I was feeling quite down about one thing and another. Then I turned on the TV and learned that a protester had thrown a pot of paint at Charles and Camilla's Bentley and it cheered me up no end.
Churchill was a genius- an extraordinary, complex, endlessly fascinating man.
The guy who swung from the flag on the cenotaph turns out to be Charlie Gilmour- a highly privileged youth- adopted son of the multi-millionaire rock guitarist, Dave Gilmour - and natural son of the actor and writer Heathcote Williams. He says he was carried away in the heat of the moment and didn't realise where he was. The more one learns about it, the more it seems like something out of Evelyn Waugh.
Appalling that a chap reading history - even as a Tab - 'didn't recognise' the Cenotaph. Then again, he was apparently nearby when, as the Evening Standard now reports, there was an actual physical attack upon the duchess of Cornwall. http://tinyurl.com/28ltfdj. Suppose he didn't recognise HRH either.
I'm shocked, really, that you own to any solidarity with this lot of mostly middle-class, minor public school oiks and poons who believe that dustmen and charwomen want to subsidise their university fees - and who suggested, through the NUS, that HMG might best effect this middle-class subsidy by withdrawing bursaries and grants from students from families that are actually poor (and largely working-class). What the devil are you of all people doing in this galere, mon vieux?
I haven't been following NUS politics. I have other- less boring- things to do. So the union suggested a withdrawal of bursaries? That sounds bad- but the marchers weren't marching to have bursaries withdrawn (most of them were probably unaware that this had even been mooted); they were marching against the rise in tuition fees.
I'm curious: where is the evidence that the NUS wished for bursaries to be withdrawn? As far as I'm aware, part of the protest was against the withdrawal of the EMA, which is designed precisely to allow students from lower-income homes to continue with study beyond 16, and which, like Sure Start and university funding for the arts, is being scrapped by the current shower.
Also, where is the evidence that most of the protestors were 'minor public school oiks'? Very few of the protesting students from my own university (UWE, Bristol) could be so described. Nor could my fifteen-year-old son, who was kettled twice in successive protests over the last fortnight.
Another point that seems to be frequently ignored is that the current generation of students are not protesting directly on their own behalf. The ones who are going to be affected by these increases are those who are due to go to university from 2012 (and who were of course unable to vote in the election). To paint the protesters as self-interested is thus misleading.
I think you'll find that the emphasis of those who see a role for Government in education isn't on "dustmen and charwomen" (I hope you enjoy your visit to the current century, btw) subsidising students, but rather on those who have benefitted most from the profligacy of the last few years being asked to take responsibility for their own actions and inactions. More generally, many of us feel that for one generation to make its successors pay for its own mistakes is as un-Tory as it is un-egalitarian. It's also pretty un-CofE: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." (Ezekiel 18 is a much underquoted chapter, I think.)
On another note, I've been searching for evidence that the Trafalgar Square tree was set alight. There are plenty of hearsay reports, but I've yet to find a single picture - and yet you'd think this would be a photographer's dream. A huge pillar of flame blazing into the December night.... wow.
I've now managed to track down some pictures, thanks, and yes I can see that there was a rather ineffective attempt to set fire to the tree. (Clearly the protestor concerned hadn't been in the Scouts.) I suppose it wasn't as photogenic as Charles and Camilla, hence its being tucked away rather.
As you can see, my pre-convictions, as you call them, are quite easily swayed in the face of evidence, with or without scare quotes. If you can cite any to substantiate the claims that you made earlier and which I questioned, I will read it with interest.
Thank you - and congratulations, by the way, on the draw. I appreciate your taking the time.
I have also, as it turns out, misjudged you, not having realised until now that "G. M. W. Wemyss" is a richly comic persona, rather than a human being. (I hope those scare quotes meet your exacting standards.) I feel rather foolish, in fact, and unable to say how much of what you have written in the Telegraph you would wish to stand by in real life. Given the place of publication, however, I think it's safe to say that many of your readers take you as being "on the level," so I will answer on that basis.
You actually crept under my guard, in places. I entirely agree about the outburst of sentimentality post-Diana. It bemused me at the time, and made me wonder whether I was living in a more emotional and, frankly, Mediterranean clime. On the other hand, I don't see any real connection between that and the justified anger that occasioned the recent demonstrations in London and elsewhere. The poll tax riots would be a more appropriate comparison, surely. Margery Kempe, I'm afraid to say, strikes me as a red herring. There are too many other factors involved in her particular brand of lachrymose mysticism to make the analogy enlightening - although there is of course a long tradition of civil disobedience within England that is too often smothered beneath the 15-tog duvet of post-Enlightenment rationality. Thus far, no doubt we agree.
However, you rather shifted the terms of the argument in suggesting that those who took part in acts of vandalism were largely public school pupils. That kind of Bullingdon/Woosterism is clearly something you'd know more about than I would, and I wish you joy of them, but what I asked about was the make up of the protesters as a whole. Your suggestion that other students might not be sufficiently mobile ignores a) the existence of public transport, including National Express, and b) the fact that London is not the only city in England, and that protests were also taking place in Leeds, Bristol, Sheffield, etc.
Having said that, I must record my admiration of the two arguments by which you did try to address the question more... well, 'directly' would be overstating it, but at least you gave it a go. They were wonderfully complementary.
The first was an act of erasure. As an opening move, you reduced the number of universities to Oxbridge (plus, oddly, one foreign university, Trinity College Dublin), noting that their students are largely taken from independent schools. Reluctantly, you then extended the same observation to a selection of Russell Group unis. The thousands of students who took part from other institutions were thus rendered "beneath your notice", and cut from the account. I, however, knowing many of them, can assure you that they exist and are real human beings (much like the dustmen and charwomen you so much admire), and considerably more so than your Beachcomberesque alter-ego.
The second strategy was the opposite of the first. Where the first was top-down (or haut en bas) the other was bottom-up. It asserted that everyone who took part in these (perfectly legal) protests was as guilty as the worst vandal, because they knew that this was an event where vandalism, etc., was likely to take place. That's an interesting argument, which would imply, for example, that any poor Tommy who enlists in the army is as guilty as the people who order and commit atrocities, because - let's face it - atrocities and war go together like soft-boiled egg and Marmite soldiers. I'm sure Tony Blair will be grateful to you for spreading the blame so thin.
Anyway, it's been real, wemyss. I'm sure your article will go down a storm, amongst those with ears to hear and eyes to read.
I should perhaps add that I'm not normally the sort of person whose default position is one of disbelieving news reports, but in the case of these protests the accounts of the police in particular have several times been demonstrably false. As, for example, when they denied having ridden at speed into a crowd at a previous protest - until the line of cantering horses showed up on Youtube. Or, from the other day, we had David Cameron talking about "police officers being dragged from their horse and beaten", when the video evidence showed that the one mounted officer hurt that day fell (no protester being near) and was trampled by his own mount. Such things encourage an attitude of scepticism in even the most pliant of belief.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: He mayn't be a 'national totem', Tony...
Date: 2010-12-10 04:39 pm (UTC)The guy who swung from the flag on the cenotaph turns out to be Charlie Gilmour- a highly privileged youth- adopted son of the multi-millionaire rock guitarist, Dave Gilmour - and natural son of the actor and writer Heathcote Williams. He says he was carried away in the heat of the moment and didn't realise where he was. The more one learns about it, the more it seems like something out of Evelyn Waugh.
Most of them are.
Date: 2010-12-10 07:52 pm (UTC)I'm shocked, really, that you own to any solidarity with this lot of mostly middle-class, minor public school oiks and poons who believe that dustmen and charwomen want to subsidise their university fees - and who suggested, through the NUS, that HMG might best effect this middle-class subsidy by withdrawing bursaries and grants from students from families that are actually poor (and largely working-class). What the devil are you of all people doing in this galere, mon vieux?
Re: Most of them are.
Date: 2010-12-10 08:52 pm (UTC)Re: Most of them are.
Date: 2010-12-11 02:03 pm (UTC)Also, where is the evidence that most of the protestors were 'minor public school oiks'? Very few of the protesting students from my own university (UWE, Bristol) could be so described. Nor could my fifteen-year-old son, who was kettled twice in successive protests over the last fortnight.
Another point that seems to be frequently ignored is that the current generation of students are not protesting directly on their own behalf. The ones who are going to be affected by these increases are those who are due to go to university from 2012 (and who were of course unable to vote in the election). To paint the protesters as self-interested is thus misleading.
I think you'll find that the emphasis of those who see a role for Government in education isn't on "dustmen and charwomen" (I hope you enjoy your visit to the current century, btw) subsidising students, but rather on those who have benefitted most from the profligacy of the last few years being asked to take responsibility for their own actions and inactions. More generally, many of us feel that for one generation to make its successors pay for its own mistakes is as un-Tory as it is un-egalitarian. It's also pretty un-CofE: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." (Ezekiel 18 is a much underquoted chapter, I think.)
On another note, I've been searching for evidence that the Trafalgar Square tree was set alight. There are plenty of hearsay reports, but I've yet to find a single picture - and yet you'd think this would be a photographer's dream. A huge pillar of flame blazing into the December night.... wow.
Odd that no one seems to have got a shot of it.
Come, come.
Date: 2010-12-11 06:24 pm (UTC)I should hope that that suffices as 'evidence' even in the face of your pre-convictions.
Re: Come, come.
Date: 2010-12-11 06:57 pm (UTC)As you can see, my pre-convictions, as you call them, are quite easily swayed in the face of evidence, with or without scare quotes. If you can cite any to substantiate the claims that you made earlier and which I questioned, I will read it with interest.
As you requested.
Date: 2010-12-12 05:26 pm (UTC)I can now watch the rest of the Spurs match against the Rent Boys with a clear conscience.
Re: As you requested.
Date: 2010-12-12 07:25 pm (UTC)I have also, as it turns out, misjudged you, not having realised until now that "G. M. W. Wemyss" is a richly comic persona, rather than a human being. (I hope those scare quotes meet your exacting standards.) I feel rather foolish, in fact, and unable to say how much of what you have written in the Telegraph you would wish to stand by in real life. Given the place of publication, however, I think it's safe to say that many of your readers take you as being "on the level," so I will answer on that basis.
You actually crept under my guard, in places. I entirely agree about the outburst of sentimentality post-Diana. It bemused me at the time, and made me wonder whether I was living in a more emotional and, frankly, Mediterranean clime. On the other hand, I don't see any real connection between that and the justified anger that occasioned the recent demonstrations in London and elsewhere. The poll tax riots would be a more appropriate comparison, surely. Margery Kempe, I'm afraid to say, strikes me as a red herring. There are too many other factors involved in her particular brand of lachrymose mysticism to make the analogy enlightening - although there is of course a long tradition of civil disobedience within England that is too often smothered beneath the 15-tog duvet of post-Enlightenment rationality. Thus far, no doubt we agree.
However, you rather shifted the terms of the argument in suggesting that those who took part in acts of vandalism were largely public school pupils. That kind of Bullingdon/Woosterism is clearly something you'd know more about than I would, and I wish you joy of them, but what I asked about was the make up of the protesters as a whole. Your suggestion that other students might not be sufficiently mobile ignores a) the existence of public transport, including National Express, and b) the fact that London is not the only city in England, and that protests were also taking place in Leeds, Bristol, Sheffield, etc.
Having said that, I must record my admiration of the two arguments by which you did try to address the question more... well, 'directly' would be overstating it, but at least you gave it a go. They were wonderfully complementary.
The first was an act of erasure. As an opening move, you reduced the number of universities to Oxbridge (plus, oddly, one foreign university, Trinity College Dublin), noting that their students are largely taken from independent schools. Reluctantly, you then extended the same observation to a selection of Russell Group unis. The thousands of students who took part from other institutions were thus rendered "beneath your notice", and cut from the account. I, however, knowing many of them, can assure you that they exist and are real human beings (much like the dustmen and charwomen you so much admire), and considerably more so than your Beachcomberesque alter-ego.
The second strategy was the opposite of the first. Where the first was top-down (or haut en bas) the other was bottom-up. It asserted that everyone who took part in these (perfectly legal) protests was as guilty as the worst vandal, because they knew that this was an event where vandalism, etc., was likely to take place. That's an interesting argument, which would imply, for example, that any poor Tommy who enlists in the army is as guilty as the people who order and commit atrocities, because - let's face it - atrocities and war go together like soft-boiled egg and Marmite soldiers. I'm sure Tony Blair will be grateful to you for spreading the blame so thin.
Anyway, it's been real,
Dear me.
Date: 2010-12-12 08:37 pm (UTC)And, as you note, if not perhaps as fully as you might, we agree on rather more than you might think. We'll leave it at that, I think.
Re: Come, come.
Date: 2010-12-11 07:11 pm (UTC)