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.

Something truly awesome happened yesterday evening. We had just got back from Asda, having done our weekly shop. We had ‘walked’ there and back, and lyn was still in her powerchair. It had been a nice little outing: shopping, and then a coffee. L is still getting used to handling her chair, so we had been together, Dominik with us; but yesterday, Lyn suddenly said she wanted a walk out on her own. That had never happened before: she has always needed someone to push her in her manual chair, and someone’s always been with her when she’s been out in her electric. Last night was a first. Of course we let her go; Dom and I stayed home. Truth be told, I was a bit nervous.

I need not have been: Lyn returned about half an hour later, safe and sound, having just been to a local park and back. Lyn is actually pretty competent driver. Yet, the special thing is, it was her first solo trip out I’ve ever known her to take. In fact, I asked her after she got home, and it was her first trip out by herself since 1992, when she was living in Cardiff. That struck me as pretty damn awesome: she’s only had it for two or three weeks, but her new chair is already changing her life: she seems more confident and independent. One can only imagine the sense of newfound freedom she must feel. I could tell from her eyes when she got home, that was just the first of many such trips – I better get used to it. As I joked with Lyn when she got back, now I know how she feels when I go out on one of my little jaunts.

I know it sounds a bit pathetic on my part, given I’m supposed to be commenting on such things, but I hadn’t heard of the bbc’s change of governance until late last night. Of course, I knew it’s charter renewal was coming up, and I was a bit worried about it, but I didn’t know when it was or what would happen. Now that it has, I’m not sure what to make of it: last night, the beeb were putting a brave face on, saying it could be much worse and that the Tories had watered down their ambitions for it’s complete (figurative) destruction. On the other hand, the fact is they are going to impose a external regulator and government appointed DG upon it. While you could say that increasing links with he government makes the bbc more democratic and accountable, the only other places with such a relationship between government and broadcaster are north Korea and China.

The fact is, the tories hate the bbc, which they see as too left wing. They hate anything funded by the state. Like four-year-olds who haven’t learned to share, tories think they should only fund themselves and don’t see the point of everyone contributing to a general pot so other people might benefit. Hence the moron currently calling himself culture secretary (what a joke – the fat p’tahk wouldn’t know culture if it hit him on his arse) has likened the licence fee to the poll tax. Had he had his way, the license fee would have been scrapped and the beeb gutted. As it is, we’re now going to have to pay for Iplayer, which I’m not happy about.

While part of me says it could be worse, and that the bbc basically survived, another part of me is angry that these nonces in government think they have a right to try to remake the bbc in their own image. Like the nhs, the bbc is one of the best parts of the uk. On a personal level, now that I come to think about it, I owe a lot to the beeb: where else did I first encounter Star Trek but bbc2? Who showed Michael Palin or David Attenborough documentaries? Where did Monty Python begin? Who produced Happy and Glorious? I owe so much to the bbc; we all do. That the tories think they can push it around and do as they please with such a valuable thing is yet another reason why I loathe them. It belongs to us all, something we grew up with to be cherished; yet CaMoron and co think it is theirs to remake, dictate to and meddle with. Their arrogance is astounding.

Tonight I feel something I haven’t felt in quite some time. It has been a wile since I had the sense of achievement one gets knowing one’s done a good day’s work; probably not since I was doing my master’s. Today, though, I was back in the fold, trying to work out how to add audio to a presentation. I’m not due to do it until September, but I’m worried about how I’m going to present it. The problem is, trying to get a computer to say the words as the slides are shown. Recording everything into mp3s was easy enough; the problem was trying to embed them into the presentation file, then transferring it onto my Ipad. I must have spent the last four hours on it, first on my own, then with Lyn helping. The odd thing is, the time flew by: it was sort of fun to ty to solve such a problem.

This might be slightly irrational, but Gareth Malone is really getting on my nerves. You might have noticed that the Invictus Games are currently on in Florida. It is an Olympic-style sporting event for wounded service people, set up in 2014. To be honest I’m not sure what to make of it: it reeks a little of deifying wounded soldiers, trying to cast them in the same light as olympic and paralympic athletes; sort of like the gladiator-worship of Rome. On the other hand, if it helps in their recovery and rehabilitation, who am I to criticise it?

However, the thing that has me particularly irritated about it is ‘Gareth’s Invictus Choir’. Not ‘Gareth Malone’s Invictus Choir’ or ‘The Invictus Choir’, but ‘Gareth’s Invictus Choir’, as if he thinks we should all automatically recognise who he is. This is a show where Malone goes around creating a choir of wounded service people to sing at the Invictus ceremonies. Now, that sounds rather familiar! Charles Hazlewood did near enough exactly the same thing in 2012 with the Paraorchestra, so it strikes me that Malone has stolen the idea in a way. Both projects concern the gathering of people with disabilities into a musical group, who then go on to perform at a ceremony. Unlike Hazelwood, however, Malone seems to want us all to look at him, and say how great he is for working with the service people to overcome the trauma of combat, rather than at the singers. Indeed, much of the show concerns Malone teaching choir members to sing. Almost every shot in the show was of Malone or included him, giving the impression that Malone is the star of the show and originator of the entire concept. Nowhere as far as I could tell was the Paraorchestra referenced, yet the concept is almost identical. Moreover, whereas in the documentary on the Paraorchestra, the contributions from Hazlewood focussed on the participating musicians, in this, Malone focusses on himself and how the process is effecting him, as if he wants to use the show to boost his profile rather than the singers’. Sorry, but such egoism is nauseating. They could at least allude to the Paraorchestra, or say they took their cue from it. But no: Malone obviously wants the concept to be presented as entirely his own, as if he wants us all to say how great he is. Of course it’s great such a group has been set up; I just wish malone would recognise what others have already done rather than try to take credit for a concept he essentially stole, and that he would not blatantly use the talents of disabled people as a means of boosting his public profile.

Lyn and I went out on another epic walk yesterday afternoon. We explored Severndroog Castle and it’s surrounding park, before getting dinner in a pub on the way back. Even though I go past that park in a bus each time I need to go get cash, I had never been into it before yesterday. Now that I have, however, I’ll certainly be going back: the views from up there, atop Shooters hill, are stunning. We must have been able to see ten miles at least, southward across London and into the countryside beyond. With the woman I love by my side, still obviously relishing her new mobility, it was a truly wonderful moment.

Being out meant that I missed the beeb’s tribute to sir David Attenborough. Predictably, I caught up with it this morning on the Iplayer. It struck me as a terrific show, and a fitting tribute to probably the greatest broadcaster who ever lived. Highlights for me were the interview with Michael Palin, and, of course, this gem of a Nick Park animation showing the gorillas giving their take on Attenborough’s most famous moment. It was a fine comic touch, encapsulating the deep affection we all have for a truly great man. The show closed with a rendition of What a Wonderful World; with the view from the top of Shooters Hill still fresh in my memory, I certainly agree with that sentiment.

Just to follow up on this entry, for the record I still quite passionately support the bbc. It is currently coming under all sorts of attacks from both left and right; you have to feel quite sorry for it. The rightists say it’s too left wing, and those on the left fear it’s shifting towards the right – it cannot win. The problem is, the tory scumbags currently running the country are trying to control what the beeb says: they try to stop the bbc presenting them too negatively, or covering the real effects of the cuts. Fearing for it’s survival, the bbc has no choice but to watch what it says. It’s instincts are to be impartial and objective, but those on the right see that as having a left-wing bias. The result is that it swerves right. It’s editors probably know the shit it’s currently being forced to spew is just that, but it has no choice. Thus we should be defending the bbc against tory interference, not attacking it or calling for the end of the license fee. To do so is to simply do the bidding of it’s commercial rivals like Sky, who’d like nothing more than to see the bbc out of their way so they can ram their inane free-market bullshit down out throats.

One of my all-time favourite memories is still watching Monty Python Live. To be able to say that I have watched the greatest ever comedy troupe in the flesh is a great privilege. I had thought Python belonged to the past; as something over, gone, ex, and which could only be seen on youtube. Thus that night in 2014 was special to me beyond words. Yet it would never have happened had it not been for one man; the great, great man who commissioned Python in the first place.

Monty Python is just one of innumerable things we have to thank Sir David Attenborough for. Today is his ninetieth birthday, so I was just reading about him. Of course, I’ve read his autobiography, Life on Air, but that was a while ago and my memory needed refreshing. The number of experiences the man has had, the things he has seen and done, is staggering. On top of that, he has done more to educate people about the wonders of the natural world than anyone else. Forget Coustau, forget Irwin, Attenborough is without peer. As a broadcaster the man is a colossus. I also love the fact that, like the queen, he seems to have always been there – a gentle authority figure, a part of life in Britain since before my parents were born. Yet, not only that, but the programmes he has made and continues to make are utterly fascinating: most of them are stunningly shot, and have a gentle, knowing narration we all remember from childhood. They have educated us all about the natural world, about life outside our windows, bringing it into our lives and inspiring us like no other program. I am in awe of David Attenborough, and honestly feel that we, as a civilisation, owe him a debt of gratitude.

I just turned my computer on, and it’s already becoming quite a good day. Sadiq Kahn has just been announced as Mayor of London. That means that, not only are we now rid of that absolute arsehole Borris Johnson, but we also don’t have that even bigger arsehole, Zac Goldsmith, replacing him. Both were absolutely loathsome tory p’tahks with clear xenophobic tendencies. At least now we have a decent Labour mayor who’ll hopefully make London a bit fairer and who’ll pay a bit more attention to the needs of members of minorities, rather than just sucking up to the millionaires in the City.

Link

I know it’s only about a ship’s name, but reading this story has really put a smile on my face. Instead of Boaty McBoatface, the name the public famously voted for, the UK’s new polar research ship is to be named RRS Sir David Attenborough. While I must admit I liked the public’s choice, it was a bit childish and not really fitting. The new name is far more fitting, and what better tribute could there be to a truly great man? The RRS Sir David Attenborough will launch in 2019.

Just to go back to the merging of cinephilia and fandom, the fusion of the discourses is further illustrated here, in Brows Held High’s review of F for Fake. It displays precisely the fusion of the intellectual engagement of cinephilia, with it’s reflections on authorship and the status of the author as exposed in film, with the textual playfulness of fandom I’m talking about. It is a reaction to a film in which the guy says something about film and art. Thus there is a rhyzomic element to it; it’s both a display of filmic love and an analysis of film and the love of film at the same time. As I said in my entry on his appraisal of Klingon Hamlet, this guy displays a deep intellectual engagement with film – he uses film to say things about film, just as the cinephiles did/do – but with all the playfulness of fandom. By examining Welles’ film about forgery in art, he teases out ideas and arguments surrounding Auterism in film and the status of the artist, using the film to say something about art and film as an art: He uses film as a vehicle to reflect on the nature of film itself, just as the Cahiers group did, but does so in snappy Youtube videos. This is precisely the hybrid of the two discourses I speculate about in my masters thesis. You can probably tell, I’m quite fascinated by the videos he makes.

There is growing skepticism online about the impartiality of the bbc, and I’m beginning to agree with it. While they go on and on about Labour’s problems, they say very little about the election fraud committed by the tories. At least we have online sources like The Canary, which is reporting that the tories are being investigated by the police for illegally overspending on battle busses in last year’s election. That is a criminal offence; if found guilty, ‘dozens” of tories could face fines and/or jail sentences. Yet we hear virtually nothing about it on the mainstream news. It’s pathetic!

I have a tendency to procrastinate. I’ve always had it. When faced with something I don’t quite know how to deal with, I put it off ’till the very last moment. Then I suddenly feel a surge of energy when I decide I want everything sorted and out of the way, and resolve everything in one ultra-productive flurry. Today has been that type of day: I’ve had a couple of things I needed to do hanging over me for a week or so, and today I decided to get off my arse and get them done. They weren’t that big – just a dental appointment and train tickets to arrange etc – but I wasn’t sure how to go about them. Today, however, I came up with a plan, and in a burst of energy lasting about three hours got everything done. Sometimes, it seems, procrastination works, although the gentle rhetorical kick up the arse Lyn gave me last night (”Just go and get it sorted!”) may have had an effect too.

I know it has been bouncing around the internet for a couple of days, but I think I’ll flag this up today. Truth be told, I don’t really know what to make of it: President Obama has made a ‘retirement video’, a sort of self-referential spoof of himself planning what he’s going to do after leaving the White House. The americans seem to think it’s hilarious. I think it was an attempt at rereading formal hierarchies, much the same as we brits did with Happy and Glorious. But it doesn’t quite work for me: perhaps I’m not as familiar with american politics as I should be, so I don’t get a few of the jokes. It is not clear to me what this film is trying to do or say, or whether it’s supposed to be comic or straight; it just leaves me cold. I realise Obama is talking to the opposition leader, which, given how acrimonious American politics can get, is pretty cool; but I still think the Queen parachuting out of a helicopter with 007 is cooler. Granted, the two films were made for entirely different audiences; rather than trying to make the entire world’s jaw drop, this film is a gentle satire made by a retiring president trying to poke fun at himself. On that level, I suppose it’s okay, just not quite as awesome as the Americans seem to think. If they were trying to break ground in terms of playing with their national codes, conventions and structures, they get second prize. We brits set a high bar for this sort of self-referential spoof in 2012, and the yanks have yet to meet it.

Just a quick note to say that I now heartily recommend The Grain Store, near st. Pancras. Lyn and I are just on our way back from having met my parents there for lunch, and I can honestly say I’ve rarely had a better meal. While I only had a main course, the tastes I experienced were amazing. If you can check it out, do so you’ll struggle to find a better meal in London, I suspect. The food, together with the fascinating conversation about the EU referendum between dad and Lyn, means it has been a most entertaining afternoon.

Yesterday afternoon was wonderful. Lyn and I went for a long, long walk together over to Greenwich. We left Dominik at home and set off, Lyn leading the way. I couldn’t help thinking about the shots of Bond and his wife Tracey riding together on horseback in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service as we rode through the great park, now in it’s spring glory. I have long loved going out and exploring the city, but often felt slightly guilty about leaving L at home. Now she can come with me, and judging by yesterday, she’s just as keen for such voyages as I am.

In Greenwich park, Lyn texted Dom, and we waited for him to catch us up. Then we went down into Greenwich together, where we got a drink. Sitting there with the woman I love in one of the coolest parts of London felt incredible; and after that we followed the river back round and then headed for home. We must have gone ten miles at least. I really hope that was just the first of many such trips. Sharing my wanderings with lyn, following our noses as we discover more and more of the city together, will be amazing. But, of course, there’s no hurry: we have all the time in the world.

For the first time ever yesterday, Lyn and I went for a walk in our chairs, just by ourselves. Before now, she has had to have someone pushing her in her manual chair; but yesterday it was just us two. Now that she has a powerchair, she can leave the PA at home and we can share a loving walk. It felt wonderful yesterday. Of course, we didn’t go far – I didn’t want to push our luck, and to e honest I felt a bit nervous – but Lyn drove well, and hopefully it was just the first of many. I think we’ll now be going on such walks quite regularly. It will help Lyn gain confidence in her chair, and it will be a wonderful way for us to spend some quality time together.

Believe it or not, I’m happy. Imagine that: little old spastic me, barely able to walk and talk, happy! What have I got to be happy about? Well, when you think about it, is it so hard to believe? I have a wonderful partner, a great home, a loving, supportive family, and live in the greatest, most exciting city on earth. What have I got to be sad about? Yet according to this excellent article by Tom Shakespeare, many people still assume that people with disabilities must be miserable; they associate disability with sadness. That baffles me, I must say. Certainly, having CP can be a pain in the butt sometimes, but that is most often due to external factors:* I’m not miserable because I use a straw to drink, but I’m miserable when a restaurant doesn’t have any straws. I’m not miserable because I use a wheelchair, but I am when I can’t go to places because there are no ramps or lifts. The situation is therefore much more nuanced than many people seem to assume. I do not lounge about all day feeling sorry for myself, just because I can’t physically do some of the things others can. I enjoy life: I write (using my special extended keyboard); I go for walks (in my wheelchair); I go to pubs (armed with straws). I have done so many incredible things in my life, I genuinely don’t get why people would assume I’m miserable, or that I live a less satisfactory life than anyone else.

*This is, of course, leaving aside the experience of going to special school. Watching one’s classmates pass away one by one is certainly not a happy aspect of being disabled.

I can’t claim I know much about TTIP. I know it’s a huge trade deal with america, and much is currently being said about it. It’s rules apparently state that a government body cannot get in the way of business, so some people think it’s a threat to the NHS. Outers are using the issue to scare people into voting to leave the EU. Of course, if it was true, I would be concerned too: the NHS is an issue which outranks all others, and if I thought our continued membership of the EU threatened it, I’d vote out. But it doesn’t. I just found this article on Labour list, explaining that health is one of the areas exempt from TTIP.

[quote=”Rachel Reeves”]As a US-EU joint declaration last month made clear, TTIP will not ”prevent governments, at any level, from providing or supporting services in areas such as water, education, health, and social services.” EU officials have been at pains to ensure that health services will not be covered by the deal. Cecilia Malmstrom, the Swede who runs the EU’s trade policy, has categorically said that ”health services will not be affected in any way by TTIP.”[/quote]

Thus the outers are using an issue we all care about to fool people into leaving the EU. It’s baffling when you think about it. Why would the EU suddenly want to destroy the NHS, when in the past they have supported it? And why would people who ordinarily want the NHS privatised such a Boris Johnson suddenly want to defend it? It’s a sickeningly cynical ploy on behalf of the outers: they are trying to play on people’s fears, pretending to champion a national institution at the very moment that, according to this Guardian article, the tories have embarked on a ”conscious strategy to run the service down to a point where privatisation can be sold to the public as a way of improving things.” TTIP is no threat to the NHS, and nor is the EU. For the outers to say it is, to pretend to suddenly care about something most of them want broken up, perfectly demonstrates the type of people we are dealing with. While I have a few concerns about TTIP, and, as explained here, one cannot be absolutely sure what will be effected until everything is worked out, in all probability the NHS will be safeguarded. For the outers to use an issue they wouldn’t ordinarily care about to try to fool people into siding with them, is utterly contemptible.

wonderful news! Lyn has a new electric wheelchair. We just got home from the hospital, and L is testing it out. I’ve never seen her like this: she looks so happy and confident, the change in her is amazing. It’s as if getting this chair has turned something on in her which was not quite there before. It’s a shame she had to wait so long for it – Lyn required some quite specialized adaptations – but now she has her own powerchair, I think this is the start of a thrilling new chapter in our lives.

It might be a few months old, but I just came across this interesting Youtube vid by Michael Palin about keeping a diary again. Having kept a blog for thirteen years, I can certainly understand the urge to record: something just compels one to write, every day or so, as if it makes time more concrete. What pricked my attention, though, were Palin’s comments on going back an editing an entry after you write it. An entry, he suggests, can only record one’s thoughts and feelings on a certain day; to go back and change it after it is written is somehow dishonest. I know what he means, and used to impose such a rule on myself, but the urge to edit or add to an entry after I’d posted it got to much, especially if it was about something I cared about. I suppose that just highlights the difference between blogs and diaries: whereas a diary is a very personal, static record of one’s thoughts in time, a blog is public, meant to be read by others, so if something changes, or you think of something you want to add, you can. Maybe the shift from one to the other shows how public our lives have now all become. I know I’ve written about this before, but it occurs to me that this is a symptom of our changed relationship with time: in this postmodern era, the past is no longer fixed; we can rewrite it, altering history. Perhaps some would call that dishonest, but it just shows just how intangible ideas like ‘the past’, ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ really are.

Where the fuck is Jeremy Hunt’s resignation this morning? The guy is a disgrace. The NHS is the most wonderful institution ever created; the medical professionals who work in it all deserve our respect. Instead, the p’tahk Hunt treats them like shit, thinking he can bully them into accepting a contract we all know will put patients in danger. Nobody is against the concept of a seven-day NHS. In fact, it already functions 24/7. This dispute is about how that is funded: to do so properly, the doctors argue more resources need to be put into the NHS, something the tories refuse to do. That’s where the problem lies.

Rather than listening to their concerns, the tories are blatantly trying to manipulate the public into turning against the NHS. The issue could easily be resolved, but the tories don’t want to – they’d rather make political capital. It’s sickeningly cynical. They say they value the NHS while treating it with utter contempt; no doubt this is part of their overall plan to eventually beak it up. If Hunt had any honour, he would resign; but he’s a tory, and none of those arrogant insults to humanity has any. They want to push the NHS so hard that it crumbles and the public start to turn against it, at which time they can foist an American-style free market system on us. The tories would welcome that: they hate everything fair and equal, and loathe paying taxes into a system which helps others. But where will it leave ‘ordinary’ people, or those with disabilities? Lyn and I try to avoid going to the hospital whenever possible, but it’s reassuring to know it’s there should we need it. The tories think that that safety net should only be there for those who can afford private health insurance, and to hell with the rest of us. That’s why they are trying to destroy the NHS, and why it is imperative we stop them. They’re pushing it and pushing it, hoping it will crumble. They are trying to cast the doctors as the bad guys, hoping that the public will turn against them. Thus I support the doctors’ strike and demand Hunt’s resignation: our greatest institution must be maintained, for the good of all.

I was just doing one of my regular searches for Star Trek news, and stumbled on to this piece of sheer awesomeness. A short film responding to people like Theresa May, who say that the ECHR somehow holds us back, it has Sir Patrick Stewart as a prime minister asking cabinet ‘what has the European Convention on Human Rights ever done for us?’ Thus not only does it use one of my favourite actors (who I have met, by the way) in clear reference to a classic scene from Monty Python (who I’ve seen live by the way) but it does so to make a very good point about the biggest issue of the current moment and something I care deeply about. I love it!

When it comes to the question of readership and influence, I try not to hold any illusions. I know very few people read my blog – just my family, friends, and a few people I’ve told about it. That’s why I keep my entries short, and write about things which interest me on any given day. I’m not out to persuade anyone of anything. I’ve noticed, however, that other bloggers take a different approach: they seem to think having a blog means you have power. They give themselves remits, finding subjects to blog about and sticking to that subject. In the disability community in particular, there are one or two sites which seem to have nominated their selves as ‘our’ prime news sources, taking it upon themselves to relate every bit of disability- and welfare-related news to us, as if they were our only source of information. I wouldn’t object – each to their own, and so on – but the way they insist in putting their links in every disability-related facebook page and forum implies these writers think they are of a higher status than the rest of us, when they have just as much access to the primary sources of information as anyone else. In a relatively small community like ours, I have problems with someone taking such a position for himself, and telling everyone to come to him for their disability and welfare-related news. It would be fine if such sites were just called blogs, on a par with the rest of the blogsphere; or else they could set up a proper disability news website with a proper staff; yet to inflate a site to such a position, as if it somehow outranks ‘normal blogs’ like mine, seems to me a tad egotistical.

I feel I should write something about Shakespeare today. He is, of course, a major influence in my life as a writer; I first came across him, like most British children, in GCSE English. We studied Macbeth, and from the first few lines I was in love with the sheer richness of the language. Something in the way he used words blew me away, both in their rhyme and rhythm and the imagery they conjured up. However, that is not an uncommon experience, and, truth be told, I’ve not had many dealings with the Bard for quite some time.

I was mucking around on Youtube yesterday afternoon, though, when I found this. It’s the first part of a two part appraisal of Klingon Hamlet. I’m flagging it up here for a couple of reasons: not only does it tie one of my favourite filmic franchises into a current event, but it is a great example of fandom merging with cinaphilia. The guy who made it is clearly very intelligent; he knows what he’s talking about, both in terms of Shakespeare and Star Trek. He has obviously sat down and thought about what he wants to say. More to the point, he alludes to a wide range of references, both classical and contemporary, mixing them with a great deal of confidence to form persuasive arguments. It strikes me that this is exactly the type of hybrid of fandom and cinephilia I speculate about in my Master’s. There is a type of joviality in his delivery – the type of playfulness we often see on Youtube videos of it’s type. Yet that is mixed with a high-brow refinement and an at least Bachelor’slevel knowledge of film. What he says in this as well as his other videos reminds me of the young turk writers of Cahiers du Cinema, unafraid to engage with texts from all sorts of levels, throwing in references to all manner of classical and contemporary sources.

I am thus deeply impressed with the stuff this guy makes. In fact, watching a few of his videos yesterday, I began to feel a little stupid: the arguments he was making seemed obvious, yet had not occurred to me before he put them. His knowledge is not only wide ranging, but rich and deep. He puts me to shame. Yet this impressive knowledge is communicated, not in prose, but in chatty videos, expertly edited to include all kinds of references. It is that combination of style and content which interests me: a new type of engagement with film, and a new way to display that engagement.

No wonder the Outers are up in arms today. While I didn’t see Obama’s speech, I just read this Guardian account of it. He burst so many bubbles, dashed so many of their fanciful hopes, that they have little choice other than to try to play it down. I, on the other hand, think Obama spoke a lot of truth: leaving the EU would lessen Britain; we would go from being a prime player in a community of nations to an inwards-looking, irrelevant little nation who cut itself off from it’s main trading partner. Far from trading directly with countries like america, we’d largely be ignored: America et al would just forget about us and deal directly with Europe. This isn’t to try to play down Britain, but to simply state quite an obvious truth. The outers can try to dismiss Obama’s intervention all they like – some of their comments get pretty close to racism – but it doesn’t change anything. His advice is valid and sound: stay in the EU and remain an active participant in world affairs; leave it, and become an irrelevance.