Part 2 of the Bates/Post Office drama was on tonight.
In episode 1, there is a scene in which Alan Bates' wife tells him she has a job.
"Teaching?" he replies.
"No. Cleaning houses."
They need the money to make ends meet.
He gives her a look - of love, gratitude & a hint of humiliation at what they've been reduced to and then - quietly but with determination - he says:
"I'll get those bastards."
It is a wonderful piece of writing and sublime subtle acting, especially by Toby Jones. And it captures both the humiliation inflicted on innocent people by the powerful and the former's determination not to be ground down. It is about the subpostmasters. But like all good drama, including that based on real life, it shows something universal.
Those sentiments have been echoed before. And will, I am sorry to say, be repeated in the future. Because abuse of power is hard to eradicate. This has happened so many times before. This story is not an appalling one off. It is the latest of a series of scandals going back nearly 70 years.
In some important ways, the misbehaviours exhibited by the Post Office are similar to those exhibited by the Coal Board in the Aberfan tragedy, by the police in Hillsborough, by the government in the blood contamination scandal and in many others.
The substance may be different but the misbehaviours by the powerful are so very similar: - the refusal to listen - the lies and cover ups - the stingy callous approach to apologies and compensation - the refusal to accept responsibility - the avoidance of accountability.
There are 2 behaviours above all: - The arrogance of indispensability.
It is this which leads to the abuse of power behind the actions taken. It is enabled by those who allow such organisations to behave as if they are unchallengeable. As if they are "Too Big To Fail" or "Too Important To Fail"
And the second? - An indifference to ordinary people, to the human consequences of misbehaviour, to the impact on others.
Permit me to quote a part of my article. It explains so much about the PO's & government's obduracy about putting this right.
"It feels like indifference to those on the receiving end. But perhaps its impulse is less the effect on the victims but more a desire to save face by those responsible...... It harms an institution’s self-image and, often, of senior people within it. “We got it wrong.” is hard to say. If “we get it wrong” what sort of a “we” are we, really?"Avoiding the shame of having to admit that your actions or inactions have been responsible for the suffering of others is what drives this defensiveness and indifference."
You see this in the evidence given by PO witnesses & their lawyers in the Williams Inquiry.
It’s been obvious to everyone but the B o E that inflation is coming down much faster than expected. You only have to look at producer prices numbers to see where consumer prices are headed.
So. I've got itchy skin. Had it for a couple of months. Went to see GP. Change washing powder, take anti-hystimines, etc. All reasonable. Did so. Got worse. Burning at night. No sleep. Phoned 111. Go back to GP, or NHS walk-in asap. Went to walk -in. Wouldn't see me. Not urgent. Went to pharmacy. Wouldn't look. Just sold me steroid cream. GP offered me a phone appointment sometime next Tuesday when I'll be at work and won't be able to answer the phone. Is it any wonder productivity is so poor? Am going to go private.
There is a lot of this about. Be careful with steroids on undiagnosed conditions.
Thanks. Yeah. Read up on scabies (not everyone will). Pretty sure it isn't that. Was rather taken aback by the pharmacist just giving me it without even a look, mind.
Thing about woke is. Like Brexit. Everyone's got their own definition.
I think a more helpful way to look at 'woke' is that there's a wide definition - which is close to useless, and a narrow one - which is actually quite useful in identifying and defining how certain parts of progressive politics have changed in relatively recent memory. Though the conflation of the two means we may need a better word for the latter ('identity politics' is preferred by some).
The former is basically anything the dug in right take against. There's an overlap with the old 'PC gone mad' but it's even more ludicrous because it gets applied to anything. And because everything from Creme Eggs to trains, and more importantly some basic values that are shared pretty widely, gets called 'woke' it damages the right.
The GB News wing of the Tory party has talked itself up a blind alley of idiocy whereby any legitimate points are drowned out by genuinely crackers stuff. It would likely view Genghis Khan as suspiciously 'woke' because he used a decimal system.
Yet the more important argument is on the liberal and left side of politics itself. Where the fiercest arguments often are. Notably on gender and race.
In the former case you have a significant number of left-wing feminists (and some gay campaigners) profoundly at odds with LGBTQ+ activists. In the latter there's been significant pushback against perceived overreach of a political and academic approach that sees race and injustice in general through a prism of identity and oppression - and shuts down dissenting views by defining disagreement itself as oppressive of and in itself.
Plus, recently with discussions on antisemitism how it copes with prejudice that doesn't fit its framework and can lead people to absurd, dangerous conclusions that are racist themselves.
Understanding and defining a more narrow definition is important in understanding why those debates and disagreements are occurring among those who were formerly allies. Which is a much more interesting and worthwhile debate. But one large parts of the right seem to be incapable of having as they would rather moan about the modern world and stuff they dislike.
That’s a fine post.
Blame Edward Said. As Howard Jacobson puts it “he turned grievance into an academic discipline.”
Part 2 of the Bates/Post Office drama was on tonight.
In episode 1, there is a scene in which Alan Bates' wife tells him she has a job.
"Teaching?" he replies.
"No. Cleaning houses."
They need the money to make ends meet.
He gives her a look - of love, gratitude & a hint of humiliation at what they've been reduced to and then - quietly but with determination - he says:
"I'll get those bastards."
It is a wonderful piece of writing and sublime subtle acting, especially by Toby Jones. And it captures both the humiliation inflicted on innocent people by the powerful and the former's determination not to be ground down. It is about the subpostmasters. But like all good drama, including that based on real life, it shows something universal.
Those sentiments have been echoed before. And will, I am sorry to say, be repeated in the future. Because abuse of power is hard to eradicate. This has happened so many times before. This story is not an appalling one off. It is the latest of a series of scandals going back nearly 70 years.
In some important ways, the misbehaviours exhibited by the Post Office are similar to those exhibited by the Coal Board in the Aberfan tragedy, by the police in Hillsborough, by the government in the blood contamination scandal and in many others.
The substance may be different but the misbehaviours by the powerful are so very similar: - the refusal to listen - the lies and cover ups - the stingy callous approach to apologies and compensation - the refusal to accept responsibility - the avoidance of accountability.
There are 2 behaviours above all: - The arrogance of indispensability.
It is this which leads to the abuse of power behind the actions taken. It is enabled by those who allow such organisations to behave as if they are unchallengeable. As if they are "Too Big To Fail" or "Too Important To Fail"
And the second? - An indifference to ordinary people, to the human consequences of misbehaviour, to the impact on others.
Permit me to quote a part of my article. It explains so much about the PO's & government's obduracy about putting this right.
"It feels like indifference to those on the receiving end. But perhaps its impulse is less the effect on the victims but more a desire to save face by those responsible...... It harms an institution’s self-image and, often, of senior people within it. “We got it wrong.” is hard to say. If “we get it wrong” what sort of a “we” are we, really?"Avoiding the shame of having to admit that your actions or inactions have been responsible for the suffering of others is what drives this defensiveness and indifference."
You see this in the evidence given by PO witnesses & their lawyers in the Williams Inquiry.
One of the things the tv play captures so well i think is how ordinarily english the post masters/mistresses are. Polite, diffident, baking cakes, helping pensioners, touching belief in the rule of law, going for walks, doing a bit of sewing, not understanding bloody computers.
It is so well done.
Chesterton would have been pleased. They are everymen.
Chesterton would have also failed at selling sub-standard PPE to the NHS via cronies for massive personal gain. What a loser.
In some ways this is the tale of the current Tory party. Which as even someone mildly to the left, makes me quite sad.
It's a tale of all three major Parties. The LibDems play a surprisingly large part in it.
Oh really? So being opposed to something somehow makes you complicit does it?
Part 2 of the Bates/Post Office drama was on tonight.
In episode 1, there is a scene in which Alan Bates' wife tells him she has a job.
"Teaching?" he replies.
"No. Cleaning houses."
They need the money to make ends meet.
He gives her a look - of love, gratitude & a hint of humiliation at what they've been reduced to and then - quietly but with determination - he says:
"I'll get those bastards."
It is a wonderful piece of writing and sublime subtle acting, especially by Toby Jones. And it captures both the humiliation inflicted on innocent people by the powerful and the former's determination not to be ground down. It is about the subpostmasters. But like all good drama, including that based on real life, it shows something universal.
Those sentiments have been echoed before. And will, I am sorry to say, be repeated in the future. Because abuse of power is hard to eradicate. This has happened so many times before. This story is not an appalling one off. It is the latest of a series of scandals going back nearly 70 years.
In some important ways, the misbehaviours exhibited by the Post Office are similar to those exhibited by the Coal Board in the Aberfan tragedy, by the police in Hillsborough, by the government in the blood contamination scandal and in many others.
The substance may be different but the misbehaviours by the powerful are so very similar: - the refusal to listen - the lies and cover ups - the stingy callous approach to apologies and compensation - the refusal to accept responsibility - the avoidance of accountability.
There are 2 behaviours above all: - The arrogance of indispensability.
It is this which leads to the abuse of power behind the actions taken. It is enabled by those who allow such organisations to behave as if they are unchallengeable. As if they are "Too Big To Fail" or "Too Important To Fail"
And the second? - An indifference to ordinary people, to the human consequences of misbehaviour, to the impact on others.
Permit me to quote a part of my article. It explains so much about the PO's & government's obduracy about putting this right.
"It feels like indifference to those on the receiving end. But perhaps its impulse is less the effect on the victims but more a desire to save face by those responsible...... It harms an institution’s self-image and, often, of senior people within it. “We got it wrong.” is hard to say. If “we get it wrong” what sort of a “we” are we, really?"Avoiding the shame of having to admit that your actions or inactions have been responsible for the suffering of others is what drives this defensiveness and indifference."
You see this in the evidence given by PO witnesses & their lawyers in the Williams Inquiry.
One of the things the tv play captures so well i think is how ordinarily english the post masters/mistresses are. Polite, diffident, baking cakes, helping pensioners, touching belief in the rule of law, going for walks, doing a bit of sewing, not understanding bloody computers.
It is so well done.
Chesterton would have been pleased. They are everymen.
Chesterton would have also failed at selling sub-standard PPE to the NHS via cronies for massive personal gain. What a loser.
In some ways this is the tale of the current Tory party. Which as even someone mildly to the left, makes me quite sad.
It's a tale of all three major Parties. The LibDems play a surprisingly large part in it.
Oh really? So being opposed to something somehow makes you complicit does it?
Now that really is alternative facts.
Ed Davey was postal Minister for 19 months and did have correspondence with Mr Bates.
So. I've got itchy skin. Had it for a couple of months. Went to see GP. Change washing powder, take anti-hystimines, etc. All reasonable. Did so. Got worse. Burning at night. No sleep. Phoned 111. Go back to GP, or NHS walk-in asap. Went to walk -in. Wouldn't see me. Not urgent. Went to pharmacy. Wouldn't look. Just sold me steroid cream. GP offered me a phone appointment sometime next Tuesday when I'll be at work and won't be able to answer the phone. Is it any wonder productivity is so poor? Am going to go private.
If it's any cheaper - 'Moo Goo' is worth a shot. I have mild eczema/psoriasis (not 100% as it's never been explained to me) and it's helped a lot.
And despite me having had a prescription for Hydrocortisone since age about 14 the GP always gives me grief if I ask for a repeat prescription even if I eek out a tiny, tiny tube for 2-3 years... because I know the GP will give me grief about it even if I'm scratching my face off.
Thanks for that.
I'm exactly the same as you with the same experience.
Got some novelty shards of metal by my bedside now. And some board-game style plastic paper shoved inside my phone case.
What do I do next?
Am I winning?
Doesn’t feel like it.
Don't worry. If it bothers you that much you can take it into any shop and exchange it for goods of your choice. Or you could even find someone in need on the street and give it to them. I am sure they will be able to put it to good use.
I tried that and the lady behind the bar said: “oh, someone else trying to get rid of Christmas cash. We can’t get rid of the stuff ourselves!”.
She gave a couple of pints and handed me the weird metal shards.
I’m now worried I might lose them.
Do you know anyone who will exchange them for proper money?
Thing about woke is. Like Brexit. Everyone's got their own definition.
I think a more helpful way to look at 'woke' is that there's a wide definition - which is close to useless, and a narrow one - which is actually quite useful in identifying and defining how certain parts of progressive politics have changed in relatively recent memory. Though the conflation of the two means we may need a better word for the latter ('identity politics' is preferred by some).
The former is basically anything the dug in right take against. There's an overlap with the old 'PC gone mad' but it's even more ludicrous because it gets applied to anything. And because everything from Creme Eggs to trains, and more importantly some basic values that are shared pretty widely, gets called 'woke' it damages the right.
The GB News wing of the Tory party has talked itself up a blind alley of idiocy whereby any legitimate points are drowned out by genuinely crackers stuff. It would likely view Genghis Khan as suspiciously 'woke' because he used a decimal system.
Yet the more important argument is on the liberal and left side of politics itself. Where the fiercest arguments often are. Notably on gender and race.
In the former case you have a significant number of left-wing feminists (and some gay campaigners) profoundly at odds with LGBTQ+ activists. In the latter there's been significant pushback against perceived overreach of a political and academic approach that sees race and injustice in general through a prism of identity and oppression - and shuts down dissenting views by defining disagreement itself as oppressive of and in itself.
Plus, recently with discussions on antisemitism how it copes with prejudice that doesn't fit its framework and can lead people to absurd, dangerous conclusions that are racist themselves.
Understanding and defining a more narrow definition is important in understanding why those debates and disagreements are occurring among those who were formerly allies. Which is a much more interesting and worthwhile debate. But one large parts of the right seem to be incapable of having as they would rather moan about the modern world and stuff they dislike.
That’s a fine post.
Blame Edward Said. As Howard Jacobson puts it “he turned grievance into an academic discipline.”
Comments
Blame Edward Said. As Howard Jacobson puts it “he turned grievance into an academic discipline.”
Now that really is alternative facts.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/ed-davey-i-wish-id-asked-more-questions-about-the-subpostmasters-scandal-3387062
I'm exactly the same as you with the same experience.