'We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are'

This Anaïs Nin quote is overused in the blogosphere, but is nevertheless one I favour. And for this post entirely appropriate.

There are many topics I wish to discuss.
France and President Hollande's unusual tax ideas.
The real reason as it seems to me why the digital age advanced so quickly.
Why the Kosovo - Serbia agreement is so precarious.
A little musing on why Marcel Aymé back in the 1940s was so prescient on the economic mayhem we have now.
Also probably a little something on why David Cameron has quite clearly lost the plot altogether regarding the EU.
All these things can wait. Because what is P-for Prussia really in fact all about? What is the purpose?

I see dead people.
No, don't worry, not like the little boy in 'The Sixth Sense'. I haven't completely lost my mind or discovered psychic abilities.
I mean doppelgängers of people I have lost.  Or to sound less sinister, mere doubles.

Adorable yet agonising

Everywhere and anywhere I can suddenly spot a man who resembles my father, a woman who speaks like my mother, a Basset Hound who looks like (our) my boyfriend's dog.  (Those bloody EDF television and billboard adverts are killing me).
Anything can do it. And quite often does. I generally keep these things to myself because actually it would probably send me to a mental asylum and leave me with even less friends than I have now.

I was sitting in a coffee shop with the Puppy, trying to make the Russian grammar system make some sense to me before this week's class. Chewing the end of my pen, gazing around, my glance hit upon a crumpled man standing near the table behind me. He had little parcels piled on the floor and on the chairs at his table and he was standing there looking quite vacant. Counting and recounting his change in his hand with great precision. I looked away and stared at my work. There was something about him I couldn't shake. He bothered me. Massively.
I looked around at him again and he was still standing there, this time fidgeting in his inside jacket pocket with little cards and other bits and pieces. He looked very stern.

The Puppy was trying to beg for food at the next table and I turned to concentrate on making him behave and chat with the little girl whose cookie he was after. I caught sight of the people with her looking behind me, looks of disgust really. Did they think he was some vagrant? A nutter? A drunk maybe?

I gave up on the work as my brain had gone into overdrive. I put my pen down and looked behind me. After fifteen minutes of fumbling about he was now sitting at the table with his long cold coffee. He was staring at nothing. Into the middle distance, holding his coffee cup at a dangerous angle, shaking ever so slightly. He looked like he hadn't shaved for a while or at least made a bit of a hash of it if he had. His hair was untidy and he kept fidgeting with his scarf with exact measure, seemingly trying to put it straight. Though it was fine.

My eyes began to well up.
Papa.

No, he did not look physically like my father. My father was tall, handsome, tanned with sparkly blue eyes. But this man in the coffee shop is exactly how Papa was he was when he had Alzheimer's.

I felt like I was having a panic attack. My heart was racing, my palms had become clammy and I felt frankly like I was going a bit mad. I wanted to reach out to him, to say something.
But what? I was in a coffee shop, I didn't know him. He didn't need any help. People would think I was weird for going up to some random man, and a fairly odd looking one at that.

I looked at my books and picked my pen up and told myself, 'This is not your father. This man is no one to you'. But the lump in my throat was getting worse and I felt like I was choking.  I pondered packing up and leaving.

All the horrible weirdness about dementia that took over my father came flooding back to me. Seeing my tall father become so crumply, so weak. So peculiar.

Mama and I went away to Italy long before he was even diagnosed. I rang him up to ask how everything was and how the pets were. He talked gibberish to me. Rubbish about utter nonsense. I nodded slowly and looked blank. Mama was asking questions in my other ear asking for the phone so she could talk to him. I didn't pass any of the twaddle onto her and I said goodbye to him and told her everything was fine; that it was expensive to phone home so she couldn't talk too. She seemed placated. It was just the beginning of my anxiety about him.
It was me that suggested he had the illness and to go to the doctor in the first place. I wish I had been wrong. Sometimes being right really sucks.
Poor Papa. Poor Mama. Poor me.

I am not about to write about the horrific effects of Alzheimer's and how it affects those around the sufferer. I hope no one who reads this ever has to experience it on any level. If you have already then my heart goes out to you in empathy.

But this man reminded me of all of it. I couldn't bear it anymore and I just picked the dog up and went over to the bar and asked for another drink. I looked back at the man and knew I had to break this absurd feeling. So I casually went over and asked if he would like a cup of tea as I was due a free one on my loyalty card.  A lie of course, but no one likes pity and charity piled on them.  He looked up at me with sparkly green eyes on a dishevelled face and said he would prefer coffee!

So, I got the coffee, much to the waitress's bewilderment, and set it down on his table. No thank you. No real response at all. This man was no drunk. He was no deviant. He was a dementia suffer and I do not need a degree in medicine to know that. I'd seen all of it before.
I told him my name and asked his. Eamonn he said. And that is all he said.

I sat back at my table and did some work and after a while I looked back at him and smiled, he half smiled back with a vexed look. Was he even smiling at me or just at some random thought he had?
But it was enough for me. I didn't need thanks. I didn't need any chat. My concentration was improved.

My friend told me I was 'paying forward' a kind deed that had happened to me earlier in the day. I don't agree.
They say no act of kindness is truly selfless , maybe that is true. I did not do it to be kind. I did it because I had to shake the madness out of me. I had to shake the image that had appeared of my father, to remind myself this was not my father, this was a stranger. I was not acting out of some kind of misplaced guilt.
You know what? I got an extra stamp on my Caffè Nero card for buying another drink. So who benefitted?

He got up abruptly after he had finished his second coffee which he had sugared and stirred with a fastidious intent you see only in OCD or dementia sufferers. He picked up all his funny little parcels and bags and strode purposefully to the door and left. No look at me , no goodbye. Nothing.

I picked up my pen once more, my heart rate had returned to normal, my brain seemed to be functioning as it should (Russian verb conjugations notwithstanding) and I sipped my tea and gave the Puppy a little bit of my hardly touched cookie. No one looked at me. No one cared.

As my mother always told me, I am not that important or special. I am just a human being like any other.
I just needed to reach out to another at that moment. So really aren't I the pitiful little mess in this story?
Do people not look at me and regard me in the same sad way? Well no, probably not. Because we all have our own back story. I do not have a sign hanging over my head flashing in neon the words ORPHAN... WIDOW.  It was me who needed to do what I did. No one needs to know why.
He went off on his way,  without a second thought to me, but he helped me to remember painful things, to face them and get over them.
I suppose in normal circumstances I would have a family and close loved ones to share these things with but I do not. So my interaction with other human beings might at times seem very odd to others. But actually they are very, very normal and human.

I recently made contact with a very old, and dear friend who was shocked to hear about my parents dying. She remembered my parents with such darling clarity it rendered me totally shocked. She had recalled things I never once would have thought about let alone thought others might. Thanks to her I find it easier to remember my parents with things that a daughter should think of. Fun things. Stupid things. The things I miss the most. Natural, normal stuff that make up memories.

When I first started visiting the nursing home as a volunteer with the Puppy I encountered an elderly man with severely advanced dementia and at first I stepped back as found it too hard to be with him.
I did in time sit with him more and found I could cope, but it was an ordeal for me.

If today's coffee shop incident had happened then I am not sure I could have overcome the panic as efficiently. Today was different. In part this is due to time healing and also my friend's wonderful words.

Proust wrote,' We are healed from suffering only by experiencing it to the full'.

I am not sure I have experienced it to the full because I am not brave enough. I have suffered yes. But grieving entails going over it and talking about it. Some things will always be left in boxes marked 'for some time in the future'. But really, they may never be opened at all.

I am not going to advocate that we all reach out and touch others' lives in some hippy annoying way. To be honest, it might end in you getting a slap, or worse. No one likes a do-gooding nosey parker.


I did not pity Eammon. I understood him. And that is what all of us really desire more than anything else in the world. To be understood.
But because I understood him, I could understand myself and my own feelings.

As I have said many a time,  there is no positive to bereavement. However, maybe it is good for the little grey cells. As Proust once said........

"Happiness is beneficial to the body, but it is grief that develops the powers of the mind".

Surely I should be a genius in that case.
And fear not, I will get onto some of the afore mentioned important topics very soon!

Star Trek 'Into Darkness'

Last week I was lucky enough to see a preview of the latest Star Trek film, so ahead of tomorrow's release I thought I would pass a few comments by way of light relief from the political mayhem and misery in the UK at present.
Only so much politics a girl can take!

Now apologies to any real Trekkies and aficionados out there but then this is not really for you.
As somewhat of a Star Trek newbie I found myself totally absorbed throughout and clapping enthusiastically at the end. As a non Trekkie therefore I can see the film as a stand alone sci-fi movie which really is one of the best of the genre I have seen for a while. Yes, you will know through osmosis many of the characters and the little phrases and so on, but simply as a film in its own right it is highly enjoyable whether you understand Klingon or  any other important Star Trek things!

Apparently this film merges the tv series with the films of the '80s which probably makes the fans cry but for a newbie makes it very accesible.

I am incredibly grateful  that they do not use the original tv series music because bizarrely, amongst other more serious music, it was played at my partner's funeral last year.
It was not my choice but actually as he was quite a fan it was a wonderful smiley moment which at the time stopped me from crying for a few minutes but would still make me reflect and sadden me.

Apart from one episode he made me watch 'to educate me' I had seen no others and not even the first film in this series let alone the rest. The Tribble episode was an excellent choice on his part as it was very witty and I suppose that is why Star Trek is so popular. It does not take itself too seriously and is witty enough to transcend usual over the top sci-fi silliness.

I admit I spent a large part of the beginning of this film wondering whether or not Star Fleet HQ was in fact filmed at one of my favourite places in the world - The Getty Museum in Los Angeles. I have visited this museum several times and always spend hours there marvelling at the tranquility, the architecture and amazing light.

Star Fleet or The Getty?

It is also a refreshing change to see a pleasant vision of the future harking back to a Jetsons or Back to the Future style imagining rather than some shocking and bleak dystopia that seems to be very common in futuristic movies these days. 

Though why hovering cars need to look like squashed BMW X5s I do not know. Why must travel of the future always look so ugly? I like to think futuristic super technology will hark back to sexier cars for inspiration. Why not a super turbo flying machine shaped like a Jaguar XK120?

Any excuse for car porn

After all would that not be more aerodynamic? Surely we would all be using teleportation anyway.

And really, communicating using little devices which look like old fashioned flip mobile phones? And actually speaking into them rather than even using hands free? How quaint.

Of course the great Starship Enterprise more than makes up for that with all the excellent gadgetry. I guess this is what makes the films so true to the tv show in a way.

In a strange way though this film demonstrates the necessity of good old fashioned knowledge. It is not tech that is key it is the fact that all the crew know stuff.  How things work and how to to mend them with not more tech but their own expertise or manual work. Interesting point for us all maybe.

So the film itself. Engrossing, funny in parts, a good family movie which even for me as someone who hates wearing 3D spectacles, was so completely absorbed i forgot I was wearing them.

Benedict Cumberbatch is absurdly camp and wickedly dark as the megalomaniacal baddie. So nice I think to see a baddie as how they should be. British! If there is one thing the Brits do really well it is  playing the part of the brilliant but crazy villain.

Doctor McCoy is played with clean cut 1960s mentality, and with supreme charm by Karl Urban. Delivering cheesy lines that make the audience roll their eyes but smile nonetheless. I think Mr Urban could be the new Roger Moore in the eyebrow stakes and that kind of retro tweeness is actually quite fun. That he did not fall out the ugly tree only helps boost his appeal!

Zoe Saldana also adds some eye candy appeal and she was excellent as Uhura,  a very watchable underplayed performance lending believability.

As a non Trekkie I only have limited knowledge of Spock, (though the boyfriend did teach me fascinating and useless facts about him I still remember), but think that Zachary Quinto was splendid and did not over do it , as I would imagine would be very easy to do so and thus become ultra hammy.

The relationships between all the characters are obviously what make this franchise an enduring success and of course means that you actually care what is happening. This is quite unique in a lot of modern sci -fi I think. Having watched Oblivion last month I felt in that that I couldn't care less if Tom Cruise lived or died or the planet he inhabited burst into flames quite frankly.
Into Darkness is edge of the seat excitement and enjoyability. Hence clapping at the ending.

So Captain Kirk, the central cog I suppose. Chris Pine, although far older than he looks is in the same way as Karl Urban is, very clean cut, playing a very masculine all American blue eyed boy. In fact look out for the blue eyes in this film, I think regardless of baddie or not, it seems a prerequisite to be part of the film.
It all harks back to the age of heroes displaying clean cut patriotism and machismo, saving the day (and the world) and maybe that is why these films, and the plethora of comic book adaptations are so popular now. People are just crying out for good old fashioned good overcoming bad and a spot of misty eyed loyalty and comradeship.
'Into Darkness' is also exactly what cinema is meant to be for - escapism.

My trip to the unknown was most fascinating.
I like to think my boyfriend is up there somewhere with a wry smile and nodding in approval at the furthering of my education.

The Westminster Bubble Part II

Politics and sex.
I was about to post on the disgraceful way I perceive the media to be addressing the recent spate of high profile historical rape incidents. How it is abysmally biased in favour of an anonymous and 'supposed' victim;  is causing gender equality and even distorting the very foundation on which male/female relationships are based.  Not to mention the concern over how justice is now meted out by the press and social media rather than our legal system.

And then along comes this. Not entirely disconnected....

Now, unlike the media and much of the general public I do assume someone is innocent until proven guilty. I have defended in many an argument all of these so called predators who have appeared in the press recently over allegations made decades ago. People are so quick to condemn people they do not know regarding situations they have no knowledge of. The old maxim ' no smoke without fire' seems entirely acceptable for many. Making allegations is all too easy and especially so when done anonymously and as an historical claim. I have always thought that anonymity should be granted until someone is at least charged.

Mr. Evans may or may not be guilty of this alleged crime and that will be for the legal system to determine. Not me. Not you. And certainly not the media and tittle tattlers on Twitter.
Are children not taught that gossip is wrong or is that something so archaic now I sound insane for even mentioning it?

However, and as you may have guessed by the title of this post, I am very sceptical and frankly breathing a sigh of relief that finally all the things I often discussed as matter of fact to those close to me are now in the public domain and not just hushed rumours amongst the hallowed corridors of Westminster. More to come perhaps....

If he is fully vindicated and no action is taken then I will issue a full apology if I have drawn his good name into disrepute. This post is not to insult, to gossip or speculate falsely but merely to hold up as proof of my earlier post and also as evidence of the sad state of affairs within our political 'elite'.  Everything I say however is true and I wish no harm to him or the party making the claims.


I can recall several occasions when I met Mr. Evans and was with male friends and acquaintances. These friends included gay and straight men. I think I once took a boyfriend to an event too. Mr. Evans was known to be gay at that time but  it was kept quiet I was told as not to upset his family. That is not an issue I am concerned with unless his constituents felt it improper to keep deliberately hidden. For me a personal life is just that.

I was with a group of friends at various political or social events when Mr. Evans would come up to us and stroke the tie of my companion and compliment him on it or on another occasion stood so close to one straight friend of mine that he actually told me later he felt quite spooked.
On several occasions as the only female there, he would go round the group I was with and ask what they would like to drink and leave me out.  I was not overly bothered. Once I thought a mistake, on the second and third time I put it down to non existent manners and misogyny. Even a friend commented at how rude he thought it was. Life is full of rude people, one cannot condemn a man for simply that.

His over familiarity with my friend made me a little cross. Some did not seem to mind, some seemed to be embarrassed but too shy to say anything as he was an MP.
I have in my time put up with nothing more sinister than a pat on the small of my back only done in  vaguely avuncular manner.  At worst maybe some inappropriate comment which I deftly swept aside.
Life is too short to get stressed about every little thing and I never felt too concerned over any of the above. To be honest I am more suspicious of people who never make a naughty comment or the like.
It is all about time and place and context, and really how the other party reacts.

Smoothing the tie of a man you never met before and standing far too close is a bit awkward and frankly inappropriate in my opinion. Nothing is inappropriate unless the other party thinks it is too and some of these guys really did feel uncomfortable.
I asked  these friends and acquaintances would it be acceptable if a male MP came up to me and smoothed his hand down my blouse? Of course not.

Now, of course this is not tantamount to rape or sexual assault and these charges are absolutely shocking to me. Being accused of being a bit of a hypocritical sleazy character is not akin to be being a sexual predator or rapist.
I also know of several rape allegations made about MPs which were never true, and not followed up as nothing more than strange girls seeking some kind of revenge for being spurned or sudden feelings of guilt so I believe someone to be innocent until proven  guilty and view all claims as objectively as possible.


In the same week that UKIP unsurprisingly in this current climate cleaned up at the local elections, I can only try and see things as the general public might.

There are not many occasions I can say I am glad my parents are dead. But this is one of those times. If mama and papa were here now they would be so sad to see the miscreants and reprobates that surround politics and are at the very core.

UKIP portray themselves as this nostalgic party harking back to halcyon times when everything in Britain was splendid. Well, firstly I am not sure this time ever really existed.
And why look to the past? Surely what is really needed, if the public so desperately want a fourth option other than the three main parties, is a new, fresh and forward looking party for the 21st century. To deal with this time rather than a time that may or not have once existed under very different circumstances.
Not a band of disenchanted ex Tories in a New Nasty Party.

I cannot in the least blame the electorate for feeling let down by all politicians right now.
Seeing headlines ' Deputy Speaker in rape allegations' is not something which is going to instil pride is it?
There are some really decent politicians around. Alas their good work doesn't make interesting news I suppose.




The reason I was going to write a piece about what I perceive as the injustice over historical rape claims  was sparked by a conversation I had with a friend of mine. Let us call him Horace.
You know in true stories they change names to protect people and they are always called John or something equally bland.
So Horace was sitting in my language class chatting when I walked in and everyone went quiet. I asked what they were talking about and they said the latest 'celeb' to have been had up over rape claims. Well, you know me, I went off on a rant about the injustice of it all and lack of evidence etc etc.
Horace now in his 60s said he was worried in his younger days he pinched a girl's bottom or complimented another on her figure.

The problem with all this to me , is that it is laying further confusion on what is already a confused relationship between men and women.  A compliment is hardly the same as bottom pinching or anything worse. Has it become so tricky now even to compliment someone? How very sad. How very insecure and ungracious people must really be.

Modern men have absolutely no idea what it is they are meant to be like. How they should act, how they should not act. What is gentlemanly, what is sleazy, what is expected.
How far is too far? There is now a strange wariness between men and women which is very sad and younger generations are getting more and more confused with extreme behaviour manifesting itself as a result.

I could probably write a very dull treatise on why the sudden rise in sub/dom erotic fiction indicates the out of kilter relationship between men and women because women want what men aren't supposed to give them, and what women themselves are discouraged from wanting. Men are unsure of whether they should want to do what women want them to do because of society and so on and so on.
Very little is purely random, and confusion leads only to more confusion.

Normal working relationships have been both weakened and strengthened by equality measures and positive discrimination and also because of the out of kilter personal relationships. There is a minefield of problems created however because actually people just aren't being allowed to be who they are.
I am not advocating Benny Hill style bosses chasing after their female staff and colleagues. I am not advocating every man doffs his hat ( does it work with beanies anyway?) to a passing female on the street.
People need to be true to who they are and know in their heart what is appropriate for one situation or person is not suitable for another.
It is called common sense. Something that cannot be legislated for or taught.

Sexual relationships have become very out of kilter and I am not sure the legal system as it stands is helping matters with some of the recent historical rape/assault claims.
Where the party is of the age of consent and it is decades ago, I fail to see what evidence there can be to prove either way and vilifying the so called perpetrator is often little more than hearsay.

One case I was saddened to read about was woman made some horrible rape claims against an ex boyfriend. He was later acquitted and her claims found to be based on little more than spite and vengeance. This unfortunately is quite common and does nothing to help the cause of real rape victims trying to bring an attacker to justice.
So, in effect you are helping the stupid and cruel and punishing the innocent and those who deserve justice. Excellent work.

The media backing all this up by naming and shaming people is further exacerbating the problem.

I was told recently you should never be simply delivering the problem , whatever it may be, but also delivering the solution or at least some suggestions to remedy it.

So what can be learned from all these issues?

•  Well starting with Westminster. I think some fresh new blood. Real, honest people not afraid to be who they are and not trying to fit to some Party model. People who care about the people they represent and the country they are supposed to be working for, creating a vision for the future not just for five years until an election. Putting self interest low down on their list of priorities and getting on with some work. 

• Maybe a little less noise too. I don't require a sound bite or press release every day to know my government are governing. Just having a fully functioning country working day to day getting on would be enough. I, and am sure many people, only want to hear the government speak when absolutely necessary. Fundamentally, crooks, deviants and wrongdoers will manifest themselves in any profession. Nothing will ever alter that.  But ensuring decent people are attracted to politics in the first place not because Westminster provides a nice safe hiding place from the public but because it is a reputable and admirable profession.

• As for the spate of sexual assault claims. These of course need to be dealt with, but again not necessarily all in the public domain. Some say it helps others come forward. I say it is encouraging a victim culture and knocking gender equality into the ground. It is making real and serious rape cases vanish under the sea of absurdity and ensuring rapists go free and rape victims  not getting the justice they deserve. If a crime has been committed then it should be reported immediately, not five years later.  It is creating a more confused attitude between the sexes. In same sex rape claims it is still confusing attitudes and breaking down the trust and social interaction that humans need to have in order to function as a society.

Punish the wrongdoers and catch the culprits for heinous crimes but perhaps the culture of everything being in the public domain has damaged our day to lives of simply getting on with life and acting as  decent, productive and socially interactive human beings.


These are not solutions, and if I could offer a remedy for all the ills of society I would be the Übermensch we so clearly need. Of which I am clearly not.

This post needed to be written because I am both glad and saddened at the news of Mr Evans. It highlights the bizarre bubble that MPs live in where they do in fact not abide by the same rules that you and I live by.
'Do as I say not as I do'.

But at the same time it saddens me because it further distances the electorate from their politicians, exacerbates the feelings of mistrust and diminshes the importance for a political and governing elite deserving of respect.

The UK deserves more than this sorry mess.

'To the living we owe respect, but to the dead we owe only the truth'

As much as I like Voltaire, on this matter, he is entirely wrong. Respect is a universal basis for everything.

Mrs Thatcher leaving the Palace of Westminster today for her funeral bought back childhood memories of the first time I got interested in politics, the night she left Downing Street in 1990.

Mrs T

A kind of irony in that, but also something which seems totally right and proper. Stabbed in the back and discarded by her own allies and today given a send off fit for royalty and attended by some of the aforementioned.


This was not a state funeral as Winston Churchill had been given, but it certainly involved the kind of pomp and pageantry that Britain does best and London has not seen anything on that scale since the Queen Mother died a decade ago.


Love her or hate her this was a momentous day and I cannot really let it go by without offering a few thoughts.

I have no intention on discussing her politics or questioning her policies. That has been, and will continue to be analysed both now in the immediate future and forever after until politics students have forgotten who she was and we are all living on the Moon.

What I really want to talk about is respect.

The level of rudeness and disrespect by many when she had yet to be buried quite frankly disgusts me.
Is that old maxim taught to children no longer used? 'If you don't have anything nice to say don't bother saying anything'.

The idea that human beings could disparage someone who yes was an ex Prime Minister, but was also someone's mother and grandmother, when she had yet to be laid to rest is to me an embarrassing indictment of how most adults in Britain now behave and sadly teach their children to be. One banner near the procession read 'Rest in Peace Shame'. Shame on whoever wrote that.

Don't misunderstand me. I have many criticisms of Mrs T.  As I said, this will not be a political appraisal but a personal understanding of her tenure and, her legacy and reaction to her death.

Her term in office was the background to my childhood. I cannot say if I had been old enough I would have voted for her. Who knows?
What I do know is that she was a British icon of the 20th Century in many ways, and was such a powerful figure the like of which we have not had since and so deserves a funeral and respect befitting such an important person. She even brings out the misty eyed patriot in me which is saying something.
Simplistic yes but really, all that matters.

This week Royal Mail bought out stamps to celebrate Great Britons. Lloyd George is on one of them. I agree I suppose. But why not Thatcher? Why not Churchill? Is it maybe just distance in time that creates a nostalgic admiration and love? How long does it take to respect?

The naysayers, critics and protestors forget one important thing. Respect.
Free speech is one thing, but personal insults are quite another.
Respect on an individual level seems to have vanished in society but when a notable public figure dies not only should people be respectful of her as a woman; a mother and a human being but also as a distinguished politician.

I did not think Princess Diana was the vastly important woman she was portrayed to be. Her near beatification in the public arena and the peculiar outpouring of grief made me feel utterly alienated and perplexed. But did I protest , or insult her? Why would I? She was someone's mother, sister and for many people an important Briton. I showed respect in not saying anything. One does not always have to be pontificating and making a noise. People need to learn to be quiet sometimes.

Winston Churchill is held in high regard as he was when he died but let us not forget that some of his choices and policies have in recent times come under harsh scrutiny. Hindsight is after all a marvellous thing.
No leader is perfect and they will often be judged by one momentous event during their time in power, and more often than not those events are not cause for celebration but tragic or calamitous.

I wondered, when Parliament was recalled, if that would have happened under a Labour or Lib Dem administration. Her timing was perfect one might say!
Though I do wonder if Tony Blair , who was clearly Thatcher's political love child would have done the same. Protocol dictates but I wonder at what level.
It seemed a little pointless I thought and even devout Thatcherite Tory MPs I know of decided not to attend for sake of their constituency or holiday arrangements.

However, the spiteful, sneering tirade from Glenda Jackson made me actually stop in my tracks.

Though the fact she turned up at all was quite a good effort. Her side of the chamber is a little bare, but maybe if she represents the opinion there perhaps it was for the best.
I think Mrs T would have approved however. She was nothing if not a great Parliamentarian who believed in the power that Westminster had and should have. Some lively debate would probably have made her chuckle up there in heaven. Or in Hell. Depending on where you sit on this!

What really upsets me is the level of criticism heaped on Mrs T as a woman. Even the USA can not bring themselves to elect a female candidate for President and yet little old Britain managed it way back in 1979.

As someone who has had a brief flirtation with the world of Westminster I can tell you that politics today is as misogynistic if not worse than it was when Mrs T came to power. That she came to lead a party who are probably the worst culprits for sexism, is quite frankly an amazing feat which should be recognised.
Women today struggle to get the whole life/work balance and work their way up the career ladder and back when Thatcher did it, it was almost unthinkable.

Many women who criticise Thatcher say that she did nothing for the 'sisterhood'. Well, I am sorry to dispel this little myth but there is no such thing.

In my life I can safely say some of the worst bosses or colleagues I have endured have been women. The level of meanness , rudeness or down right discrimination at the hands of other women in the workplace makes Westminster seem like a hippy mother earth gathering.

Her tenure did nothing for women. I agree.
But why should a Prime Minister, who happens to be a woman do anything for feminist issues? This seems like quite a bizarre concept to me.

So should the government perhaps only have women in roles for education as they are womens' issues?
Where is the female Defence Minster, a woman at the Foreign Office?
Why isn't the Chancellor of the Exchequer a woman?
Yes, we have had a female PM but most of the traditionally male roles have never been taken on by a woman.

Women continue to be marginalised in politics . Westminster as I have said before is not an environment for women.

I grant you it is odd that women do not make it easier for other women and show some solidarity but when I see no evidence of this in the private sector what hope is there in Parliament.

Vince Cable recently said he would like to see more women in top jobs on FTSE boards. Well last time I saw him, Dr Cable was very much a man. So imagine that, a man campaigning for womens' rights.
Again though such comment is fairly pointless and some might say damaging to women. Maybe women don't want to try and juggle childrearing and family with high powered careers. Men it is true seldom have to worry about this concept. But sometimes life is just like that. A bit unfair.
The sexism and misogyny that women often have to face is hard but putting in quotas and insulting women who do make it to the top like Thatcher is even more damaging to any good that is supposedly being done.

If I had bought a lawsuit for every discriminatory type behaviour in the workplace I daresay I could be retired now living on my compensation. But I didn't, because life is what you make it. The unpleasantness I got from other women far exceeded any of the problems I encountered with men in the workplace and it is amusing that the female critics of Mrs T continue to use this clearly non existent concept of the sisterhood for any insult.

Her political critics are a different matter altogether. I too have massive misgivings about some of her policies and indeed think that some were so damaging and far reaching that we are now feeling the true consequences.

What I do believe however is actually in something far bigger than that.

When I got in a taxi recently the driver was busy chatting about all the protestors and comment about her legacy and he stopped and asked if I had been offended. I said no and enjoyed and the banter.
'Say what you like about her' he said,' She was great for this country. We need another Thatcher if you ask me'.
Well, of course the problem with that is that she was of her time. This is not the 1980s.
Mrs T changed the political landscape forever, the same way JFK did in the USA, stylistically and politically.
She paved the way for Tony Blair and New Labour. Whether that is a good thing or not can also be debated at length forever more. The reality is that people feel so strongly about her either way.

Do people loathe Gordon Brown? Probably not. Do they love him? Probably not.
Her premiership was groundbreaking in that she was such a dominant, powerful and recognisable figure both in the UK and on the world stage. David Cameron is not recognised abroad the way Thatcher was.
Isn't that really what people want? An übermensch. Even today in modern Britain.
Maybe even France!
People pretend they don't. but methinks they doth protest too much...

I recently watched 'The House of Cards' (the original) which I had not watched since it aired in 1990. It is no wonder I attribute that and Thatcher's demise with my formative years and burgeoning interest in politics. Oh, and probably some 'Spitting Image'!

Any more disturbing than the real thing?

But I commented how dated it looked, a totally different world. Much like the Thatcher era.
We may not live in those times, but what people want is not so very different.
But I couldn't possibly comment......



 The Bishop of Grantham surprised me when he said he considered the funeral cost to be inappropriate.

I questioned why the country made so much nonsense out of Prince William's wedding. But people who like that sort of thing told me to lighten up and enjoy it. So I shut up and shared my thoughts with my partner who also thought it all ridiculous and we left the country for the day so as not to suffer it! But I didn't protest or write hate articles or tweet cruel comments. Again why would I? People deserve some respect amidst some balanced comments and views.

Her funeral do not forget would also be viewed by the world, and would they not think it odd if we did nothing to mark the life of one of the greatest Britons of the 20th century?
So beloved by the military it is only natural for her to have had a full military ceremonial send off.

Respect for fellow human beings is held together by fraying string now, and most think it normal behaviour to prosecute teenagers who comment on each others clothes or for being EMOs or Goths as per the new hate crime rules. Bullying is abhorrent but a bit of abuse is something we all have to face at one time in our lives.
Yet holding parties to celebrate someone's death and and making hateful comments is okay and forgivable in the name of free speech. Mrs T's daughter spoke about losing her remaining parent. While she is much older than me I can of course sympathise and can only hope that the level of support far outweighs any of the protest. She deserved respect as any person suffering bereavement does. How as a nation did our moral compass become so broken and our empathy so distorted?

Respect vanished for politicians long ago. And journalists. And lawyers.  And bankers. The list goes on for the people or professions we show little regard for. Should we then only respect 'celebrities', people who do nothing but preen and exude narcissism without backing it up with talent or brains?
Therefore, what a good example for parents to set by making their children watch the funeral and explain who Lady Thatcher was. If they are intelligent beings they can go off and research who she was. For those of us old enough to remember we should pause for a moment and wonder who is around now that in years to come might deserve a similar glowing send off.


For me, on a personal level, Margaret Thatcher displayed admirable personal traits I applaud.
A woman who got to high office through hard work, determination and talent. A wife who maintained a long and successful marriage and maintained a private life. A mother who bought up two children whilst doing all the above.
'Borgen'? We had the real thing.

As a politician, she maintained a dominant and authoritative force. She stood her ground, stuck up for what she thought was right and tried to ensure Britain was no one's lap dog.
Her pragmatism, can do approach, straight talking and no nonsense attitude are traits which are definitely lacking amongst most in politics today. Maybe this is why politicians have become so irrelevant.

Yes, she made some horrible policies, caused problems for which we will be lumbered as a nation forever. Her relentless adoration for capitalism and mass privatisation accounts for much of the state of affairs now, and the mark her legacy has left on the university system and education as a whole is depressing.
I have no real feelings over the Falklands but her fight against the IRA was inspiring. People forget so quickly what the terrorism was like.
Her attitude to the EU helped feed latent scepticism and for that I am saddened. I continue to have mixed feelings on her premiership perhaps because I was not an adult living at that time.
But the fact she has not been in power for two decades and we are still even talking of her legacy is surely testament to her strong presence in politics.

Self confessed Thatcherites are still around now and maybe worryingly sitting at the Cabinet table. Two decades is a long time and in politics almost an eternity. The fact that one woman can inspire such vitriol and yet also such adoration and patriotic flag waving is for me clear evidence that she was important enough to have such a funeral today.

The queen has only attended funerals of two ex premiers and I doubt she or any future monarch will attend any others. I wonder why we are so sure there will never again be such a long serving, dominant figure at the helm. Where is the übermensch people so clearly desire?
Or is that actually all part of Mrs T's legacy? Her era came to an end some time ago but today it felt somehow like the door was firmly shut and locked.


I see her more as a great female role model more than anything else so I will end with this thought from her......

"Being powerful is like being a lady, if you have to tell people you are, you aren't".

'Vive La Différence .... Or Not'

The French protesting? Incroyable! Scandaleux!

Well actually this time, it is, because people took to the streets about a topic that has become so mundane and passé everywhere else - gay marriage.

This protest was not steeped in religious fundamentalism or homophobia , nor was it orchestrated by far right lunatics. It is actually a very clear minded and seemingly coherent demonstration of a sustained protest against extending marriage rights for homosexuals. Much public debate has gone on in France helped (or hindered) by the strange figure of Frigide Barjot (Google her, I cannot bring myself to put a link here)! and her eclectic band of protesters. Naturally religious figures have also come out against the Bill and those on the far right of the political spectrum have also hijacked the debate. However it is very notable that the protest has been largely nothing to with religion at all. Which makes a nice change.

The superb blog Gulf Stream Blues reports on Madame Barjot's visit to the European Parliament to voice her views.
I can see why her movement would bewilder an American because in the USA, anti gay marriage protesters are solely religious right wing Americans who use God to legitimise hatred towards all gay people.
Therefore a lobby who are made up of secular people, homosexuals and seemingly regular members of society would indeed seem incomprehensible.

I also think he has misunderstood why the UK has shown no such resistance to such a bill. Being a British person I am able to shed some light on this matter because I think it best not to live under any illusions.

Now the problem with equal marriage bills for homosexuals is it actually has very little to do with gay rights. Odd you might think but if you examine it in much closer detail you will see what I mean and perhaps think Frigide Barjot is not as nuts as she seems.
Okay, yes she is actually completely mad as a box of frogs, but her movement and many other protesters against gay marriage highlight the issues which have not been raised. By simply putting gay marriage under the banner of gay rights , anyone protesting is merely seen as a homophobe. Wrong.

Accepting homosexuality and safeguarding the rights for homosexuals is paramount to a coherent, well adjusted, caring and liberal society. Gay marriage is not gay rights and being against the idea does not make one homophobic.

So let us dispel some myths which have got entangled with this whole matter.
Firstly, marriage is a bit of a weird concept even in straight terms. Many in the gay community who advocate and relish sexual freedom cannot understand why they would want the straight idea of marriage imposed on what they perceive as their much freer lifestyle. They do not endorse the gay marriage bill and for the most part are not even interested in it.
Certainly both men and women have for the last forty years been told they can sleep around and marriage was not the be all and end all, so why set marriage back up again as the white picket fence idyll that everyone both gay and straight want?
The dwindling numbers getting married and the rise in divorce rates would imply that heterosexual marriage isn't quite as popular as it was and attitudes have changed, therefore it is a bit odd to extend it to gay people who never really wanted the institution in the first place.
Like many causes, those who have nothing to do with it but see it as a fashionable , liberal concept that makes them look like caring individuals choose to get on the bandwagon.

One male gay couple I know have been living together for twenty-two years, and have a better relationship than many heterosexual married people I know. I asked them what they thought. One raised his eyes and the the other joked, 'Oh no, please don't start him off on that one'!
They felt like the Bill was just posturing for a government to look like it was in touch with people and modern times but they felt it was hypocritical. They didn't want to get married and said they were gay, that was the whole point they didn't need to get married. This couple were old enough to remember what it was like to be gay when being gay was a criminal offence. Everything that had happened in the name of gay rights was fantastic and they of course would not have it any other way. But for them also gay marriage was an alien idea, silly even and had nothing to do with empowering gay people or giving them rights and a life free of discrimination. Seeing over the top camp gay ceremonies made them feel embarrassed.
I have to say I understood what they were saying, maybe I was a bit surprised they didn't want to get married, but you know, they used the same old argument straight cohabiting couples use. ' We've been together twenty-two years what do we need a bit of paper for?'

The second example here, I would like to say was an anomaly, but it isn't and really does the whole gay marriage bill a total disservice and brings the whole idea into an embarassing joke.
A Polish gay friend of mine said he was going to bring his Brazilian lover over to stay. Fair enough. How lovely. Have fun I said!
But he was worried about him staying and working in the UK. He said to me that if Brazilian boy wanted to stay in the UK he would have to get married to him. I laughed. Thinking he was kidding. The Polish is already in a civil partnership to an Australian boy who returned to Australia! Estranged and not 'divorced'!
He looked serious, so I stopped smiling. He explained quite po faced that it was all just bits of paper to serve an end. So he would get 'divorced' from Australian boy and marry Brazilian, then he would be able to stay.
If it wasn't for the fact I like this guy and think he is actually a lot more honest in his intentions than many, I would probably have got in a bit of Daily Mail flurry of excitement.
Gay marriage would only make the divorce settlement a whole lot more complicated. So not only will you have straight miserable people in marriages they probably don't want to be in but now also gay people. Sterling idea!
And let us extend a system that is already being abused so that we can make a total mockery out the institution of marriage.
Just because I personally think marriage is a bit peculiar, doesn't mean it isn't basically quite a nice idea and one which should not be so disrespected.


So if we come back to Gulf Stream Blues post, I think the main thing that needs to be addressed is the confusion over how Britain is towards these matters and how religion does or doesn't fit in.

The UK government passed the Gay Marriage Bill for two reasons.
Firstly there is a large number of MPs who are homosexual. Even those who do not believe in marriage for gay people or themselves would never vote against such a bill.

Secondly, the British people are not the French. They do not protest, they do not get fired up about anything because they are a doormat nation. I am British so I am allowed to tell this truth and not be called racist. British people choose to moan about things. A lot. They then mutter under their breath a bit and then just get grumpy. They won't actually raise the subject in any meaningful way to demonstrate their displeasure. They might write a strongly worded letter if they get really irate. But you'd have to be pretty damn cross for that level of action!
While other countries often interpret laws and rules in their own way , Britain adheres to every rule they are given. It is a bizarre contradiction and one I don't think I will ever quite understand.
But if a bill about gay marriage is going through, there will be lots of discussion, maybe even quite heated. Anyone who says anything against what seems to be the prevailing majority will be labelled bigoted/racist/stupid/hateful etc and once the bill has passed it will all be forgotten. 'Tis the British way.

So, a combination of public apathy, and minority interest in the majority of the governing body is what passed the Gay Marriage Bill in the UK.  I hope that clears any misconceptions up about the UK being on the pulse and a caring liberal nation open to intelligent public debate.

So religion. Well unfortunately in American terms gay rights and God seem inextricably and incomprehensibly linked.


Vehement secularism is just as damaging for a nation in my opinion as is overzealous religiosity.

France perplexes me in its fervent secularisation and fervent desire for complete lack of religious influence. Why the worry? With France's history it is unlikely that they would ever become a Church nation.
With their history of complicity during Vichy, and their notorious anti semitism an outsider might assume they would leave people to get on with whatever religion they so wish to participate in.
The constant saga over Muslim headscarves and the banning of the niqabs and burqas also seems to me confusing for a country who purports to be so accepting of its many colonial immigrants.
President Hollande has said he wants a new law extending the banning of all religious symbols in private sector jobs; crosses, headscarves, Jewish caps, all of them.
Why? Is this not blatant discrimination?
I imagine Catholics in France must be in a constant state of apoplexy,  first gay marriage then only days later a bill to expand access to abortion. Being a catholic in France must be for the truly stubborn and relentless with a total unwavering belief in their church because it must be very tiresome fighting all the time!
France, a vehemently secular country is actually more conservative and less liberal than so called religious countries whose  separation of the state and church are more blurred.
So in reality where has this got them? Confusion, protest, animosity, and a lot of latent and not so latent racism.


Britian in theory has a national religion in the Church of England but the separation of church and state is in fact very clear and I would describe Britain as a very secular nation. But by choice rather than enforcement. British people can and do worship whatever religion they wish.  Jedi even too if the latest Census was anything to go on!
Immigrants living in the UK are often more religious than native residents and one only has to visit one of the many pristine and well loved Russian Orthodox churches scattered around London to see devotion and level of religiosity demonstrated in the UK today.
The mosques, temples and synagogues all over the country show that the UK is tolerant of any religion.

Of course by passing bills which go against the doctrine of many religions it has put them in an unusual predicament. But that is for the religions themselves to decide and if they wish to ignore law and pursue their own agenda then so be it but I would not like to see any government interfering with them.
If religion is not meant to play a part int he state then the state must not interfere with religion. It is only fair after all.

Ultimately this post was not to discuss how religion has nothing to do with civil rights but I think it highlights the confusion, especially for an American outsider looking in. Secularism does not encourage liberalism and religiosity does not encourage far right and anti liberalist politics. In fact religion generally has nothing to do with politics.
No government or those lobbying them should be discussing gay rights, abortion or any such matter with any link to God.
Now that really is something for an American to get their head round.

France has, like most countries, it's own very unique philsophical and political bent. Someone like Mme Barjot would not even get airtime in the UK but in France while she is indeed seen as a bit of a fruitcake, she is taken seriously enough as she sparked intelligent discussion about he effects of gay marriage on society and gay rights in general. This is why gays, non religious people and people from all political persuasions got involved in the demonstration. While the French believe wholeheartedly in personal freedom and are accepting of peoples' private lives, they also wish to ensure balance between those things and the good of society for all. Therefore interesting debate occurred in France. In the UK or America only right wing religious ranters being shouted down as bigots by insincere bandwagon jumping fools was at the basis of any 'discussion'.


The protest in France has been widely condemned and France has been told their ugly side has been uncovered. But has it? I am not so sure.
Being pro gay rights and pro civil rights for any minority who is discriminated against has little to do with gay marriage. This is true for gay and non gay alike.
There are many minorities or people who feel left out all of the time and will never reach any level of acceptance or attain equality so there will always be high levels of disparity in any society.

France clearly has a lot of issues with its forced secularism and though in this case religion has little to do with the cause, I would see it has bred a lot of confusion amongst many French people.

I feel somehow reminded of Father Ted's vague halfhearted protesting abilities. Careful now!

But I will end with a less flippant and more sincere,

'Vive la liberté d'expression'.