I Got Angry Again

I’ve been involved in supporting carers of people with Mental Illness for a few years now, I got involved because I saw my wife receive such bloody awful service at the hands of the NHS, and as a Carer I was treated like dirt, got no support whatsoever from them. Indeed it got so bad that her consultant actually said she would rather she and her staff lie than tell me they didn’t know something.

I feel that I am reasonably eloquent and intelligent (though others will possibly dispute those points of course) and certainly can be stubborn. I really don’t want to see others have to go through the same crap we went through so have committed myself to doing what I can do to help to improve matters.

I work with some really committed, passionate people, who are all of the same mind, simply want to see an improvement to the service for everyone’s benefit. The thing about this work that consistently upsets me is the number of people involved in campaigning for the wrong reasons… either to line their own pockets, boost their own egos or to just talk and claim passion but do nothing so that they can tell their cronies at the golf club or women’s institute about the good deeds they are doing.

OK, I have been accused of volunteer snobbery for this view, I wont comment on that, but if you think it’s true, it doesn’t really bother me to be honest. I just want to do my bit to help our vulnerable people.

Today I have had a very mixed sort of day, one that left me feeling very frustrated and angry.. let me try to explain why….

Some time ago a friend of mine devised a training initiative to present to members of the Mental Health Service to try to get a better understanding of the carers role. The principle is simple, carers simply tell their stories, highlighting problems, fears and the emotional impact of the caring role. This is done by a series of Talking heads, where one carer interviews the other.

After the Talking Heads, and a break, we split into groups, and invite the professionals to tease out the main issues, consider some possible solutions and look for barriers, which may prevent progress.

It is a fairly simple process, but when the event is delivered well, with compassion and commitment it is very powerful and effective. However good the professionals they will hear things that shock and upset them…. And they will respond positively.

The principal has now been extended to concentrate on young carers, under 25 years old, though many are significantly younger than that. The event runs in exactly the same way, but the carers are all youngsters.

I attended a Young Carers session for the first time, in the role of support for the young people who were to deliver the talking head sessions. What I witnessed through the day made me extremely unhappy.

Not the fault of the young carers, who spoke eloquently, with passion and painful honesty about their situation, it would take a very hard heart not to have been moved, but sadly their stories, and their courage was insulted and marginalized by the behaviour of the team, running the sessions.

The session started late, despite the fact everyone participating was there some 90 minutes before the scheduled start. The whole event then opened with a an hours ramble by a presenter who was using scruffy flip chart pages which were out of sequence, who faced the flip chart to read it consistently, never made eye contact with his audience, and generally demonstrated a lack of real understanding or compassion for his subject, lack of respect for his audience of the health care professionals.

He briefly handed over to his co-presenter, who had written her speech out an hour or to earlier, but sadly gave the impression of being too drunk to read it, frequently asked for help from her colleague and got many of her facts wrong.

A third colleague stepped up to do a speech, which didn’t mention the young carers at any point, rambled inanely and didn’t actually say anything.

The first presenter then resumed, only to be interrupted by his colleague because he had missed bits out, which he struggled to incorporate.

This introduction ended with the presenters all stressing the importance of respecting the young carers, listening in silence and raising any issues in the discussions afterwards. The first carers had only been talking for a couple of minutes when one of the presenters callously interrupted them, booming out pointless and inane questions, which had he had the courtesy he demanded of others were answered within the talking head section anyway.

Throughout the introduction section it was clear that one presenter was in no condition to be there, as became spectacularly apparent a bit later, the lead presenter did not know most peoples names, ignored the young carers who were doing the talking heads, afterall the central point of the event, and was so jealous that if anyone got into a conversation with any of the decision makes from the Health Service he butted in, took over and left the other person feeling belittled and offended.

He also raised many issues around the age of the young carers, after all the point of the young carers event is that there is no minimum age for a carer, many are born into it and are caring before they start school. He was never able to offer a reason for his pointless obstinacy other than “it is the law”… didn’t know which law, or why, just that it is the law.

This sort of behaviour is in my view, unacceptable, and does the cause more harm than good.

The other aspect of people being involved for the wrong reasons is demonstrated in another group I work with, where we had members who spoke with passion, real strength and conviction, but sadly not much sense or knowledge, and who by force of personality won debates which they should not have done.

Their involvement was, as far as I could see, purely to sound off and to be able to tell people they were doing a great deal of charity work, when in fact they were stopping the others from doing anything constructive.

I believe that these “talkers not doers” and the kind of presenter described earlier are simply devaluing the work of the genuinely committed people who want to simply make a difference. These people should not be allowed to work in charity or voluntary work, they give the role a bad name, tarnishing all the good people involved. They hold back any real progress and simply frustrate their colleagues by their negativity and incompetence.

OK, this may be volunteer snobbery on my part… as I said earlier, I don’t care. I am driven to achieve things in terms of supporting mental health patients and their carers, improving the service provided and seeing a real positive difference.

I do not want to work with those whose role is to hold that back, or whose lack of commitment or passion devalues the work of others and dilutes the message…

I have been associated with the young carers of Labelled for a few months now, and it has been an incredibly invigorating, and indeed humbling, experience to work with such a great group of youngsters, doing what they believe in, with commitment, passion and energy… as all the support groups should be. It has totally brought me back to life, and I am now working to infect all the groups I am associated with the same passion and drive, so we can really make a difference rather than just talking about it.

A Difficult Subject

This is a difficult subject, one I probably have no right to write about, but I that isn’t going to stop me. It is something of which I have no personal direct experience, but I have dear friends who have… their stories are just so shocking, so disturbing, yet I know they are the tip of the iceberg… these things happen far more often than you would dare imagine.

What are we talking about now? Child abuse. In particular I am looking at sexual abuse. The appalling thing is that in the majority of sexual abuse cases, it is a close family member or close friend who commits the crimes.

Not only do these things happen more often than you would imagine, but they can continue, through the years, through generations, as statistics show that many abusers have themselves grown up being abused… they are themselves also victims, and their own sufferings are transferred to their children. It is important to understand, however, that not all who suffer go on to abuse, but all who are abused go on to suffer the effects for many years, if not for ever.

The implications for the victim, the person abused, are lifelong… not only do they suffer the pain, the shame, the terror the fear of the physical assaults, the rapes, but they carry the fear and horror with them around the clock, day in, day out for a lifetime.

They become defensive, suspicious, withdrawn… they cannot form proper bonds, so have few if any friends, they often fail at school because they are so continually worried about what will happen when they get home, so distracted by it that they cannot concentrate, and they cannot work at home because of what they are expecting every minute.

The issue is, the abuse usually is at home, no-one sees it apart from the two people… usually the two people… involved…

If you have not been there, you will wonder why the victim doesn’t tell the other parent, tell the police, tell the school… ask for help… if you have been there, you will know exactly why you can’t; you are frightened, you are embarrassed, you are ashamed of what is happening to you.. and the longer it goes on the harder it becomes to tell… you know that other family members will not believe you anyway.

So often then, the abuse carries on over years, the victim finds it less and less possible to speak up, the perpetrator thrives on the power and domination in the situation. Whatever happens, the pain, suffering, trauma of the abuse will live forever in the victim.

It is so important to identify where this behaviour is happening, and there is one huge difficulty of the situation. We do not want the so-called nanny state peering into to every room of every household daily to track down abuse, but we cannot allow it to carry on. There has to be a compromise somewhere betwen

I don’t have any definitive answers to this question, but the victims must surely display signs of the abuse, either by way of suspicious bruises, withdrawn behaviour, erratic behaviour… of course these all have a host of potential causes, but all need dealing with, they should not be left unchecked. In a previous job I had to do regular training sessions in safeguarding, and I only saw children, for the most part with their parents or teachers in school parties, but it is useful and important training.

I wonder if teachers, and everyone whose work puts them regularly in contact with a group of children, should have more intensive training in how to identify children who are being abused, or indeed being bullied, or acting as carers…because they are the people that see most of the children, other than the parents, and we know most abuse is in the home.

It may also be useful to introduce the same subjects into the curriculum, not in detail, but to get younger folk to become accustomed to the concept and implications of abuse, mental illness and a host of other sensitive subjects may just help to eradicate the stigma which makes it so impossible to talk about it publicly and to be willing to seek help when it is needed.

I realise that this sort of approach would offend, and there is an argument that it would rob the children of their innocence too soon… but we need to consider the well being of the countless children who are, even now, being abused or losing their youth for any one of many reasons.

I am the last person to encourage the so-called “nanny-state” or big brother, and I don’t want to see children losing their childhood innocence too early, but I think we have to compromise towards these situations to protect the people who are being abused, remember the damage that can be done to someone by sexually abusing them is beyond imaging… it can leave people literally scarred for life, both physically and mentally, it will severely impact on any potential future relationships, you will be unable to trust people, you will have a lifetime sentence of depression and post traumatic stress, fear of trusting people…

Can you imagine what it is like at the time you most need your parents support to know that that is the last thing you can ever have, to grow up knowing a parent is responsible for your sufferings, to resent them for eternity…

Can you imagine being unable to trust anyone enough to have a proper relationship, or alternatively totally lose everything and give yourself recklessly to everyone.

Can you imagine, beyond this, to have a serious mental illness for life, to need therapy but know that therapy is potentially as dangerous as the suffering.

Is it any wonder that victims of abuse are prone to serious self-harm under duress and even suicide attempts, because there is no way out, at best you can learn to control to some extent the appalling damage you have suffered.

Even if you are strong enough to form a loving bond with a partner, to have children, to know that your partners life will also be blighted by your illness, that any children will be brought up, lovingly and compassionately, but knowing the horror of a parent suffering serious mental illness and feeling the shame of being a victim of something totally out of their control, feeling  unworthy, and perhaps not understanding that the self harm and suicide attempts are because it is so much easier to deal with than the mental torment, rather than being a tacit statement that they don’t love their family enough, or even dislike them enough, to want to stay with them.

It affects everyone involved… it affects them for life… there is no respite from this sort of suffering.

I know that training teachers, and others who see children regularly in a professional capacity is an expensive and demanding strategy, I know that setting up peer group counselling services and therapy is expensive and demanding, but consider the benefits, not only is there a chance that abused children will be identified sooner, minimising the suffering, improving their chances of recovering a normal life, but on a mercenary level, it would be probably less expensive than the cost of providing care and support for the victims if they escape and are able to talk about it, or when they collapse into serious mental illness and need permanent hospitalisation.

I really don’t have the answers, I do at least acknowledge the questions, the main one of which is that vast numbers of children in the past, and now, and in the future are being sexually abused, and having their entire lives ruined through no fault of their own, and we need to do something about it.

These people need all the help and support we can give them, every last scrap of help and support to prevent them getting into the desperate condition that so many now find themselves in.

No price is too great to achieve that, so let us at least take the rose tinted glasses away from our eyes, start the discussion, try, as with mental illness, to at least remove the stigma for the victims. Only then will we be able to start to make some headway.

As for the abusers… not my problem right now, maybe subject for another article… it may not be simple black and white.. but for the victim it is, it always will be… they have been abused, assaulted, stripped of dignity and hope and have had their entire lives broken.

That is something that must not be allowed to continue

Some People Make me Angry

I get angry sometimes, I don’t tend to rant and scream, but I get angry. I get angry with people usually, well people and traffic lights to be honest, but mainly with people. Not all people, most people I know are great…. The ones that I get angry about tend to attract at least one of the following epithets to them… parasite, liar, hypocrite, time waster, judgemental… Sounds like a particular occupation? Maybe, but in many ways we are all guilty of the last point. Don’t kid yourself… you have been ready to condemn because that lad is wearing a hoodie, because his hair is too long, she is wearing a low cut top and short skirt, he is black, she is fat, he is ginger… yes, you are judging based on a single characteristic without any evidence to support you

I have a few specific people in mind, but I suspect I will get in deep trouble if I name names, or make it too obvious… but I will describe the types of people generically. I think anyone who knows me well wont need telling who I am thinking of, but don’t ask me if you are right… in case I answer!!

So, like many people I know, I do voluntary work, and like 95% of others who do, I do it for one reason and one reason only. I see a need for improvement, for understanding and to defend people who don’t have a voice to raise in their own defence. I don’t seek praise, reward or anything else. The only reward I value is to see someone getting some support as a result of something I have done, fought for… or to see what I think are evil or inept practices being challenged and corrected.

I think I speak for all genuine campaigners and voluntary workers in that. What really frustrates me is when the authority we are challenging won’t listen, but I can live with that.

The people that anger me are people working for charities, campaigning, but who don’t share my commitment and passion to achieve something positive. Individuals who can wring their hands in passion, declaim eloquently about how we have to make changes, but will not take the next step to do something. I have seen people bellow indignantly, strike the table, declaim like an old testament prophet of wrath and eternal damnation, but ask them to approve a stiff letter, or a piece of action, and the answer is always “no”.

I question the motivation of these people… do they really want to see change, to help their nominated sector of society, to improve things, or do they simply want the brownie points of nominally supporting the cause, but in practice simply hold back any improvement. That way they can tell their golf club, or their ladies circle about how they do good works, but without the risk of ever having to get their hands dirty by actually doing anything to help, after all, they don’t want to have to deal with the working class do they?

The second group that I want to highlight are simple liars, people who do not tell the truth, who hide truth behind falsehood for their own gratification or self aggrandisement. Obviously this is wrong, but I wonder how many liars understand the implications of what they do. I am not perfect, like everyone else I have ever met, or ever will meet, I can lie… I can add to incidents for comic effect, the “white lie” to avoid offence (Does my bum look big In this?” “no dear”) these things don’t matter in the great scheme of things.

Where lieing does matter is in people in authority… in people who we need to have every confidence in… such as teachers, doctors, religious leaders, politicians, police officers.

If we are ill, or our loved one is ill, we are whether we accept it or not, vulnerable. We need our consultants to be honest and open. Of course there are times when it is acceptable to blur the truth… a dieing man may prefer not to know that, to live the rest of his life as normally as possible. It is, however, my firm belief that it is totally wrong to deceive his family. The bottom line of this is that a consultant tells you that your loved one is doing ok, will recover and be home in no time… but they die all the same.

Sometimes of course the prognosis is genuinely optimistic, and something happens to change it, but all to often their really is no hope, and, possibly for the best of reasons, the consultant will say all is well, knowing it not to be, to avoid the family getting upset or panicking. For me, these families deserve to know the truth, need to know the truth, so that they can come to terms, make their farewells, and prepare for the inevitable… maybe not now but in a year or too when it becomes imminent, but if they don’t know, they cannot make the arrangements, the appropriate gestures. They will lose their loved one with regrets and greater sorrow.

When a consultant does not tell the truth, they undermine all their own work, and all that of their colleagues immediately they are found out, as they inevitably will be, they lose the respect of the patients and their carers, the word of “the doctor”, any doctor, is not trusted, and this can have serious implications for any subsequent illnesses in the family group.

It is never acceptable for people in authority, where trust is a vital commodity in the process, to lie… there is no problem saying “I don’t know, I’ll check for you and get back to you” or “it’s not good news but…. “. Always better to tell the truth.

Then we have the parasites, they will encourage  the genuine people to do things, achieve things, then their egos or apathies will walk in and take the plaudits… like many I do my share of graft for the causes I seek to espouse… and I aim to get publicity for the cause by writing articles, letters, making phone calls or simply by waffling incessantly at people.

At other times in order to deliver my projects it is essential to work in conjunction with someone else, maybe another group, because I have the skills and they have the money to push it forward… there could be other things of course, but this is a typical one.

I would really get upset if we had an agreement to work together for the good of the sector of society I choose to work with, and the other party provided the resources, and I worked my butt off to deliver the good deeds, only to find that they impose a condition that they tell me how to do the project to tie in with their agenda, rather thn need, and that it will carry their branding and none of mine.

Sadly there are many organisations, often within City and County Councils, who have no real commitment to anything, except using decent hardworking people doing good important works only to take the credit for everything as though it was theirs from the beginning and be handsomely rewarded for it.

It is all about power, taking advantage of the willing, honest person with commitment and passion, sucking out all the goodness and taking it on themselves without doing anything at all to earn it.

All of the above types are time wasters, but some people are time wasters without any of the above sins. How often do you see people asked to do something, or support something, but even knowing it is important and the path forward clearly signposted, will want to give it another 48 hours before doing anything, then wanting not only to review everything from the first discussion, but to have it all illustrated in pie charts, graphs, a 48 page report in triplicate and further discussion.

These people seem to be indecisive, and sometimes they are, and it could be a result of depression or anxiety, both of which lead to difficulty in making decisions. As often as not, however, they are time wasters, hoping against hope that if they prevaricate long enough the need or possibility of action has passed and they can move on to wasting someone elses time.

These people, are called time wasters and can often be found in the corridors of decision in council halls around the country.

Yes, I am frequently referred to as a Victor Meldrew type, forever moaning about things, about people… and yes, I don’t suffer fools gladly and do raise issues when I feel they need raising, but I think I achieve a damn site more for my causes than the kind of people I describe here. They hold back any possible progress and improvement and that makes me angry…

Live Albums

Well, I was driving home earlier, listening to random tracks from the ipod... when up pops this rather rocking piece of blues... knew it at once, it was Statesboro Blues from the Allman Brothers Live at the Fillmore double album. The Allmans are a band I have always loved, and to hear them at their best, you need to hear them live, so this album is both a fine remembrance and a fine album.

                
It did, however, make me think on the value of the double live albums which virtually everyone had to release in the early 70's... and are still fairly common currency even today... i was thinking this: the live album.... a blessing or a curse.?

Once again I have decided you can't generalise, for some artists the live album is a fine album critical part of their legacy, for others it is an inferior greatest hits album, for a third section of the music world, a contractual obligation to cover a lack of material... for so many more a serious error.

Whichever category it falls into, is it generally a fair reflection of the concert recorded.

I have a few examples...  for me the aforementioned Allman Brothers Band Live at the Fillmore East is a glowing example of the quality and music of the band, it flows, it has short sharp pieces, extended pieces and a couple of their extended jams, a fair representation of their set, a mixed bag of pieces, and taken and pressed untouched from the live recording. I think there are other albums that come into this category, most of the Grateful Dead live albums do it. There are others of course.... i would include especially Rory Gallagher's live albums in this list

I have a live Creedence Clearwater Revival album, it is a greatest hits set, all inferior versions to the recorded originals partly because John Fogarty was not in the band at the time. I also have a pukka greatest hits album, so never play the live one.

Live albums to cover lack of material, classic one comes to mind is the Rolling Stones Get Your Ya-Ya's Out... at the time they were clearly marking time, I think they lost the plot when they lost Brian, though Micky Taylor did a sterling job in his brief involvement, but they had nothing coming along, were not in a creative phase, so out comes a fairly miserable live album. The other may be the Eagles Hell Freezes Over... a bland rehash to cash in on their reunion when they didnt seem to be really together and had no creative spark.

The final category is the total disaster album... I would also include Ya Ya's in this category... down the years I have heard so many ill advised live albums, live albums by bands that simply should not get up on stage, should stay in the studio with the technology to help out. As I say, I have heard so many... just can't think of them now as I have hopefully put them out of my mind.... The one I cant excuse though is the John Lennon/Mothers of Invention farce that made disc 2 of Sometime in New York... to say that was appalling would be to praise it beyond it's worth

Then there is the question "How live is a live album". I recall a friend did a recorder weekend, which ended with a concert by the ensemble, a recorder orchestra, which i thoroughly enjoyed..... Obviously biased because of his presence, but I've played it to others without mentioning him and they have been quite impressed by it. However, the day after the concert, they all reassembled to re-record a number of bars, probably about 25 bits within the 1 hour concert.

Again, back to the YaYa's album, popular legend has it that all of the guitar solos were re-recorded in the studio, because they were all totally out of tune, and in some cases, the wrong key. 

In these cases the albums are not representative of the concert, and actually are a bit of a con. I am sure however that many live albums are rerecorded later.

I actually listened to a live album the other day (Sandy Denny - Gold Dust") where all the backing vocals were re-recorded for the album by people who had not played at the concert.

The other aspect of Live albums is banter... I love the John Sebastion live album because it has music I like, with typically Sebastian banter, which brings the concert closer to you. On the other hand, much as I love the Humble Pie Rockin' the FIllmore, the banter and exhortations to rock and so on sound banal and irritating sitting in your living room, while they work perfectly well in a concert hall. It certainly evokes the quality of the band live, and they were a live band rather than a studio band, there is a fair bit of that on Rory's Live in Europe, especially on the mandolin piece

So, there we have it, I have been philosophising on the live album lately... 

The other aspect of course now is the DVD... so many bands are releasing live DVD's now... for quality you cant beat Pink Floyd Pulse... has everything you want in a Pink Floyd concert, same applies to the Bands Last Waltz. DVD'S by the like of Roy Harper have a different value, they are also revealing insights into the man and his work.

One suspects that most live DVD's are basically untouched, although some merge sections from different concerts, when a piece was played better on a different night in the tour... can live with that

At the end of the day, among my favourite live albums and DVD's are the Bruce Springsteen ones, both audio and video discs include a selection of live recordings from concert stage, and tv studio over a decade, and include the obvious hits as well as some more obscure stuff. Not a concert, but a series of live versions of the songs – in some cases the studio versions are vastly superior, in others the live fel and performance adds to the song.

Music, or Not... It's all a matter of opinion

I have listened to music for as long as I can remember, I don’t recall songs in the family, but ever since I listened to Uncle Mac on a Saturday morning; music has played a significant part of my life. There is music out there that inspires me, soothes me, drives me on, makes me emotional, makes me happy, and that reflects every mood you can imagine, and music that reminds me of most of the incidents of my life.

As, I think, with most people, the music I consider best, most important to me is the music I was listening to as a youth and young man, growing up, in my scuffling days. Nowadays I echo the words of my parents generation, the music is ok, but not as good as when I was younger. I always said I would never go that way… 

I have always tried to follow contemporary music, the music of the day, but my tastes are very broad, ranging from traditional, rock, blues, jazz, opera, classical, medieval… a broad range of stuff. I don’t, however, like to pigeon-hole music, it simply doesn’t work. There are some performances that fir snugly into a category, but the majority, especially when you look at albums, concerts and careers, that span many genres.

I personally prefer to consider music in three categories, I like it, I don’t like it, I am ambivalent towards it, and what fits into each category will be your own, we will all have different lists under each heading. It doesn’t mean the music I love is better than the music you love, or vice versa. Of course some music is “good” in that it conforms to the musical rules, is technically well played and sung, but that doesn’t mean it is enjoyable necessarily, as there is some music that doesn’t conform to the rules, is technically badly played and sung, but can still be enjoyable.

The thing that horrifies me about music nowadays, what has devalued new music over the last 10 or 15 years can be summed up in two words… Simon Cowell. Of course Cowell wasn’t the first to do what he does, but he is probably the best at it, and the current “master”.

Historically people made music, yes, many had managers, producers and the rest, but historically most artists, certainly the ones that lasted more than the one brief spark of fame, learned their craft on the streets, in clubs, pubs, colleges and bottom of the bill at festivals and concert halls. They learned to respond, they learned to adapt their material, they learned what was liked, what wasn’t. They could build on the good things and grow into mature quality performers. If you are playing a small club to 100 people, you can see their response to what you do petty clearly.

Too many artists now think the road to success is through the talent show route, Britain’s Got Talent, X-Factor… and of course that is the way to short term success… every series, thousands of “wannabees”  makes total fools of themselves, lining Cowell’s pockets in the process, for the sake of the life changing payday. Of course if they can invent a heartrending back story they have a better chance of being “talented”.

Listen critically to these shows, the 12 or so individuals or bands that get to the live finals have all displayed some qualities in the auditions and early part of the process, then in the finals, under the glare of a massive publicity machine, the are morphed by the show into 12 identikit acts, singing songs they wouldn’t touch in real life, in a way they wouldn’t sing them for themselves, to identikit arrangements… until they are all totally interchangeable, and interchangeable with last years class as well…it is all bland manufactured music. These people haven’t learned their craft around the live circuit, benefit parasitically from the expertise of the soulless machine that Cowell presides over to turn out mindless identikit

 music .

Look now at the music racks in the supermarkets… what percent of the CD’s on display are spawned by these talent shows? I don’t have a figure, but it is pretty high. So where is the space for the talented artists who learn their craft and do it for themselves.. no chance. At least now with u-tube and downloads they can get their names and product out to more people, but the machine will never support anyone like that, because, well, they are too maverick, they have not sold their souls or integrity…

Very few people have come through this process and gone on to develop careers as stars, there are exceptions, of course, in the like sof Will Young who is a gifted artist and entertainer, and I feel Leona Lewis will also achieve status. Others are currently very successful, mainly because of their youth, looks and charm (I’m told) such as One Direction and JLS, but do either have anything of their own to offer the world?

The most hapless and appalling offshoots though are the acts that achieve success through novelty value…such as Jedward and Chico.

I’d prefer not to comment on the singers who have been in the finals of Britain’s got Talent and gone on to “stardom”.

The other musical area which I detest, as much as the “reality show” syndrome is the bad crooner or standard singer. One thing I demand when listening to music that the arrangement and performance be sympathetic to the lyric, it doesn’t have to be the same arrangement and style as the original versions, even where the original can be remembered. It does however have to be sympathetic.

I recall watching a TV variety show, with one of these so called crooners topping the bill. He ended on a jolly bouncy song, where he danced energetically around the stage exhorting the audience to clap along to the beat. That in itself is no bad thing, a crowd pleasing jolly climax. The song he chose for this performance was a song written by Joni Mitchell, charting her frame of mind at he break up of a major relationship, a song called Both Sides Now. It is a very personal and introverted acknowledgement of sorrow and despair. It is not the sort of song that can be treated as this artist treated it.

These crooners are, in my view, parasitic performers with no soul or integrity, just cashing in on a song which was popular at the time, regardless of it’s meaning and content.

There are of course, crooners of this type who read songs perfectly, the obvious examples being Frank Sinatra and Matt Munro, both of who seemed to understand every lyric and to reflect it beautifully in the performances.

I don’t think I am a luddite when it comes to music, as I said earlier my tastes are wide, much of the music I listen to dates back before my own lifetime.. I thrill to a Mahler Symphony, the blues of Robert Johnson, the jazz stylings of Django Rheinhardt, I worship the traditional ballad singing of the Watersons, the Copper Family. Many of my favourite artists grew out of the hippy generation, such as the Grateful Dead. Bob Dylan has been an inspiration to me and a route into other art forms, and we will never see the like of the Beatles again.

When the music of my generation grew too pompous and grandiose, up came some wonderful music, a total antidote to it, and I stlll love the music of the Clash and the Sex Pistols who refreshed things when it was needed, unfortunately, the punk rising was as short lived as it was meteoric, and left behind a bit of a void that has been filled with what is, in my opinion, a bland vapid form of identikit popular music springing out of shows which valued production and formula above originality and talent, and as far as I can see despised ant form of originality or personality.

I long to see a 21^st century version of the Sex Pistols appear, in whatever guise, to busrst the bubble of mediocrity and revitalise music as an artform.

As I said right at the beginning, music is a subjective thing, not good or bad, but liked or not liked. I have tried to share some of my views on why I dislike some music so totally. In my personal opinion, this music is simply dumbing down music and art, and leads to reducing everything to the lowest common denominator, which is something I sadly regret.

Football.. what has gone wrong?

OK, I admit it, I’m a football fan. Support my home town team, Leicester City. (I’m not looking for sympathy by saying that) and have a strong liking for the Spurs. Everyone should support their home town team, even if they move away and watch someone else their team should be the home town team, Y’know the old saying, first love never dies.

My first memories of football are going to a second eleven match in the 57/58 season, I then remember the Munich air disaster, and the United’s incredible rise to reach the cup final that same season.

After that I was a regular at Filbert Street, supporting the City, but so impressed by the wonderful Spurs team of the early 60’s… one of the two greatest sides ever to play in the football league. I was a regular at Filbert Street for the next 16 years, during which time I was privileged to see the other of the two greatest sides… Manchester United circa 1969 with George Best, Dennis Law, Bobby Charlton and the rest.

You can’t compare teams across generations, too many things change, the ball, the footwear, even the rules… so we cannot say that either of these sides were the best… both stood head and shoulders above everything else at the time, or whether Barcelona’s current side is the greatest… all three were magnificent sides and played glorious flowing football, with a smile, and entertained.

I became an armchair fan in the mid 70’s because I was spending most of my weekends in a city that didn’t have a professional team, and lost the habit of going. It corresponded with the break-up of the best Leicester team I’ve seen, that built by Jimmy Bloomfield in the early seventies. The fact that I had seen friends badly hurt in the endemic football violence at the time didn’t help.

I was still a keen television, armchair, fan, kept on top of everything, and was thrilled when my boyhood hero’s, Spurs, started the trend of importing players, starting with the great Ricky Villa and Ossie Ardiles.

I still watch football, still get passionate about it sometimes, but it doesn’t move me like it used to. There are many reasons for this… I’m older… have more interests, have worked weekends… but the two things that have disillusioned me and driven me away from football are Sky TV and the obscene amounts of money they have poured into the game.

I said earlier you can’t judge if the current players are better than those I grew up watching. You can’t doubt the ability of the likes of Renaldo, Drogba, Rooney, Giggs and the rest, you can admire them as players, but you can’t love them! They are not people to look up to… I would rather see a George Best, Tony Currie, Rodney Marsh, Charlie Cooke, Charlie George any day… gifted players with terrific flair, but never afraid to smile, express themselves and really enjoy themselves on the pitch. I miss that.

I recall a story a friend told me in the mid-sixties… around the time England were winning the World Cup… he used to leave the ground, walk into town for his Sports Mercury, and catch a bus home. His bus happened to go by the ground, and most weeks the City Left Winger (Stringy) would get on the bus, carrying a kit bag, and would always talk to other punters who wanted to ask him about the game. At that time football was a working mans’ game for a working man to play.

Anyway, football was played on a Saturday at 3.00 in the afternoon, an ideal time, cos you could have a beer and lunch, go to the match and get home at a reasonable time, relatively… Sunderland fans going to Plymouth would still be late home of course. But all the games kicked off at the same time, we saw edited highlights at night, and there were midweek games at each end of the season.

The introduction of all-seater stadia is a different debate, not for here, but of course it cost money to do it, and of course the fans paid it ultimately.

With the introduction of the premier league and Sky TV, everything was to change. For Sky to cover their costs and make money, they have to show games live to attract advertising revenue, several games, each week. This led to games being played at different times throughout the Saturday and Sunday, as well as Monday night. This of course leads to being able to watch several games every weekend. Much as I loved football I cannot watch that much, it is wasted, sure you can pick you games, but it means now that whenever you go to a pub or many restaurants over the weekend there is football playing on a multitude of screens around the place. Most people ignore it, but it is intrusive and for most, unwelcome.

The worst thing about this is that the tail is wagging the dog… the football league will rearrange matches, hold back kick-offs, play at all sorts of times to accommodate Sky’s scheduling. Some games are rescheduled for security reasons, which I think is a bit doubtful as a concept, but at least can be understood.

Sky has encouraged the ballyhoo around the teams lining up with countless mascots, flags and banners and doing the ritual handshake. To me that is a farce, just pointless in my view.

Of course Sky also started the “treat” of having cameras at every angle and point around the pitch, we can see every tackle, goal, foul, pass, offside and the rest about 15 times. All that does it disrupts the flow of the match (on TV) and gives pompous pundits the chance to pillory referees, who have a bloody hard job refereeing a bunch of prima donnas who fall down and writhe in agony if a hair comes out of place, without being castigated every weekend by every TV pundit. In the days before trial by television, half the fun was that you only saw it as the ref saw it… and the debates were part of the fans ritual. Having said that, the one piece of technology we do need doesn’t yet exist… goal-line technology.

With the huge amount of money the clubs get from Sky for selling their birth-right to be on wall to wall TV, I would like to see them use the money to subsidise admission, especially in these days of austerity, so as in my youth, families could all go together to watch the match without having to sell the car to get in.

Instead the money goes on multi million pound transfer fees, telephone number salaries and teams of hangers on, psychologists, dieticians and the rest reducing the beautiful game to a clinical science.

It is then the fans who pay… £60, £70 per ticket is not unusual, what does that mean for a family… potentially £240 for admission? In the 60’s and 70’s in the ground you could buy a beer, a hotdog, a burger, pie, Bovril coffee or whatever, I don’t recall the prices, but they were comfortably affordable… these days burgers at £6… how can that be justified?

Ever been to Wembley, or watched a game on the TV? Of course you have, what do you notice, half of the crowd are missing for the first ten minutes of second half… they are munching their prawn sandwiches and drinking champagne in a plush corporate hospitality suite. Are these people football fans… no. They are corporate guests, there for the event, the business opportunities not the football. So, what about the loyal fans?

Then we have the players, I don’t know where to start… I can’t blame Sky for the international employment agreements, but without the Sky money we wouldn’t have our football clubs employing so many imported mercenaries. Of course not every non-British player in the league is a Tevez, but many are, also many are more like a Zola, who was an old school professional, and indeed a credit.

The problem with so many imports in the league is of course that there are less British players, which restricts the number of players available for international selection for the home nations, which means that average players can establish themselves in the international teams because the only competition for their place is not British, this often leads the players to become arrogant, complacent and treat the international games lightly… I can see no other explanation for some of their miserable performances. Please think of your own names here… I will refrain from putting them.

Another thing I want to mention is the oligarchs at Chelsea and Manchester City…men who apparently love the game, but you feel are motivated by the huge profits available from TV deals and from the merchandising. In these cases, they have used their money to attract what they consider to be the cream of world football to their clubs and paid them such unimaginable amounts of money to do it. They have an injury, don’t worry, we’ll pay £40 million for a replacement for a few weeks… it upends the playing field. With these oligarchs the other clubs can’t compete.

You have to admire Manchester United and Arsenal (even if grudgingly) because both clubs have built up their success by shrewd purchases, high quality academies and bringing their own players through. They both now have the status to attract top players without being blackmailed into paying telephone number salaries, the shirt is reward enough for most (not all, of course, but probably the majority)

The final thing is that these clubs now have such huge squads, top teams squads of 25 can all be current internationals, many of them commanding transfer fees in excess of the cost of other whole teams, many of them commanding salaries in excess of other clubs entire salary bills.

Finally, the squad system, also a product of the way the game has been driven by the Sky billions, means that when you pay your kings ransom for your ticket, you are not going to get to see half of the players you want to, half will be on the bench, others not even In the match-day squad. This, I believe, short-changes fans who want to see the players that they have heard about and admire.

I am probably a curmudgeonly old luddite, especially in this, but I yearn for the days when a football club represented the people of the town, the players had a real connection with the club and supporters, a pride in the shirt, and if they were playing well, they played, if they lost form, they were replaced by a reserve, often a youngster looking to start his career.

In 1967 Glasgow Celtic became the first British side to win the European Cup, and every player was born within 25 miles of their stadium. These days most of the players don’t live within 25 miles of the ground… they live in wealthy enclaves and commute… they know they will probably be playing elsewhere in a couple of years!

OK, I’ve done, and most will think bloody old fart, always wants the old days back, it was much better when I was a youth…  for the most part I don’t and it wasn’t… but in this, yes, I do want to see football go back to it’s roots, but I also know there is no way it ever can.

I think the potential demise of Rangers could be optimistic… maybe it will lead to similar events in some English clubs which could herald a return to sensible business models, sustainable salaries, and make the game once again a working mans’ game not a corporate business opportunity. I know it cannot happen, not only because there are so few working men now… but I can dream

Care Crisis Lobby

A few weeks ago I received an email from Rethink Mental Illness, inviting all supporters to participate in the CareCrisis Lobby at Westminster on March 6^th. My motivation now is to do all I can to support people with Mental Illness and their carers because I have seen the problems from the inside, and have seen how unsupported they are.

The current Welfare Bill, in my view, reduces the level of support for vulnerable people and make things worse for them, so I signed on the dotted line and went along.

I secured an appointment with my MP, and considered what points I should put to him. I decided the main points would be around adequate care plans for discharge, on-going support after discharge, the benefit forms which do not adequately cater for mental illness, the inadequacy of policing of the Mental Health Service by the CQC, lack of response to physical issues whilst mentally ill, and lack of dignity and basic care all too often seen on the acute wards. A big agenda, but it is a big subject.

I arrived in London and went to the Care Crisis lobby meeting, where I told my story “for the records” was interviewed about why I was there, what I wanted to achieve, and met many wonderful people all fighting the same causes.

From there I went to the Rethink meeting, down the road, where I was again greeted as a long lost friend. I was allocated a support worker to look after me for the afternoon in Westminster Hall. It was my first experience of this kind of event and although I felt confident of my subject and what I wanted to say, I was now feeling a bit daunted, so I really appreciated this support.

The Rethink Team took all of us with appointments across to Westminster Hall and did so much to get people to practice their questions if they wanted to, to explain what was going on and to generally keep everyone relaxed and calm.

I was, I think, privileged. Although my MP had contacted me the day before to say that sadly he could not keep the appointment, his PA would meet me if I was happy with that.

I met the PA, with my Rethink Supporter, in the Central Lobby, rather than in Westminster Hall, and despite the grandeur of the setting, it was more comfortable for me, and I was able to spend nearly 50 minutes talking to her, putting my points, without being interrupted or side-tracked. I was really delighted with the meeting and she took pages of notes which she promised to discuss with the MP at the first opportunity.

After the meetings, the Rethink group gathered to go back to the Care Crisis event, where I was again interviewed to compare what I had wanted to achieve with what I had achieved.

After that, I was enjoying a hard earned coffee, ok my third, after all that talking in Westminster, when  I was approached and asked if I was me… I confirmed that I was and was told “We’ve been watching your tweets go up, and wanted to talk to you for some quotes”, so I was happy to do another interview.

From there, I went back to the Rethink Meeting Room for a debrief on the events of the afternoon.

I had a really good day, was looked after so well by the Rethink Staff and encouraged and made to feel welcome at all times by everyone I met. It made for a really interesting and rewarding day for me.

The main point, of course, is whether the government will take notice of what everyone told them, it is probably too early to know that, but I have heard from my MP that he is going to take up a number of the points for me, and the overall feedback I have heard has been very positive.

I would like to thank Rethink for providing me, and hundreds more, this opportunity to put our concerns to our MP’s. This is such a huge and important debate and I was so delighted to be involved, and make my points heard by people who can actually have an impact on the bill.