says as absurd. The question then is, how do we go beyond the physical? How do we know something is real if we can’t see or feel evidence for it? By taking such a position, though, Icke gives himself carte blanche to say whatever he wants and get others to believe him. As an academic I find that dangerous. He has set himself up as a guru, spouting all kind of nonsense from the stage, invoking stuff mainstream science rejected long ago, like psychics and ghosts; whenever anyone questions him, he just claims to be operating beyond normal physical barriers, bypassing any scrutiny and effectively saying that if you don’t believe him, you somehow aren’t awake to the ‘truth’. He’s obviously making good money doing what he does; what puzzles me is how many people fall for it. From an anthropological point of view, it’s interesting how he can captivate so many.

I keep coming across the argument from those who want to leave the EU that if everyone embraced multiculturalism, everyone would become the same. If every city became a multicultural city, they would all lose their distinctiveness as they would all have the same mixture of peoples. Everywhere would be bland and grey, and there would be no point in travelling as everywhere would be alike. Of course, nobody wants this to happen; I love travelling (who doesn’t?) and the point of travelling is to go and experience different cultures. Hence this argument gets to me.

Yet it seems to me that those who make it are disingenuous. No city could ever lose it’s distinctiveness: could London ever become like Paris, Rome, New York or Tokyo? Clearly not. Every city will remain distinct. Of course, if people from other cultures move in, the make up of a city will change. But that would only affect the suburbs: the core of a city will remain unique. Moreover, as a Londoner I relish the variety of languages I hear spoken on the street and the number of cuisines I can sample. It’s part of what makes the city great. I know, too, that this precise mixture is unique to London – you won’t get this mix of ‘native londoners’, polish and AfroCaribbean people anywhere else. Thus for outists to make such an argument is wholly false: they are pretending to care about something they do not, appealing to a liberals’ desire to protect cultural variety in order to get votes, when in fact the only culture they care about is their own. Yes, cultural diversity is to be relished, but you don’t need to force people to live apart to protect it. Immigration might influence a culture, but that has always been the case. Culture has always changed. At the same time, no matter who lives there cities like London will always retain their distinctiveness: there have been centuries of immigration to both London and paris, but they remain resolutely unalike. Thus the argument is a false one: outists do not make it because they value diversity, but because they want to reject those they see as foreign.

I just came across this bbc story, reporting that ”The trailer for Disney Pixar’s Finding Dory has thousands of people wondering if the film has set a precedent by featuring a lesbian couple.” Although, having just checked out the trailer in question, I’m not sure I can see what they are talking about, if it is true then surely this is great progress on the LGBT front. As with disabled people, lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people are severely under represented in the mainstream media, so for a company like disney, so often taken to be quite conservative, to include a lesbian couple in one of it’s films, is a major step forward. No doubt there will be people who vehemently oppose this, hating the fact that so-called ‘alternative lifestyles’ are being ‘normalised’, but, to me, such normalisation is long overdue. It’s high time we saw gay people in disney films, more transgender people on tv and disabled people at the cinema. Humanity is wonderfully diverse, and art should reflect that diversity.

I still harbour a dream of humanity one day transcending arbitrary geographical barriers and working as one. Wouldn’t it be cool if we could forget our differences and came closer. That way, we could better organise ourselves: we could coordinate who gets what resources on a worldwide scale more easily. as Marx put it, ”from each according to ability, to each according to need.” I don’t mean getting too close: human diversity, and the uniqueness of each culture, must be cherished. Nor do I mean establishing a single world state, whose political structure and civil service, as I wrote here, would have to be so big and complex that it would be unmanageable. I just want humanity to take a more cooperative, less adversarial stance; to start seeing ourselves in terms of a species rather as members of distinct nation states. The world should be a place where everyone can contribute and has a voice irrespective of where you come from. Is that such a naive dream?

To me, the EU is working towards that goal. It’s about building a single framework we can all live under. Of course, outists do not share that goal: they seek a disunited, deregulated system where those who have are allowed to lord it over those who have not. Instead of cooperation and compromise, they value rivalry, greed and selfishness. Vote out, and this country becomes their playground. We’d become an irrelevant little island off north-west europe, where xenophobia is normalised, the welfare state is torn to shreds and the most extreme, perverse form of capitalism is allowed to dominate. I hope with all my heart that that does not happen.

I desperately hope anyone considering voting Out in the EU referendum watches this video by owen Jones. Called ”six reasons to remain”, it eloquently explains what is at stake, and why it is so vital that we don’t succumb to outist lies and xenophobia.

Top Gear is not dead. To be honest allowing it to die was never going to be an option for the BBC: it is, after all, one of their biggest shows and greatest worldwide exports. What we saw last night was not the flop I feared and was half expecting. As my dad said in his comment to yesterday’s entry, ”Chris Evans shouted too much, and did a poor Jeremy Clarkson impression, but apart from that the programme was OK. I did get a vague hint that they intend to sell the programme in the USA :)” I think dad hit it on the head: yes, there were spots of imitation; Evans often used Clarkson’s famous catch phrases, such as ”some say” when introducing the stig. But they were careful not to let it go too far or to let it slip into repetition or parody. They kept the essential formula the same but didn’t try to pretend nothing had changed. I thought Chris Evans acquitted himself well, binging in his own style but with a few nods to what went before. As David Sillito puts it here, ”The reinvention of Top Gear in 2002 by Clarkson probably owes something to the atmosphere and irreverent energy of a show like Evans’s TFI Friday.” Bringing in the presenter of the show which the new-look Top Gear was probably largely based upon was a good idea. Evans still has the energy to carry it off. As for Matt Leblanc, I’m not entirely sure why he was there, other than, as Dad says, to appeal to the american audience. What does Joey from friends have to do with cars? Then again, I saw sparks of promise in him last night – maybe he’ll come into his own in future shows.

Top gear, then, is far from dead. It clearly has a life beyond it’s original presenters. What we saw last night was, I felt, promising and encouraging. The question now is, where do they go with it, and can they keep it up?

Top Gear is back tonight. To be honest, Sunday evenings have not felt quite like sunday evenings without my weekly dose of car-related anarchism. Only, it won’t really be Top Gear, will it? I can’t help thinking that a large part of what made Top Gear Top Gear was it’s presenters, and without that slightly juvenile, slightly blokey, slightly fascist chemistry between Clarkson, Hammond and May, it won’t be the same show. They can get new presenters, and no doubt they will try to recapture the feeling which made the show so popular, but inevitably it will be an imitation, and we’ll all know it. No doubt Chris Evans et al will do their best; perhaps, conscious of the potential criticisms, they’ll ”take the show in a new direction” and ”make it their own”, but we’ll all know we are watching a show which should have been allowed to die. They are stepping into other people’s shoes, trying to make other people’s glory their own.

I have been wrong about such things before, of course. The show tonight could rule. But can Chris Evans really square up to Jeremy Clarkson? You could say he can’t win: if they try to do something too similar to the previous show, people will accuse them of imitation; but if they try to take the show in a new direction it would just feel too different to the show we all love. Either way, people will turn off. Perhaps the bbc should have just let Top Gear pass into history. Then again, I could be wrong and we could find ourselves watching something even better than it was before. It boils down to the question of how integral the original presenters personalities were to the success of the program. The radio times notes that Clarkson, Hammond and May now have a show going out concurrently on Amazon Prime. Which will be better received? We’ll just have to wait to tonight to find out.

My postal vote arrived this morning, and I’m very happy to report that I just put it back in the post box, having signed it, sealed it, and put a cross in the box marked ‘Remain in the European Union’.

I think I’ll flag this Guardian article up today. ”A strong warning that austerity policies can do more harm than good has been delivered by economists from the International Monetary Fund, in a critique of the neoliberal doctrine that has dominated economics for the past three decades.” Although part of me wants to cry ”I could have told them that!” it’s good to have what we on the left have long suspected officially recognised by an independent body. ‘ ”The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries,” they said. ”The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent.” ‘ Although the right are so wedded to their greed-based philosophy that I can hear their cries of ‘bias!’ and ‘leftist propaganda!’ already, a report by a body like the IMF is hard to argue with. This dispels the old lie that greed somehow benefits all, and exposes the truth once and for all that neoliberalism boils down to selfishness.

I just finished the first draft of my write-up of yesterday’s event for school. I think I might as well pop it on here too:

Communication Works 2016 was a great success. Around thirty exhibitors came to the annual conference at Charlton Park Academy, displaying the latest in communication equipment and technology. The special guest this year was Lee Ridley, aka Lost Voice Guy, a comic who performs using his Lightwriter. Ridley gave an opening address and then stayed throughout the day. He is fast becoming an ambassador for communication aid users, having been on Radio Four and increasingly appearing on television. Speaking personally as a communication aid user, having him there and getting to meet him felt quite an honour. This afternoon I watched a video of his opening speech, having arrived too late to watch it yesterday: His address was a thorough and well-informed discussion of his life as a communication aid user, how he got his first VOCA, the efforts he has to go to to communicate how he wants, and peoples’ reactions to him as a comic with cerebral palsy.

There were also several seminars throughout the day. One was about making a video, to be played on inset days, where students could tell teachers what they liked and did not like about school, and how to improve things from their point of view. Another seminar was by Paul Richards. Richards runs Stay up Late, a charity which enables people with disabilities – particularly learning difficulties – to have fuller social lives by ‘buddying’ them with able-bodied volunteers. Too often, he noticed, disabled people were being taken home early from shows, clubs and music venues because their personal assistant’s shift ended. I know from personal experience that this has caused many nights out to be cut short. Stay up Late introduces people with disabilities to volunteers who are prepared to stay out longer, even into the early hours, so that people with disabilities can enjoy the type of social lives everyone else has.

Another highlight was [insert name] who helped people visualise what was being said by drawing pictorial representations of it on large sheets of paper. She was constantly adding to her pictures throughout the day, creating images which were both expressive, fascinating an quite amusing. It was like a constant commentary in image form. The way that she was able to keep up with everything going on in the hall, translating it into such stunning imagery, was truly remarkable.

Communication Works 2016 was, then, a triumph. I think all who attended would have found it richly rewarding. It was good to see everyone discussing communication, something so essential to life yet something so often overlooked and taken for granted. This event brought the subject into focus, bringing together a diverse community of people, and getting them talking.

I was just chatting to Lost Voice Guy himself, Lee Ridley. Today is the annual Communication Works convention at school, and he was there to open it.

Unfortunately I missed his opening speech, but I had a brief chat to him after. It was great to meet a living legend of the disability community and a great ambassador for VOCA users. Anyway, having just popped home for swig of coffee and bite to eat (and, indeed, to blog) it will soon be time for me to get back to school. Expect a full review/write up on here soon.

I just have another Guardian piece to link to today. According to this article, over 300 prominent historians have signed a letter urging Britain to vote to stay in the EU, and warn that we risk becoming irrelevant in the world if we vote to leave. Needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree. We would have cut ourselves off from the world, and told it that the small-minded little people of this island are content to withdraw into their selves and no longer want to play on the world stage. The historians write: ”On 23 June, we face a choice: to cast ourselves adrift, condemning ourselves to irrelevance and Europe to division and weakness; or to reaffirm our commitment to the EU and stiffen the cohesion of our continent in a dangerous world.” I just hope that we heed their wisdom.

I think I better flag this excellent Guardian piece up today. By Aditya Chakrabortty, it explains that tory ‘austerity’ is essentially about flogging off everything the public owns. The tories want to put everything into private hands: every school, swimming pool and post office. Chakrabortty writes ”Privatisation is the multibillion pound centrepiece of Osborne’s austerity – yet it rarely gets a mention from either politicians or press.”

[quote=”Chakraborly”]Austerity is far bigger than that: it is a project irreversibly to transfer wealth from the poorest to the richest. It’s doing the job very nicely: while the typical British worker is still earning less after inflation than he or she was before the banking crash, the number of UK-based billionaires has nearly quadrupled since 2009. Even while he slashes benefits, Osborne is deep into a programme to hand over much of what is still owned by the British public to the wealthiest.[/quote]

Thus, far from being an economic necessity, austerity is entirely ideologically driven. These people believe poor people deserve to be poor, and that rich people have a natural right to lord it over everyone else. Thus government should do nothing to level the playing field, but instead slash high-rate tax and reduce the welfare state. It’s a sickeningly selfish worldview based on greed and arrogance. In public hands, things are run for the good of all; in private hands, things are run for profit. They say, of course, competition pushes up standards, but that is bull: competition means you cut corners to minimize costs. Publicly owned assets can be centrally, democratically planned with some kind of strategy in mind, whereas in private hands the only motive is profit. The result is everything gets worse, and we all suffer while those who own the assets get richer.

Although I’m not entirely sure which side it’s on, I really must flag this delicious piece of star Trek related satire up. ”In a stark warning issued today, the Klingons cautioned that if Earth leaves the United Federation of Planets – a move widely referred to as ‘Trexit’ – it could plunge the galaxy into an economic recession, or even worse, all-out war.” Of course I must point out that, as a founding member of the Federation, the people of Earth surely would not be so stupid. It would render it irrelevant in the alpha quadrant; alone in the galaxy, just as it was before first contact. The only way we escaped the chaos that existed before then was by uniting, and the only way we can ensure a prosperous quadrant, for ourselves and for others, is by remaining part of the federation.

One month to go. Only time will show weather we stay or go.

‘Till then, who’s to know?

***

Stay or leave?

They’ll lie and deceive.

Oh, who to believe?

It’s hard to conceive

***

of a more brutal bout:

how they all scream and shout hurling insults about.

Are you in or out?

***

It’s all so tight in this vicious fight.

But come what might Will we do what’s right?

Lyn and I had a very nice day yesterday. We didn’t go far: as I thought, we just had a walk around charlton in our chairs. We went to the park, where L had a big late breakfast and I managed to catch some of the cricket match. Having watched quite an impressive win for the mighty eights, and Lyn having got some groceries, it was back home for a lovely evening of music, eating and drinking. Paul, who has just returned from Brazil, made a delicious kind of stew. I had got a great big chocolate cake to follow, but realised too late that we didn’t have candles. I don’t think that mattered too much though: Lyn seemed to have a lovely time, and it was great dancing around our living room to one of her awesome mixes.

After dad’s yesterday, Lyn’s birthday has come again. She just opened the presents I got for her. I’d been worried that I didn’t get her much, but she seems pleased with what I got. Mind you, after getting her a new cat last year, I don’t think I could have topped that. (Guy is very much still alive and well, by the way). This afternoon, we’ll play things by ear, and perhaps go out in our chairs. Well, here’s wishing the most incredible woman in the world a very happy birthday.

I was up at Guy’s hospital yesterday. My last visit to the local dentist didn’t go well, basically: she thought she saw a hole, but I couldn’t stop moving my head, so she sent me up to the specialist dental unit at guy’s to discuss ‘sedation’. The meeting went well, and I left feeling a lot more comfortable with the idea than I did before. As I was leaving, the point came when we had to discuss when I’ll be going up there for the treatment. The lady at the reception desk read out a list of possible times for me to choose, one of which was half past two. When she said that, I chuckled and said ”two-thirty! Yes, then!” The receptionist looked slightly confused, though, clearly not understanding what I found so amusing.

”Get it?” I asked. She shook her head. ”Two thirty, tooth hurty?” I elaborated on my Ipad. She still didn’t get it. I tried again to explain the joke, but again she didn’t see it. I think it may have lost something because I was using a communication aid; either that or she had no sense of humour. I went away feeling tickled, however, knowing I had been able to reference one of the great comedic puns in real life, even if it had fallen slightly flat.

Now though, I must pop to the shops. We just realised we need four candles.

Although you can’t deduce much from it, I think I better just direct you here. I just came across the new ‘trailer’ for the new Star Trek series, and it’s not much to go on: just a few shots of space and the usual male american voice over. Having said that, the graphics look rather un-trek-like, and rather too Abramsverse for my liking, and I have a feeling it’ll just be called Star Trek as no sub-title was used in the clip, so I’m slightly worried. Nonetheless, I could be wrong, so we’ll have to wait and see how it turns out. Mind you, that’s assuming we get to watch it at all, given it’ll be on American cbs pay-per-view, but at least it shows one of my favourite franchises has life in it yet.

The moment we open our mouths, the moment we put pen to paper or finger to keyboard, we begin making decisions. Any utterance any human produces is bound up in a complex range of factors, both conscious and unconscious, personal and social. It occurs to me that the current debate over europe, as with all political debates, boils down to who one believes. The remain camp say x while the outers say y. If one sides cites a source of information, the other side respond with an accusation of bias. The inners point to what Obama says, and the outers accuse Obama as being biassed, part of a new world order and so on. One side says the EU is a rich man’s club which exploits people; remain says it protects people from exploitation. And then both accuse the other of working for those who want to exploit. Thus we reach the absurd point where both sides are using the same argument, saying they want to protect us from exploitation while saying the other side is biassed and just wants to stand up for those doing the exploiting. Given that there is no escaping bias, no way to establish an objective truth, the situation is becoming farcical.

As someone who sees no evidence for a new world order, I advocate staying in to protect people from unfettered capitalism. An outer might respond by saying that it is they who want to protect our rights by escaping a body they see as just as sinister. Then we both accuse one another of being biassed: they might accuse me of being influenced too heavily by the mainstream media, with it’s vested interest in maintaining the status quo and under government control; while I might accuse them of listening too much to people on the web, who essentially promote a right-wing, nationalist agenda, and play directly into the hands of those who would have us do away with all regulation in order to exploit us. It is a total mess of claim and counter claim, each accusing the other of basically the same thing. The stupid part is, we both come from the same, sceptical, rights-protecting position.

Although Lyn has stepped back from the Paraorchestra to focus on her own compositions, I am still quite interested in news about them. I’d like to flag this up: they are now based in Bristol, where this June they will be performing at Coleston hall. From what I read, they will be playing Terry Riley’s seminal work In C, a piece which consists of 53 short melodies which performers can chose to play as and when they want. It seems to me a perfect piece for a group like the Paraorchestra, both in practical terms as it allows for the flexibility the players need due to their various disabilities, and as a metaphor for the group itself: a diverse group of people coming together to form a unified, beautiful whole. It’s great to see the group doing so well: it seems to me to be becoming quite preeminent on the disability arts scene; something of a major player showcasing what musicians with disabilities are capable of.

I am fast beginning to wish this referendum had never come about. Not because I fear the result, but because it seems to be tearing the nation apart. We are all in one camp or the other, and we are beginning to hate each other. I’ve always been hot tempered when it comes to politics – a mixture of my greek genes and cp, I think but at the moment whenever I see an outer on tv, I feel a searing hatred towards him. I care passionately about this country and it’s future. I care about people, especially those with a disadvantage. What I see is a bunch of nationalists trying to mislead people into voting for a future where inequality will become more overt and the strong will dominate the weak. Their lies, their crass insincerity, their selfishness, appall me.

The debate has descended into the lowest form of discourse. Insults are being openly hurled on both sides, like two groups of football fans, half drunk on cheap larger, chanting vileness at each other. I can’t help but get caught up in it. Is this what we have become? A load of brutes, hating one another simply because we see things differently? The european referendum is tearing us apart: brother against brother, father against son, husband against wife. The hatred is building, and I worry where it will lead us.

It really gets my goat when europhobes try to liken the aims of the EU to the goals of people Hitler. They say that the european union is just another way to achieve Hitlers ambition to unite europe under one government. It is a very disingenuous scare tactic, either designed to mislead people or betraying a severe lack of understanding. The EU is not about totalitarianism; it is about forging a single framework of rules which people across the continent can work under. It is about safeguarding people’s rights, not taking them away. It’s about working together towards common goals, not imposing the will of one over the many. And nobody is interested in imposing some paneuropean monoculture upon everyone. Thus I ask, how dare people like Boris Johnson try to invoke hitler to further their goals? They are the ones seeking to impose their will over many: to conservatives like him, european rules get in the way of unfettered neoliberalism; it gives people – especially members of minorities – rights which people like Johnson and farage would rather they didn’t have. For people who want the rich to be able to exploit the poor and the strong to dominate the weak, of course a body like the EU would be a hinderance. It was founded, in part, to safeguard rights across europe which they would rather they did not have. Thus for Johnson or anyone to try to liken the EU to the goals of hitler is utterly hypocritical. The reverse is true: they are the ones who seek to dominate, who think that social darwinism should be unleashed, who think that minorities are a burden to society. Outers have far more in common with hitler than the EU does.

Not far from Charlton Village is Maryon Park, a small, quiet park relatively out of the way (inasmuch as anywhere in London can be called out of the way). Lyn and I were out in our chairs again yesterday, getting to know two potential new PAs. We went through Maryon Park, and I noticed something interesting. I go through that park quite a bit, usually on my way to Woolwich. I’ve always ignored the large wooded mound on one side of the park, but yesterday, Lyn leading, we followed the path the other way, up and round. Something piqued my interest quite soon: that mound was too round and steep to be natural.

I went down there again this afternoon, quite curious. My limited knowledge of archeology made me wonder whether it was some kind of ancient fort – it certainly looked like one to me. I had a little scout around, but didn’t see much. Of course I had to keep to the path, and the place is too overgrown to make out anything like ruins. However, getting back home I googled it, and found I was right: Maryon Park (who’s other claim to fame is that Antonioni filmed a part of Blow Up (1966) there) contains Cox’s Mount, a roman hill fort. That really appeals to the archaeologist in me – I wonder if anyone has ever excavated it. How cool to have such a fascinating, ancient thing so close.

I would just like to state my support and respect for drugs company Pfizer. The bbc reports that the american company no longer wants to supply the drugs for lethal injections. ”We strongly object to the use of any of our products in the lethal injection process for capital punishment” the company has stated, ” stressing that its products were meant to save the lives of patients, rather than killing people. Of course, as someone who finds execution under any circumstance utterly abhorrent and barbaric, I applaud this decision. All other pharmaceutical-related politics aside, drugs are supposed to help people. If I made drugs, I would not want my product used to kill people. Good move Pfizer.