I’m sorry, but it’s vital that everyone stops what they’re doing a second, goes to Google and taps in ‘a long time ago in a galaxy far far away’ (sans the inverted commas). I’m hardly a Star Wars fan, but what I just saw was too awesome not to flag up on here. Mind you, I suspect it signifies the beginning of an all-out media barrage where Star wars is just about everywhere one looks.

As you might expect, I currently look for news of the new Star Trek series quite frequently. Every day or so, big trekkie that I am, I just punch it into Google to see if there’s anything new. Predictably, there’s not much to go on yet; the debate among most fans is over which universe it could be set in – the original which we all know and love, or the rebooted one began by JJ Abrams’ 2009 film. The question I find myself asking, though, is whether the new series could have a character with a disability in it. Back in 1966, the original series was revolutionary in having an African-American as a major character – Roddenberry’s future was one where race did not matter. I now wonder whether Trek could make a similarly powerful statement in terms of disability. Of course, TNG had Geordie Laforge, but his blindness was largely mitigated by his visor. Think what a statement could be made by having a starship piloted or even captained by a wheelchair user. Surely it could be just as powerful and resonant as having Nichelle Nichols on the bridge of the original Enterprise – it would send a huge message of acceptance and value. People will ask, of course, whether disability would exist in such a utopian future, but that is still seeing disability as something negative, a burden to be overcome rather than an aspect of human diversity. I like being who I am, Cerebral Palsy and all; and I would love to participate in a future where man explores the galaxy. Having a disabled person on the bridge of a starship would imply ‘we’ can contribute to the future as much as anyone else, and don’t need to be healed or fixed to do so. The question is, are the execs at Paramount ready to take that step?

I just came across this handy little video on BBC urdu’s youtube page explaining who, exactly, is fighting whom in Syria. The situation over there is far from simple, and I must admit that I don’t understand it. Who are all these groups, and why are some good and others bad? Aren’t they all equally bad. If we’re all fighting ISIS, why did Turkey down a Russian warplane this morning? Either that implies they think these ISIS have planes now, or they knew who they were firing upon. Putin seems to be playing at something – he knows what he’s doing, but what is his game? It’s a great big mess; although it’s two thousand miles away, with Putin seemingly using it to reestablish Russia as a world power, it seems to be getting more complex and more dangerous by the day.

At a time when we’re struggling to find the money to support people to live, why the fuck are we spending so much on weapons? All year, the tories have kept saying how little money there is, but when it comes to ‘defence’, suddenly we have billions to spend! And suddenly, it’s imperative we go fight ISIS, a bunch of thugs we helped create. And, coincidence of coincidences, most of the current cabinet have links to the army or weapons manufacturers! It makes me sick, too, how clearly CaMoron loves styling himself as a great war leader; a great Churchillian statesman born to rule. I see red every time that embarrassment to humanity appears on tv: he deserves to have been forgotten by now as a short-lived leader of the opposition, and we deserve better than to have a lying little warmonger leading us. He can spend billions on a socking great aircraft carrier intended only to kill people, but can’t find the money to support the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. CaMoron and his mates sicken me.

I just saw a report on the bbc news saying the church of england is ‘bewildered’ that UK cinemas have refused to screen an advert featuring the lords prayer. They say it contravenes freedom of speech. Bullshit! I say: good on the cinema. The last thing we need right no is more religion; more indoctrination; more suppression of thought. Why should this group be allowed to use cinemas as a tool for spreading their worldview? Cinema-goes should not be told what to think – the cinema should be neutral. Thus for the church to claim it’s being discriminated against by not being allowed to screen this ad galls me: film encourages thought – religion does the very opposite. The bible-bashing zelaots want to hijack cinema, western culture’s foremost artform, and use it to indoctrinate people; I’m just glad the cinemas refused to be corrupted.

I just stumbled onto this story, and tears are welling up in my eyes. Since last friday, copies of Hemingway’s A Movable Feast have been selling like hot-cakes.

Papa’s love-letter to the eternal city captures the spirit of paris; it sums up what it was like to live there in the twenties. In a way I feel something similar about London, but Paris has an extra beauty to it, an extra poetry that stays with you. As Hemingway wrote, wherever you go later in life, if you have the good fortune to have lived in Paris as a young person, it’s spirit, it’s essence, stays with you. It has an essence which not even the nazis could destroy even though they tried, and no bomb-wielding thug could ever dent.

Suddenly I feel the urge to move: 486 to north Greenwich; Jubilee to london bridge, northern line to saint pancrass. The eurostar. I can be in Monmartre by late afternoon. It’s probably what hemingway would do, but I better not. Instead, I’ll go out into my own movable feast, living my own life, relishing my own freedom as Hemingway did. That, after all, is what was attacked last Friday: liberty, diversity and life, things which these islamists are said to hate yet which cities like london and paris nourish and thrive upon, and which hemingway captured so well in his writing.

Although it has a touch of ‘pity porn’ to it, not least in the choice of music, I think I’ll flag this short video up. It is by a student with cerebral palsy in the states, and much of what she says strikes a chord with me. She points out the frustrations of having a body which acts ten times slower than one’s mind, and of not being able to type as fast as one thinks. I can see some saying it’s riddled with self pity, but you could say it’s just honest. Although she says things like ”I see only the faintest light taunting me, glittering in the horizon, yet I am eager to ascend onto the bright pathway ahead despite the obstacles.” [puke!] nevertheless we need more of this sort of honesty; we need more people with cp to tell others what it’s like to have bodies like ours, as only then can they begin to understand.

What a troubled world, with all this death.

Newscasters spreading fear with every breath.

New threats seem to pop up every day,

”They’ll kill us all, if they had their way!”

A constant barrage of hate and fear,

Day on day, year on year.

Yet can we really tell how much is true?

We swallow what we’re fed, me and you;

How can we tell what lies between each line?

”Just accept what you’re told,” they imply, ”and you’ll be just fine.”

But we must be vigilant, constantly aware

The danger they claim, might not be there.

To keep us all afraid might be their goal;

Using terrorism as a tool to keep us under control.

To my sudden horror I just read that the prime minister now wants his own aeroplane. Of course my initial reaction was one of disgust: at a time of untold cuts and suffering, the tories want to spend £10m on their own personal jet. When you think about it though, in the long term, it would be cheaper than having to charter a plane every time the pm has to go abroad, so from that point of view this move might make sense. Not knowing the precise economics, my urge to rant has to be put on hold. However, economics aside, it certainly is indicative of the tory mentality: this really gives the lie to CaMorons ‘regular guy’ charade; he thinks he, as pm, deserves his own jet. There is an air of presumed superiority to this decision, as if he thinks his class of people should naturally have their own aircraft. Okay, it might be cheaper, but this decision still appalls me for the message it sends out and the mentality it reveals.

The thing about xenophobes is, they’re too dim to grasp irony. According to this Huffington post piece, a woman who set up a petition for the closure of uk borders actually lives in spain. Apparently, it’s ok for us brits to live overseas, but we don’t want any dirty foreigners coming over here stealing our jobs, houses and women. My jaw drops with the stupidity of it; it would be funny if it wasn’t so drenched in hate.

Morons on the right are, predictably, already trying to claim that Friday’s attack in paris validates their views. They say it is evidence of the failure of multiculturalism, blah blah blah (as if these dunderheads go on about anything else. I’d just like to flag up this response to such idiocy, analysing a speech Farage made today. It points out several things, most notably that the attackers were not immigrants but were born in france or belgium. Tighter border controls would have done nothing to prevent this tragedy. Thus scumbags like farage are using what happened on friday to further their own fucked up aims. Indeed, given that it is unlikely a terrorist would carry a passport, ”It’s possible – likely even – that the passport is a propaganda device meant to trigger exactly the response from Ukip which Farage delivered last night.” Someone could easily have planted that document – possibly a member of front national, intending to use this incident to whip up hatred. Whether they did or did not, though, it appalls me to see how opportunistic embarrassments to humanity like farage are: it has barely been three days and people are still in deep mourning, and he tries to distort facts to suit his own aims. Such opportunism, cynicism and barefaced lying surely has no place in modern political discourse.

For yet more evidence of the damage the tories are doing and the suffering they are causing, click here. ”Almost 600 ‘additional’ suicides could be related to the Government’s Work Capability Assessments, according to research published today. A study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health claims the areas of England with the greatest use of the assessments has also seen the sharpest rise in reported suicides, mental health issues, and antidepressant prescribing.” Of course, the p’tahks at the DWP deny any responsibility for this suffering, any link between tory cuts and these suicides. But the evidence is plain and growing: the tories don’t give a toss who suffers due to the cuts – we plebs brought it upon ourselves through our sloth; as long as he people who matter – the rich – are happy, that’s all they care about. Theirs is an absolutely sickening worldview, and those who hold it have no right to rule a country.

Isn’t it odd that, amid all the carnage of Paris, the authorities just happen to find a passport which they somehow know belonged to one of the attackers? And isn’t it odd that, in a time of savage cuts to every other public department, the Tories find the cash for a massive boost to security services? I try to be cautious when it comes to conspiracy theories; they are often huge accusations, and huge accusations require huge amounts of evidence. I also think it’s too easy to make such theories up, and that people will do so whatever happens. Take, for instance, the world trade centre: people cite the fact they collapsed as they dd as evidence the attacks were an inside job. But had they stayed up and not fallen, the same people would probably now be claiming that the fact the did not collapse as evidence of a conspiracy. (”How convenient” they would now be saying, sarcastically. ”They were too important to loose altogether!”) Yet in the case of paris, there are one or two facts which, at the moment, don’t stack up. The timing is also perfect – we were due one of our regular shots of fear and paranoia; I daresay the arms manufacturers and generals were starting to pester. I realise a lot of people died in this sickening act, but one or two thing about it strike me as odd.

I was just in woolwich, taking a walk down by the river, trying to think about a script I’m working on. I find the landscape there captivating: today it’s rather breezy with a mottled grey sky, so the area felt somehow dramatic. You can now walk around the area where the old munitions factory once was – it has been renovated, converted into trendy apartments and office spaces, so that you now get odd juxtapositions of history and modernity, life and death, old and new. Here and there, glimpses of the grimy, industrial past thrust their way through into the present. Information boards dotted about the place tell you that, for four hundred years, that was site of labour, noise and toil, where thousands of people worked to supply the British empire with the tools of conquest. Yet now the place is at peace – clean and modern, a place of polished plastic, metal and glass, save for the building work for crossrail. Then, heading homeward along the Thames, the shining spires of Canary Wharf on your horizon, one passes the old boat slipways. They’re derelict and crumbling with moss, but were once where mighty boats were built and stocked; places which must once have once thronged with activity so cacophonous you could barely hear yourself think, but are now silent save for the sound of lapping waves, and forgotten. Such places intrigue me, fascinate me; they are part of why love this city. Only here can you find such contrast, such juxtaposition; only here do past and present clash so violently, colliding to perpetually propel this ever-changing maelstrom into the future.

[img description=”undefined image” align=”centre”]/images/french flag.jph.jpg[/img]

A friend of mine, Tom swindell, just gave me a link to this fascinating video his friend made about the use of Biocomputers in music. I know tom through the Paraorchestra. He is now doing stuff with Plymouth Uni’s Interdisciplinary centre for Computer Music Research which is devoted to developing musical research at the crossroads of art and science. Our research expertise ranges from musicology and composition to biomedical applications of music and development of new music technologies.” That places it at the crossroads of art and science – a juncture I’ve always found fascinating. New ways of creating music are explored there. This video is especially cool as it is about an ensemble formed of people with severe disabilities making music by accessing their thoughts directly. Through such groups, as well as through organisations like the paraorchestra and musicians like Lyn music is opening up, pushing into new frontiers; that can only be a good thing. It makes you wonder what it could lead to, not just in terms of music but in terms of science too.

I seriously – and I mean seriously – need to watch the documentary detailed here. I just stumbled over it, but now I’m extremely excited. It is about Truffaut meeting Hitchcock, and the conversation they had. The film is said to be a fresh appraisal of Hitchcock, at the heart of which is an audio interview Hitchcock gave to Truffaut. Of course, the writers of cahiers du cinema were great admirers of Hitchcock’s work; when Truffaut sent him a letter asking for an interview, he was flattered. Their conversation went to the heart of film: two film-makers having a passionate engagement with cinema. Thus it takes me right back to the subject of my masters thesis, which I’m still very interested in. From what I gleam from the short video in the link, their conversation reveals alot about the cahiers groups’ approach to film, and the formation of auteur theory. I urgently need to get hold of this documentary, not to mention the book it is based upon.

Another shortish, link based entry I’m afraid, but this one is a cracker. According to the Guardian, David CaMoron recently sent a letter to his local newspaper on Oxfordshire asking why there have been so many cuts to frontline public services. It might even be funny, if it wasn’t so pathetically sad: ”In leaked correspondence with the Conservative leader of Oxfordshire county council (which covers his own constituency), David Cameron expresses his horror at the cuts being made to local services. This is the point at which you realise that he has no conception of what he has done.” He asks why they haven’t made the cuts to back-of-house services instead. It is a stunning unintentional admission that he hasn’t the faintest clue about the consequences of his ideological cuts. The article goes on to detail how the government’s figures do not even come close to the impact the cuts have had and the devastation they have caused. Their naivite and ignorance makes my jaw drop. ”The government justifies its austerity programme on the grounds of responsibility: people must take responsibility for their own lives, rather than relying on the state; local authorities must take responsibility for their spending. But, as Cameron’s letter shows, he takes no responsibility for his own policies.” How can we let these fools continue to govern us.

According to this Guardian piece, children from secular families have been found to be more altruistic than kids from religious ones: ”Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality. They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.” The article points out that this runs counter to the commonly held view that belief in god instills morality in people; but to me it’s perfectly obvious. Religion makes one think that your worldview is the only valid one; it tells you that you are right and everyone else is wrong. This inevitably brings with it an arrogance, and thus a selfishness. ”The report was ‘a welcome antidote to the presumption that religion is a prerequisite of morality’, said Keith Porteus Wood of the UK National Secular Society.”

If you ever have chance to go up the Orbit Tower on the Olympic Park- you know, the weird red thing – do it. I was up there yesterday, starting my shopping for a certain forthcoming festival involving the giving of presents early, and I thought I’d round off my day with a walk round the olympic park. On an impulse, I decided to go up the tower. At first I was in two minds because you have to pay, albeit not much; but once I got up to the top, the view was absolutely stunning. You can see for miles – it must be one of the greatest views of London I have ever enjoyed, right across the city. I now really want to take Lyn up there. It costs about fifteen quid for an annual pass, but it’s well worth it.

Poor Jeremy Corbyn Can’t win, can he? According to this Huffington Post piece, the Right are already berating him for supposedly not bowing his head at the cenotaph this morning, despite video evidence that he did indeed make such a gesture. And then, when shown proof that he did indeed nod, they say it was ‘just for show’. It just goes to show how much the right hate Corbyn, and the lengths they’ll go to to try to discredit him. One could say similar things of the great, flourishing, over-emphatic nod CaMoron made. Whatever Corbyn says or does, the right-wing press will try to twist it into something evil. Hmm, it sort of reminds me of my online life right now.

Changing tone and subject entirely, I came across this 007-related news earlier: ”James Bond film producer Michael G. Wilson says he expects Daniel Craig will return for a fifth outing as the iconic 007.” Great news indeed. Personally, after watching Spectre, I can’t see Craig not doing a fifth Bond – he makes such a great, gritty 007 that to start looking for another actor for the role would be absurd. Indeed, I can see him joining Connerry and Moore in doing six or seven. Mind you, the danger there is he might get too old, and the films might once again slip into absurdity.

I’ve been getting a lot of abuse online over my entry yesterday, especially in this tract of utterly unsubstantiated, patronising bile. It calls on me to take that post offline – a demand born of intolerance and the will to censor, albeit delivered to seem to ‘appeal to my humanity’. I will do no such thing! I wrote what I did with the best of intentions, and stick by what I said. For people to call me a transphobe for it is utterly insulting and makes me very angry indeed. In fact I had trouble sleeping because of it. For this arrogant p’tahk to think they can lecture me about being trans, in the most patronising, condescending tone makes me shudder with rage. I can tell you firsthand of the dangers and persecution transpeople face; I don’t have to parrot it out of a bool. I put across my concerns and thoughts in a calm, tolerant and fair way; yet it would seem certain people cannot tolerate me holding views which differ from theirs.

ADDENDUM nov 27. I have replaced the entry, as it was playing on my mind – I had no right to judge another person.

From time to time I post things on here which perhaps I shouldn’t – entries in which I make judgements about others which I have no right to. The piece that was originally here was such an entry. As much as I tried to justify it, it could be construed as transpobic. That is not who I am. Such entries play on my mind; it painted me in a light I did not like. While I stand by much of what I say in that entry, an have therefore saved it to disk, I had no right to make such judgements public. Thus, on the advice of someone I trust, today I decided to replace the entire thing.

I think I’ll just flag this short bbc piece marking twenty years of the DDA. Since the Disability Discrimination act was passed, the lives of people with disabilities have improved beyond measure. It was a first, vital step towards equality; and my generation of crips certainly owes a hell of a lot to the one before it. Before the DDA, people like myself weren’t even allowed into cinemas – our wheelchairs were ‘fire hazards’ – let alone allowed to study film at university. Yet, as I learned on Tuesday, there is still a hell of a long way to go; much of the progress made by the pioneers of twenty years ago and the ones after is now being undone by the insults to humanity currently running the country. Thus there is still more work to do, more freedoms to fight for. Twenty years ago, a major battle was won, yet I fear the war against discrimination is far from over.

I just watched Britain’s Biggest Sexists on Iplayer. While there is no doubt that women still face huge amounts of sexism in contemporary britain, I couldn’t help thinking that the program was rather one sided. The whole premise was that sexism was a one-sided phenomenon: only discrimination of women by men was spoken about – that women can discriminate against men was never mentioned. The program was a catalogue of abuse against women which I felt at times slipped into victimisation. Women were always the victims, never the perpetrators; even the tiniest instance of discrimination against women was leapt upon, when what the hosts were saying could equally be interpreted as discriminatory against men, yet they would no doubt describe it as banter. There was also absolutely no reference made to any other form of discrimination – racism, homophobia etc – which are just as pervasive and repugnt as sexism, but which this program ignored, or pretended did not exist as if they were less important. I’m not saying chauvinism is not a horrendous problem which needs to be tackled, and in no way am I siding with the buffoons who say feminism is a type of bigotry; I just think such programs need a little more balance. Sexism is more nuanced and less one sided than this program made out.

I would like to again retract what I wrote here. The event I attended yesterday really drove home the importance of fighting for our rights, including the support we need. Speaking to the other delegates, I realised many people with disabilities are placed under pressure not to fight – to just accept the measly support they had been given. That was exactly the status quo I was (inadvertently) reinforcing in that entry. I now realise I was utterly wrong: if we don’t fight, we don’t get; we end up accepting what we have, trapped at home, often starving. I now say, we fight! Fight for ourselves, and fight for each other. Asking for support is not a sign of being spoiled; getting more support won’t take it away from anyone else. As I wrote here a week or so after that initial entry, only with the right support can we fully contribute to society, so if someone thinks they need 24-hour support, they should get it. (It wold even have the bonus effect of giving someone a job as a PA.) The moment we stop fighting and loose our unity, you may as well ship us all back to the long-stay institutions.

I’m writing this sat at a bus stop in central London. It’s dark. I just came out of quite a long conference with the ehrc on the rights of people with disabilities. I was invited via my colleagues at GAD; it was excellent, and I feel I have made a lot of good contacts. It was described as ”a participatory stakeholder meeting between the Equality & Human Rights Commissions’ Disability Committee and stakeholders working on Young People’s issues,” so there were quite a few movers and shakers in the disability world there. I think I made a few good contributions to the conversation, and made myself known to a few good people to know. My full report will have to wait though, because frankly I’m knackered – networking is exhausting.

I’m suddenly squealing spastically with excitement. I just saw this! Thirty minutes ago, CBS announced that it has begun work on a new star trek series! Of course, no details have emerged yet, and it’s not clear whether they’ll set it in the proper star trek universe or the rebooted one, but I’m nevertheless very excited.

Given what I did yesterday, the coincidence/timing is uncanny. In fact James and I were talking about the demise of the series in 2005 on the bus home, and I was telling J that, since the end of enterprise, star trek has been banished from tv. Last night I thought it would never return – how wrong I was.

While it wasn’t quite as cool as meeting Sir Patrick Stewart, yesterday was still pretty awesome for a Trekkie. My friend James and I went to Star Trek, The Ultimate Voyage, a Star Trek Concert at the royal Albert Hall, where a full orchestra played the music from my favourite tv series. Needless to say, Lyn stayed home, but from the first note I was in heaven. Of course I’ve always loved the music from star trek. They played the music as they projected clips from the shows and films onto a screen at the back of the stage with voice-over narration by Michael Dorn, and I was engrossed. I was over the moon to hear the theme from First Contact and the Klingon theme, but my favourite moment was when they played the flute solo from the Inner Light – to have seen that played live is very special indeed.

It struck me as a great idea: music in tv and film is often overlooked, but concerts like this really bring it to the fore. I realised yesterday that it was put on by Cineconcerts, a company which does these shows for Star Trek, but things like the Godfather, Gladiator etc. It was thus part of a franchise, rather than a one off; to me that makes it a little less special. They also just did the usual orchestrations of the music rather than anything new. Nevertheless, it was a great afternoon, and something I’d recommend to any trekkie.

How about this for proof that, despite all my silliness and shouting, I must be the luckiest man ever to have such a great, forgiving partner. These were taken in Greenwich Park yesterday afternoon..

[img description=”undefined image” align=”centre”]/images/proof.jpg[/img]

[u][/u]I think I have a problem with my temper. These days, whenever something even mildly upsets me, I fly into a screaming rage. It happens before I can control it; I flip out. I know I should be calm and rational, and put my arguments across like a sensible adult, but a rage inside me bubbles up and spills out. As soon as I realise, I feel ashamed of myself. It usually happens when I’m, say, watching the news, but I’ve done it with Lyn more than once now, so it has to stop.

David Icke should have stuck to keeping goal. Someone, who I won’t name here, recently introduced me to him. I thought I’d be respectful and see if there is anything in what he says, but the more I watch and read, the more appalled I am with this two-cent conman. It is clear that he merely rehashes widespread knowledge about stuff like september 11, and uses it as a segway into his own brand of baseless bulshit. That 9/11 was an inside job is almost common knowledge as demonstrated by people like Michael Moore, but Icke presents it as if for the first time, linking it then to his garbled ideas about some kind of new world order, using the former as evidence for the latter. What worries me more, however, is the way he claims his ideas as some kind of awareness or ‘being awake’, as if not to agree with him is somehow to remain unaware or one of the ‘sheeple’. I find that frankly insulting: I am very much aware. At university – which Icke baselessly claims just churn out unthinking drones conditioned to just give the ‘right’ answers – I was taught to think critically, to base arguments on evidence and to question everything. In academia there is no such thing as a right answer, just arguments for and against; yet Icke presents academics as repressing critical thought, as they are part of his ‘global elite’. I am perfectly aware, and awake enough to see through his trick. Not to agree with Icke does not make one a sheep, but precisely the opposite.

Somewhat rhzomically, when one starts to analyse what Icke is saying, he is as right-wing as the fascist new world order he claims to be railing against. He says he is for free speech and new ideas, yet I get the impression that he brands anyone who does not agree with him as ‘unaware of the truth’. He links things like the war in Iraq to the rise of political correctness on the grounds that it allowed government too become more powerful, thus using an unpopular war to promote his own rather right wing ideas. Like the very neocons he professes to oppose, he hates anything to do with the state, free trade, global warming and so on. Thus he is performing quite a devious con, tricking ordinarily liberal people into agreeing with his brand of conservatism. They might believe that he is encouraging free thought, but he represses it; then they brand anyone who dares to question him as part of the unenlightened masses. In a way he is not unlike an evangelical preacher, using their own distorted form of religion as a vehicle for their own intolerant ideas, claiming to speak in the name of tolerance and love yet branding anyone who speaks against them blasphemous or unenlightened. And all the while throughout his lectures, Icke constantly refers to his own books, as if selling them – what more proof that he is just a cheap little con-man can there be? He sets himself up as some kind of messianic man of the people, standing up against some huge global conspiracy, when in fact he’s a self-promoting con man out to spread his own brand of right-wing bull and make huge amounts of money in the process. He has given a tool of the religious right a secular makeover in order to gain control over people; many seem to have fallen for him, and I find that very worrying indeed.

Things cannot be allowed to continue as we are. We cannot be forced to endure five years of this. It has been a week when, despite calling back all their toffy-nosed friends to vote for them, tory economic plans were defeated in the lords. Even the peers couldn’t stomach the barbarity of what CaMoron and Osbourne were plotting: thousands would have been left struggling to feed themselves. Faced with such a defeat, the tories now plan revenge on the lords – rather than admit they were wrong, like a child having a tantrum they plan to hit back at the lords. At least for the time being the tax credit cuts have been halted, but it is becoming clearer and clearer that this group of privileged insults to humanity is unfit to rule. Something has to be done: there must be some mechanism whereby the people of this country can legally force an election. I know I keep saying this, but the tories have to go.

According to this Guardian article, a new documentary film out soon in the States is about disabled people’s under representation in the film industry. A matter of long concern in disability culture, we still only get 1% of screentime. ”At a time when people with disabilities continue to be woefully underrepresented or employed in film and TV, either in front of or behind the camera, Becoming Bulletproof compels its audiences to think differently about disability. But it also indirectly challenges those involved in the entertainment industry to reassess the contributions disabled people can make.” It’s about time such a documentary was made: while things are improving, the new era we were promised at the paralympics, with a crip on every tv show, didn’t seem to materialise. While I know a lot of good people myself included, in my own small way – are working hard to redress this unbalance, hopefully Becoming Bulletproof will give the issue the extra exposure it needs.

I had to go – the temptation was just too great. I couldn’t wait. Last night after dinner I went to the cinema and saw it. I have seen SPECTRE! And the first thing I have to say is, Daniel Craig has to do more bonds – HAS TO. He was excellent last night, in a truly excellent film. I don’t want to spoil anything so I won’t go into detail, but Spectre mixes elements of Craig’s contemporary Bond, with it’s concern with contemporary issues, with elements classic Bond from the Connerry and Moore eras. It fuses them seamlessly, and the result is a joy to watch. There are evocations of From Russia With Love with it’s train sequence, and Goldfinger, with it’s whit cat; these are fused perfectly with the things we’ve come to expect from the craig-era Bond. I was over the moon last night as I left the cinema – Sam Mendes has done it again. Spectre is a true treat, especially for bond fans. The only problem is, I really want to watch it again, to get more out of it, as I think it’s the type of film which is even better on the second viewing. With the cinema only a bus ride away, I think I just might.

I was just watching the Victoria Derbyshire program while waiting for my Monday morning shower, and heard something that made me furious. They just reported that germaine greer has followed up her recent comments with a string of abject, intolerant bile which makes your jaw drop. Crap like ”transwomen are just men who seek attention”. When I wrote about her joining ukip, I was kind of joking, but what I just heard goes way beyond the shit they spout into plain insult. Greer has made me furious, and I want the bitch stripped of any academic award she may have fooled people into giving her. To call her a professor mocks all real professors – she is just an egotistical bigot spouting shit to gain attention, and has nothing sensible to contribute to the discourse.

You realise time is passing when your old university friends post things like this on their blogs. It’s written by Nicky and is addressed to her infant son, containing warnings to him such as ” It is not exciting to pick random bits off the floor and eat them ‘just to see if you can’ and I don’t find it funny when you put an entire banana in your mouth and nearly choke on it.” I’m flagging it up because it made me go ‘aww’, and because it’ll probably strike a chord with both my mum, and my brother Mark and Kat – and for that matter any new parent reading this – who are probably having similar tribulations. To think: not long ago I was going to discos and parties with friends like Nicky, and now they’re writing things like this. What a profound and beautiful sign of the passing of time.

As the partner of a transwoman, I must say I’m appalled to have just found this: ”Australian-born academic and writer Germaine Greer has said that in her opinion, transgender women are ‘not women’. She also claims that ‘a great many women’ who are not transgender think transgender women – who she refers to as ‘male to female transgender people’ – do not ‘look like, sound like or behave like women’.” I am staggered to hear such bigotry from this so-called academic. Hiding behind

”free speech” (hmm, where have we heard that defence before?) she says that, in her opinion, male-to-female transpeople cannot be considered true women. Well, Germaine, my fiancee is every bit a woman as any other. What Greer says amounts to bigotry; it clings to the very gender binaries which entrap so many – to distinctions of black and white and nothing in between. Her tone is identical to the shit UKIP spout, making me wonder whether she intends to join their moronic ranks. Frankly I expected better from someone so well educated; you expect to hear such reductive, intolerant tosh from idiots like Farage, but not someone who claims to be so familiar with oppression.

I just came across this interesting article from the disability news service. Disability activists fear a ‘whitewash’ after Leonard Cheshire Disability was awarded £300,000 to set up a project on the history of disabled people. Activists say that, given Leonard cheshire’s own rather checkered past, it does not have the authority to write such a history. The question I’d ask in response is, ”well, who does?”

There’s no denying Leonard Cheshire’s past. Like Scope they ran homes which virtually incarcerated disabled people like prisoners; one still hears stories of the horrors that went on in such places. This award is like paying a guard to write the history of his own prison – of course he’ll want to cast himself as a hero when in fact he is one of the villains.

On the other hand, I have to ask, who has the authority to write such a history? I daresay there are as many disability histories as there are people with disabilities. We are all unique, we all have different stories to tell; we are not a fixed, easily defined group of people. My fear is, certain ‘activists’ – you know, the pushy types – will endeavour to see to it that this ‘history’ is written how they see it, while other voices get pushed aside. While I hope anyone writing this history will research it thoroughly, there are certain voices within our movement whom I fear won’t be satisfied until it is told their way, reflecting their personal experience of disability. I see our movement already becoming dominated by such people.

Any history of disabled people will always be fraught with such concerns. I don’t know if anyone is in an ideal position to write it. What is certain, though, is that it is not a non user-led charity like Leonard Cheshire.