Egg on face

I'm really sorry to bang on about this, but it really is the most pressing issue of our time, I feel, and I believe we are on the verge of some form of revolution.

Reading Zoe Williams in today's Gruaniad, I for once felt very happy that my readership was not much wider. She's taken a proper mauling for trying to write what I'm sure she felt was a nice lightweight bit of humour on the global crdeit crisis, and the mystification she feels at explanations for it offered by so-called experts. In a way, she only has herself to blame, and has laid herself open to the usual anti-Graun sneers by opening the piece with the following words:

"God knows I'm no stranger to not knowing what I'm talking about..."

However, the gist of the piece, poorly penned though it may be, is that it is difficult to see the reality of the crisis we are in when it is passed through the lens of the media pundits, and occasionally the sheer scale of the numbers is bewildering in itself. A commenter on the piece did manage to provide an illustration - in diagram form - which certainly helped to clarify things for me. As it is under a creative commons licence on Wikipedia, I can publish it here.

What it does illustrate is that it looks as if we are in deeper shit than I thought. Much or all of the lending of the last few years has essentially been underpinned by property values - Mortgage Backed Security as it is known, and now that the bottom is continually dropping out of this nice little earner, the whole thing is falling to bits.

To back up the lovely Ms. Williams to an extent, it might be helpful if that little twat Peston made some effort to explain these things instead of puffing up his own irritating schtick.

Bono bo boss

I have just read the latest article by George Monbiot, which outlines his action in attempting to perform a citizen's arrest on John Bolton at the Hay Festival. More power to his elbow, I say, and it's just a shame that he didn't succeed, though I am amazed that there are some people out there still attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq.

However, the serious political issues aside, my attention was grabbed by GM's reference to gorillas in the piece. I read the article in hard copy last night and have been haunted by the phrase till now, which is the first opportunity I have had to go online and read the comments posted by the loonies on CiF. These are his words:

"I had almost reached the stage when two of the biggest gorillas I have ever seen swept me up and carried me out of the tent..."

It comes hard on the heels of watching Escape From The Planet of The Apes the other day, which is a mildly absorbing and mildly amusing movie. A bit too clunky perhaps in its attempts to raise social issues. You will be familiar with it, I'm sure, or at least familiar with the whole POTA schtick, as I thought I was. I had always thought that the story went like this:

In a future Earth, due to some catastrophic nuclear event caused by humans, apes will have become the dominant species (or would that be race?) and us people have become subjugated to their will and hunted like animals. What I have discovered (from Wikipedia) is that the story was originally a novel written by a Frenchman called Pierre Boulle. What really happened was:

"In the distant past, the planet was ruled by human beings, who built a technological society, and enslaved apes to perform their manual labour. Over time the humans became more and more dependent upon the apes, until eventually they became so lazy and degenerate that they were overthrown by their ape servants and fell into the primitive state..."

(From the Wikipedia link highlighted above)

The problems obviously start with the premise that the most belligerent group on this hellish future world are the gorillas, while the chimps are the gentler, more cerebral ones. Orangs (in the films at least) are cast as spiritual guides, holders of the sacred word, etc. This is clearly not correct, as anyone who has watched either (or especially both) of the David Attenborough programmes on gorillas or chimps will concur. Chimps (and to a certain extent bonobos, though there is some debate as to whether the influence of humans, direct or otherwise, is causing a shift in bonobo behaviour, making them more aggressive. Which could be a possible explanation for the total shift in ape behaviour in the POTA) are immeasurably more violent than gorillas, who are, as someone on the CiF board pointed out, peace-loving vegans. They go on to point out that the gorillas GM refers to are actually serving the top chimp - GW Bush - but my issue is with the whole idea of gorillas being misrepresented. This is, I suspect, partly the result of ignorance, in that M Boulle wrote his novel in 1963 and detailed knowledge of wild ape behaviour would not have been available at that time. We all, even the esteemed Mr Monbiot, carry the stereotype of the 'big gorilla' as a terrifying monster. But more than this, I believe there is a strong whiff of racism in the classification.

Anyway, 'two of the biggest gorillas [he had] ever seen' is surely a wild exaggeration? Has he never watched King Kong?

Islamophobia

With thanks to Beirut Spring (http://beirutspring.com/blog/2007/06/18/the-bikini-versus-the-niqab) for this superb image.

In the Gruaniad Gary Younge has nicely distilled an argument about the current climate of Islamophobia in the following phrase:

"If an imam doesn't like women walking past his mosque in a bikini, that's too bad for him. If an MP doesn't like women walking into his surgery in a niqab, that's too bad for him, too. Both have the right to say what they think - provided it doesn't promote violence - but women have the right to wear what they like."

This is a 'hot button issue' as my ex US colleagues used to be able to say without sounding ridiculous. The debate is centre stage at the moment, and it is intriguing because it does cause some fractures in the tectonics of normal political alignment. Also, there is a world of spin associated with it - apologias for the Iraq/Afghanistan debacles, and justification for further hardening of 'anti-terror' legislation. Elements of the left have been accused of defending the oppressive regime (in the widest sense of the word) of Islam against the values of tolerance and free speech which we in the west uphold. All of this has recently been thrown into sharp relief by - of all things - a bleedin' teddy bear. I have been trying to figure out where I stand on the question. So here goes.

My gut feeling, as I hope I have made clear from some of what I have previously written here, is that all religion (with the possible exception of Buddhism) is inherently anti-intellectual. Whatever lies at the root of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic myths (I know little about Hinduism or Sikhism, but these religions are, I think, irrelevant in this case, so I will exclude them) in terms of helping to elucidate an understanding of humanity's place in the cosmological scheme of things, the present interpretations of them are a million light years away from that.

Organised religion and the pursuit of knowledge are ultimately mutually exclusive, but the lines are drawn in different places in each religion. At the end of the day, you have to believe, don't you? Faith is the key. Faith in some kind of force outside and above ourselves which shaped the universe and continues to shape our destinies - free will notwithstanding. It is largely irrelevant to me whether it's some nice chap in a woolly jumper at the local C of E pile, a bloke in a flowing robe standing in the street in Finsbury Park, or a man (again, a man!) in coloured ermine with a pointy hat swinging around a bucket of incense, telling me what to 'think' and do. I am capable of making up my own mind, thank you very much. Therefore, I would stand up against any form of oppression based on religious belief, and (though I can hardly claim to be a scientist) would encourage anyone to examine the facts of a given situation in a scientific manner, rather than saying 'It's God's will'. I would stop short of denigrating a person's religious beliefs directly, partly because I am aware that this is usually the hottest button you can press, and any hope of a rational discussion flies right out of the window, but mainly because I am a nice guy, and have observed that an irrational fixation on an imaginary Super Being doesn't necessarily make someone a bad person.

Then again, even within the same religion, the lines are drawn differently depending on the cultures in which that religion exists. It would be entirely fatuous to compare a Welsh Methodist with a Brazilian Catholic for example, but it does appear acceptable to lump a Saudi Arabian Wahhabist in with a Palestinian Ismaili - as long as we're not talking about state visits of course. Therein lies the problem. Politics. It is clear that the current bunch of criminals in Whitehall, on Pennsylvania Avenue and elsewhere have a need to foster a climate of mistrust against anyone who is, or appears to be, a Muslim. Back to the bikini (the phrase seems to have excited more comment than anything else in the article) and the niqab. Obviously, that 'old fox' Jack Straw knew what he was doing when he made the comment about the Muslim woman who came into his surgery (this is Blackburn after all) wearing her niqab. He may have been purporting to raise a valid and interesting argument around cultural pressures, women's rights, etc., but it is my firm belief that this was not his primary motive when he spoke (the incident occurred one year prior to him writing about it, BTW) and that is why I am concerned about slagging off the Muslim faith. Much more than I am about having a go at the Christians, who are after all bigger than elephants, and can look after themselves.

Central to this is not (as some commentators have said, and as many people attempt to portray the issue when posting to online forums) one of a secular world view pitted against a religious one. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens do not feature in this argument, to my mind, because the forces lined up in opposition to the nations of Islam are also couching their politics in a heavily value-laden religious framework of their own. Though Gordon's upbringing within The Kirk is well known, he is less obviously religion motivated than the late great Tony B, who recently (as I posted) came out as a genuinely messianic wannabe. Dubya is an out-and-out god botherer, and who knows what kind of nut will next be sitting in the Oval Office?

Before I make the next statement, I want to make it clear that I do not think that killing civilians, whether it be in New York, London, Spain, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran, is acceptable.

So for now, somewhat against my better nature as well as my baser side, I have to opt for the niqab against the bikini. You have the chance to vote in the poll at the top of the page.

god

guardian

politics

religion

Deleted by moderator

Let me apologise right off the bat for the blessayishness of this post.

I have had a comment deleted from a CiF message board. Hooray for me. I think it must mean you get a few extra points on your Qdos score. But maybe you have to be banned to really make it, or even have to pick another Gmail address and register as someone else? Anyway, apart from feeling quite excited about it, I am also more than a little fucked off.

Here's the deal. I have posted on here before about the general issue of censorship on CiF, and how I feel about it, but it was interesting for me to experience - personally - being censored. Said comment was in response to a piece of garbage about sex education penned by Anne Atkins. Her argument in the piece (such as it is) goes something like this:

'There's too much sex education, and that's why there are so many unwanted pregnancies. There may be a decline in sexually transmitted diseases, but this has been bought at the expense of a serious lapse in the moral fabric of the family and society. If we wish to address these issues, we should aim to teach teenagers about the value of abstaining from sex outside marriage, be more like the US in that regard, and move away from the poisonous liberalism of sex education in such moral cesspools as Holland, for example.'

I paraphrase, but feel free to read the original article if you feel like winding yourself up. I think I've precised it reasonably well.

Now, to quote from a review of the Creationist Museum, recently posted by John Scalzi:

"Imagine, if you will, a load of horseshit. And we’re not talking just your average load of horseshit; no, we’re talking colossal load of horseshit..."

There is no need to imagine. First of all, there is not too much sex education (whatever the hell that would be in any case) in our schools. As Polly Toynbee (of whom I am no fan either, don't get me wrong) pointed out in an earlier article, sex education is actually in decline in our schools, partly - though not entirely - as a result of faith schools opting out. Secondly, the incidence of STDs is on the increase, and even syphilis is making an extremely unwelcome return. Third, the policy of encouraging abstinence from sex is an unmitigated failure when it comes to preventing unwanted pregnancies, as figures comparing the rates for it in the USA and other countries illustrate. One caveat, prompted by a look at Wikipedia on the matter, is that definitions of teenage pregnancy differ in the US and the UK, and that the whole issue is a socio-political one as much as it is simply about biology. My own position is (as in so many areas) that education holds the key. Real education, not some pointless homilies about being a good Christian.
Updated (7/12/07) Research shows that US policy on abstinence as a means of contraception is an abject failure.

So. Horseshit:

"An epic load of horseshit. The kind of load of horseshit that has accreted over decades and has developed its own sort of ecosystem, from the flyblown chunks at the perimeter, down into the heated and decomposing center..."

But there's no need to go into all that. If you have ever read a CiF piece, you will know that every point of view gets aired eventually, as long as there's sufficient mileage in the original article. Every point of view that is, except for those which are edited or deleted by the moderators, as mine was. Did I mention that?

I know of Anne Atkins, sad to say. I came across her (work, fnarr fnarr) whilst flicking through Metafilter one day. You may not believe what I write, so please do click on the links to substantiate the facts. Basically, some time ago, AA created a fake teenage girl cyber personality ('Cheshakitten' - actually quite a good name, isn't it?) on Bebo in order to lure her own teenage son Ben into what he would believe to be a romantic tryst. Her intention was to see what (implied negative) effect social networking sites were having on the youth of today. An interesting project perhaps, but what a sick way of conducting the experiment, I'm sure you'll agree. At the very least, I thought, revealing this would undermine her self-appointed position as arbiter of morality on this relatively complex issue, and I was minded to point it out to the CiF community. I posted the link to the story, along with my comment and a further link to the Metafilter thread which discussed it. The comment (I'm sorry I didn't keep a copy, and have now started to do so) went like this:

"Attention! This woman is dangerous. She pretended to be a teenage girl on Bebo to try and trap her own (also teenage) son into a romantic liaison. She has no right to pass as a moral arbiter on teenage sex."

One of the things which I enjoy about online forums (fora?) is the interaction with others, so I checked back this morning to see if my post had encouraged any debate on the issue, and there it was. Or rather wasn't. My user name on the left and 'comment deleted by moderator' on the right. I wondered why. Maybe the words 'this woman is dangerous' had caused the removal? As far as I could remember, there was nothing defamatory or personal in what I had said. It was not insulting or off-topic. I felt a sense of righteous anger that someone had decided that what I had written was unacceptable, according to some standard of which I could not be aware, and emailed the Comment Is Free people to express my feelings.

At the same time, I slightly rephrased what I originally said and then re-posted. So far, it has stayed on, and has even elicited a response or two. I hope it stays that way.

Faith, hope & charity

The Messiah has spoken. After announcing his ideas to deliver peace on earth by encouraging tourism in the occupied territories (WTF?) our erstwhile leader and self-styled miracle worker, Tony Blair, tells us that he is, and has been for some time, a man of committed faith. He didn't make much of it when in office, he says, for fear of being branded a 'nutter'. Well, he's got that right. A similarly afflicted colleague of his thinks it's a pity that British politicians can't be more open about their faith, like their counterparts across the pond. That would be excellent, wouldn't it? A further shift towards the empty nihilism of the American electoral system is just what we need to stem the tide of apathy amongst the voting public.


I think it's reasonable to assume, based on some intuitive stabs in the dark, that TB is not a believer in the old Norse gods (perhaps we would be better off if he was) where militarism would be positively encouraged, or an adherent of Shinto, where it would be acceptable. Nor indeed do I think he is a Jihadi - and we all know what their feelings are when it comes to war, don't we? No, by all accounts he is a Christian, and will soon cross the floor, following his wife down the Papal path to salvation. Though it seems that he is holding off on the initiation ceremony for this whilst he is installed in his Middle Eastern envoy role. As ever, alive to the value of the theatrical gesture, maybe he is planning to have this done on December 25th in Bethlehem itself. Although perhaps he should partake in this Luminous Mystery in the River Jordan sometime in January. It might not be easy, however, as the area is currently an Israeli military area, which is closed to the public. Who knows?

I'm not naive, don't get me wrong, but I do have a general issue with many of those who call themselves Christian, based on some rudimentary reading of the gospels. My problem is, really, rank hypocrisy. Here are some examples:

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort already.
6:25 “Woe to you who are well satisfied with food now, for you will be hungry.
“Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep...

...6:27 “But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 6:29 To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either. 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away. 6:31 Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you..." (from the Gospel of Luke)

Fine words, no question of that, but I do detect some small differences between these admonishments and the actions of Mr Blair.

Quite apart from that, there's also the issue of intellectual rigour. I mean, if TB wants to be a Catholic, that - I guess - means he wishes to be doctrinally pure and actually swallow (in the literal sense) the trans-substantiation thing, to name but one aspect of the mumbo-jumbo. I'm an easy-going guy when it comes to the Spaghetti Monster stuff, really I am. Whatever gets you through the night. But I do have concerns that the leader of the nation can appear proud of believing in it. Where does that leave him - and us, for that matter - when it comes to abortion rights, stem cell research, archaeology, etc? Of course, we all make moral judgments on complex issues, and there could be said to be no absolute right or wrong in many of them. However, there is a real danger in approaching complex debates dogmatically. Would he support the view of the Holy See against Amnesty International on the question of abortion, for example? Does he view all Iraqi children as eternally damned in any case? Our leaders should be able to at least examine the opposing sides of an argument in a level-headed way. Thanks to the folks at Venganza (linked above) for these fine words from Aristotle:

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they
consider God-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move
against him, wrongly believing that he has the Gods on his side."

One last point. Is the Mighty Blair comfortable with himself for having kept his counsel on this for so long? If his beliefs are so deeply held, why hasn't he come out before?

blair

god

guardian

politics

Ilford nights

I am a big fan of Marina Hyde in the Guardian. A little florid on occasion perhaps, she still usually makes me laugh, especially when writing about the absurdities of football.

Here's a story of which I am sure she would whole-heartedly approve.

That stalwart of the West Ham side and victim of smarter brother syndrome, Anton Ferdinand, has been up before the beak after a fracas outside a nightspot in London's trendy Ilford. A gentleman by the name of Emile Walker, who was allegedly on the receiving end of some of Mr Ferndinand's less nuanced football 'moves' ended up with a fractured jaw. Needless to say, young Anton says he was acting in self-defence after Mr Walker threatened to kill his girlfriend, and - a far more heinous act this - looked at his watch.

His watch? You cry in understandable disbelief. Ah, but no ordinary watch this, being worth a staggering, nay eye-watering £64,000. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case (and justice is so very difficult a concept these days, isn't it?) I think we should all pause for a moment here and consider a few things. Anton Ferdinand is 22 years old. He is a reasonably solid defender who, a couple of seasons ago, looked like he might be about to become a little better, but who has faded somewhat of late. He plays for a side who are far from the elite of football, despite the Icelandic biscuit baron's millions. And yet he can afford to buy a watch which costs £64,000. There is something seriously screwed up with this world, and no mistake. The very fact that watches worth that kind of money are sold at all is obscene. Don't you think?

Monbiot

On this, the third day of mourning over Saturday's farrago (sorry to link to yet another report on the game, but I believe closure is partly achieved by talking through a trauma) the observant among you will have noticed the subtle changes to the blog layout - black links, etc, etc. Tomorrow, this period of sackcloth and ashes will end, and I will revert to the usual lazer blue motifs. But for today I will post on an appropriately dark subject.

Every time I read one of George Monbiot's articles, I feel a sudden terror that the world will end (in any meaningful human sense) within my own lifetime. I have felt for some time that Armageddon was likely to happen in a generation or two, but the way things are going, that is looking frighteningly optimistic. As a father of two young children, this is a sobering thought indeed, and more and more evidence appears before us every day. And yet there is no action from those who purport to lead us. Worse than that, there is action in the wrong direction. This precious jewel of the desert that is the Western Spiral Arm of the galaxy, this mind-blowing Original Ball on which we live, might as well be a piece of shit we flush down the toilet.

I have friends who argue against me with feeling, who maintain that the resilience of the human race will out, that we will muddle through. Friends who say that love is the answer, and will guide us out of the gloaming. I have family members who believe that the threat of climate change is exaggerated. My own feeling is that we are approaching the end game, or the end time, and that we will end up convulsing in a death by a thousand cuts, some deeper than others. Barring Bushco (and I include Mrs Clinton in that cabal) and a further catastrophic sortie into war, a meteorite thudding into us, or a Super Crash sending seismic waves through the global economy, I don't foresee a single event as finally pulling the plug. We will bleed slowly. But bleed we will.

The question is, what do I do? What do we all do? Can we really change anything? A starting point, perhaps, is what do I do already? Well, here goes:

• Low energy lightbulbs throughout the home
• Cycle about 75% of the time, use public transport about 20% and the rest is car use
• Recycle all my shopping bags
• Take one plane journey (on average) every two years
• Maintain the thermostat at 21C (despite a campaign to change it - it's a daily battle)
• Conserve water and don't buy it bottled
• Try not to be a rampant consumer of everything except alcohol
• At work, energy is a large part of my job. I analyse the energy consumption of the buildings, find ways of reducing it and implement programmes for that when this is viable
• Contribute to online forums (as well as this blog) about the issues and talk about them to anyone who will listen

What I don't do (there is a whole host of relatively easy other things I could be doing, I know, and I am trying hard) is anything in the area of direct action. I used to participate in Reclaim the Streets demos and was reasonably active (though not politically affiliated) during my student days. I was on the Poll Tax march and have been to a few anti-nazi demos, including the one in Plumstead which marched past the BNP HQ. I have stopped in recent years, preferring sponsored cycle rides instead. Age, and the demands and responsibilities of parenthood have restrained me, but I still believe that direct action is the best way to protest, and, ultimately, to bring about change.

Today, after reading George's latest column and the CiF comments in response to it, I visited monbiot.com to see what options were available. I found a few interesting ideas, and clicked on to the War On Want page - once a great campaigning group, whose efficacy was underlined by the fact that they were pursued so hard by the establishment, and those reds at the Daily Mirror, during the George Galloway years. Now, apart from joining and donating, their main modus operandi seems to be - send an email to this or that MP or minister, send an e-card to Coca-Cola. As a member of AI, I can't wholly decry this method of action, but I do feel it is somewhat limited in its effect. If it worked, then we would surely not be living in a world where Guantánamo bay existed. How many emails did Tony Blair receive before the boys went into Basra? Quite a few, would be my guess.

I would love to believe that love was the answer, I really would. But, Bob Marley (the song was called Survival, so, maybe...) said it: "every time I look around, the people suferring, suffering, in every way. In every way"

Comment is Free?

Once again, I'm fucking narked with the Grauniad's CiF section. Why?

Because I read an excellent Catherine Bennett piece about David Cameron, his wife and family, and their blatant marketing of the various products they sell when they're out on the stump. I felt the need to comment on this, as I thought there were parallels to be drawn with Gordon Brown's nauseating cosying up to the City and the arms industry, and ultimately a point to be made about personality politics and the paucity of choice facing the average voter. The article, and those comments which were published, can be found here.

I was one of the earliest posters, so was fully expecting to see my comment, and was hoping for some responses to it, but it didn't materialise. At all. It is possible to imagine all sorts of reasons why this happened. Perhaps a shadowy figure from MI5 or SIS was standing at the right elbow of the moderator and grumbled darkly when my comment arrived in the inbox:

"This one cannot go through, it is too dangerous." Before flipping open his mobile phone and getting on to GCHQ.

Maybe even now, my keystrokes are being monitored by Putin's boys as part of a plan to use me in their ongoing plans for world domination.


Perhaps Emily Bell is being held against her will in a backroom at Farringdon Road, being prevented from allowing publication of the truly subversive material she really wants to by a gang of organised criminals working on behalf of Downing Street.

Or, even less credible than the scenarios above, the temp appointed by the Grauniad to moderate comments forgot to hit the publish button.

Who knows? It just really gets on my tits that the Guardian, OR ANYONE ELSE, can decide whether or not what I say is published or not.

Anyway, I'm very happy for Doris Lessing.

Death of a Princess

Picture from The Guardian (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2007/02/dead_overrated.html)



A lot of people seem to think that the inquest into the death of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and Henri Paul in Paris over 10 years ago is a waste of time and money.


There appears to be a very strong prevailing view amongst Grauniadists and Istas that even discussing the incident is a low-brow Daily Express style indulgence and that, clearly, the crash was nothing more than a tragic accident. They say that Henri Paul was 'high on a cocktail of alcohol (twice the legal limit, which is 2 pints, isn't it?) and prescription drugs' - which is an excellent tabloidese cliche. Diana was not wearing a seat belt and the Merc, pursued by the baying hounds of pap rats (the stenographer's interpretations are being beamed on to a big screen, and occasionally, he or she must mis-hear the words) slammed into a concrete pillar in a Parisian underpass. End of. Anyone who suggests any form of conspiracy theory should don their tin foil hats and join the ranks of the feeble-minded, the UFOlogists and the like.


Many of these sentiments are couched in anti-royalist terms, along the lines of: "I didn't care then, and I don't care now. Why should this woman take up so much of our time and so much of the public purse when she is dead? She took up more than her fair share when she was alive."





I disagree. I am not (as many of my friends will attest) by any stretch of the imagination a royalist. My feelings towards the blue bloods are similar to my feelings towards the Church (I make the distinction between Catholics and Protestants in my views mainly on the grounds of attitudes towards birth control. Protestants are simply slightly less evil in my opinion) and its bloated oligarchy. Namely, that there should be no place for either institution in an enlightened society (not that we live in anything approaching an enlightened society) and, though I would probably stop short of advocating public physical violence against those in the upper echelons of either, I do occasionally daydream about it.



My feelings specifically on the British Royal Family are as follows. They are anachronistic leeches. They are responsible for maintaining the status quo; for helping to widen the gap between rich and poor in this country; for the disproportionate representation of a minority pursuit within the political system; and for fostering the hateful concept that some babies are born better than others (from Wikipedia: "The king or queen of the United Kingdom is one of the last monarchs still to be crowned in the traditional Christian ceremonial, which in most other countries has been replaced by an inauguration or other declaration.") They are shown extraordinary deference by seemingly intelligent people, and they are just so personally objectionable. Who could imagine sharing a pint with Prince Charles, or trying to have a conversation with the Queen? The whole thing is little short of ludicrous.

When I heard about the death of Diana, I was in bed, woken by a phone call from a friend to tell me it had happened. Though initially disbelieving, and then mildly shocked, I became quickly bored by the wall-to-wall coverage and very soon resentful that TV programmes I wanted to watch were being cancelled to make way for more live shots and 'analysis' of the event. The day of the funeral was the nadir for me (not that it was probably a high point for Diana, though many people in this country seemed to wallow in it) in terms of what it did to TV programming. I felt as if I was going insane. Around this time (by accident) I also found myself at Kensington Gardens, and was stunned to see the sheer quantity of flowers, and the outpouring of emotion, on display there. I had seen the kind of mawkish patriotism so prevalent in this country before, with the Queen's Silver Jubilee and the Royal Wedding - you know, people from the Wirral who wave Union Jacks and camp out overnight in the rain just to get a glimpse of the Queen Mum ("Ooh, she's a marvel!") but this was something else. It had been taken to another level.

Since then, events have become more interesting. Watching Liz and the others squirm around in their efforts to come across as normal people in their grief for Di was great fun, but was as nothing compared to the fantastic circus of Paul Burrell. The fencing of baubles, the 'dark forces at work in this country' quote and the allegations of Prince Charles raping a manservant contain elements of farce and high drama of which Joe Orton himself would have been proud.

Mohammed al Fayed has been a supreme irritant to the Royals, his rant to Keith Allen on Channel 4 rating amongst the best TV you could ever hope to see.

And that is the reason why I think the inquest should go ahead. With every question, noses are pried a little further into the rat's nest that is Balmoral, Buck House, KP, Sandringham, Windsor and all the others. Another chink in the armour is slowly inched open.

Even better, if there really was a conspiracy, what an excellent story it would be. I have been mildly castigated for finding allegations that Prince Philip ordered the murder of his daughter-in-law amusing, but I'm afraid that I do. The idea of brake fluid traces being found on the livery of one of the royal footmen, of equerries slipping out of sight in the Parisian night, is simply too delicious. I am watching the inquest with interest.

channel 4

Vitriol

I post to Cif quite a bit these days.

Many of the articles are fascinating in their own right, and they are often given a new dimension by the comments made on them.

There are some which annoy me, so that I can't bring myself to comment on them. Occasionally, I am so incensed by the tone of the comments that a rage overtakes me.

This article did that for me yesterday. I am not naive. I know that not everyone shares my world view, and neither would I expect them to. But I feel angry, ashamed and depressed when I read the vicious xenophobic nonsense that some people spout - covered as they are by the cloak of anonymity provided by an internet login.

Don't misunderstand. I don't want these people not to express their opinions. In fact, I was very unhappy that the Guardian issued moderation rules for the site. Much has been said of late about the standard of debate on forums, and I am firmly in the camp of letting it all in. It's easy enough to ignore the puerile stuff, and if you don't hear the arguments, how can you refute them? More importantly, I have a concern about the moderators for these things. Who says that some Guardian employee has the right to edit or delete a comment I make? It's annoying enough that some bunch of idiots can censor film, music and television before I can have access to it. Who watches the Watchmen?

What I am worried about is the level of uneducated, prejudiced and evil bigotry that I read in relation to asylum seekers - bogus, failed or legitimate. It's as if the average person in the street could be a member of the Nazi party, and are fully prepared to dismiss the lives of other people due to the colour of their skin, or their country of origin.