Now here is a book I am going to get. The Daily Telegraph has published a compilation of annoying phrases, cliches etc in the English language. It is entitled She Literally Exploded: The Daily Telegraph Infuriating Phrasebook.
Curious to know whether any of the cliches, phrases etc that annoy me the most, have made it into the book. At the moment, the following set my teeth on edge: ‘close down the debate’, and ‘capture the public imagination’. I even hate that I have had to type them out here.
The Conservative Party has been thinking about marriages involving non-EU spouses. According to the Telegraph, here are some of their proposals, in respect of entry into the UK:
In making these proposals, the Tories are thinking about immigration, sham marriages, and integration, but they need to tread very carefully.
Damien Green, the party’s immigration spokesman, is quoted as saying:
“Too many young women are brought to England to marry when they cannot possibly integrate with our society. They need better protection.”
If so, why increase the age from 18 to 21? Is it not better for the spouses to come in when they are younger, and have more chance of getting an education, perhaps going to a college, joining an apprenticeship, or learning a trade? Many employers looking for trainees will happily take on an 18 year old, perhaps more so than they would a 21 year old; so if it really is integration that the Tories are concerned about, they should not be raising the age of eligibility. The younger one is, the greater the chances of integrating, I would have thought.
I also suspect the Tories are on dodgy human rights grounds with these proposals. So if a bride fails the English test, she is to be sent back whence she came until such time as she can pass? Also consider these two scenarios: an English man who marries a Canadian woman who speaks only French, and an English man (from say, Bradford) who marries a non English-speaking girl from Islamabad? Both are non-EU foreign brides, but somehow I think that only one couple is the target of these proposals. What then happens? Will the immigration officers apply the law literally, and turn away the Canadian, in the name of ‘consistency’? Or will they disingenuously find some narrow grounds for admitting her, while turning away her Pakistani sister?
As for citizenship tests, I have no problem with them. Everybody applying for citizenship should sit a test, regardless of whether or not the applicant is a ‘non-EU spouse’. Perhaps a foreign spouse could be granted indefinite leave to remain, and then upgraded to citizenship on taking, and passing, the test.
These proposals come very close to interfering with the right to marry. Earlier this week, the Court of Appeal ruled that regulations requiring non-European citizens to obtain a certificate of approval before marriage were illegal, and breached the right to marry. Of course, the Tories would argue that they are not restricting the right to marry. Their argument would probably be that one may marry as one wishes, as the restriction is not on marriage per se, but on the right of entry to the United Kingdom. Maybe so, but these proposals, at the very least, interfere with family life.
Take another example: an English man marries an 18 year old girl from Islamabad, who speaks perfect English, and is in every respect ‘fit for UK society’. However, because she is only 18, they are told that she can’t come in until she’s 21. There is nothing he can do to fix that. All he can do is wait three years. Interference with family life? Most certainly, especially given the fact that in the United Kingdom, one may legally marry at 18. At least in the case of a 21 year old, non-English speaking Pakistani bride, a few months in a language school should ensure she passes the English test, and can therefore enter the country. In the case of her 18 year old sister, no such advantage. She stays out of the country until she ‘comes of age’.
My message to the Tories: it is good that you are thinking, although quite why one should credit you for doing that most basic of functions, I don’t know. Still, thinking is good, and there has not been much evidence of that in recent days. However, these ideas are still half-baked, and need a lot more work. Please think about them a bit more before putting them out for consultation.
Should Liverpool defeat AC Milan tonight, the media tomorrow will be full of reports about the ’superiority of English football’.
Interesting how this so-called ’superiority’ only manifests itself at club level, and never translates to the national team. Could it have a little more (than is acknowleged) to do with the skilled foreigners playing at club level? Perish the thought!
I would appreciate it if the media stop deceiving themselves. Superiority of English football? I think not. Superiority of foreign players in English clubs? That’s more like it.
UPDATE. Oh dear. It seems we won’t be seeing those headlines after all.
Sky News is very upset today. The Chinese have been abusing their animals again. There is footage of live animals being thrown to tigers in Chinese zoos. Onlookers revel in the spectacle of the hapless animals being set upon and torn to shreds. To add to Sky’s incredulity, the Chinese authorities don’t see anything wrong with the practice.
Animal rights campaigners are not happy either, although I can imagine the Chinese authorities would simply make the point that the zoos are merely replicating what happens out there in the jungle, anyway. It is perfectly normal to see a tiger chase down and kill a weaker animal out in the jungle, so the Chinese are wondering what all the fuss is about when they move the location of the killing and eating away from the jungle and into a cage.
Is it the rights of the animal being killed that we should worry about? Or is it the fear that little children watching such ‘entertainment’ may be traumatised?
As to the ‘rights’ of the animal, it is easy to see what upsets the campaigners. However some might argue as follows: almost every weekend, there is some wildlife documentary on television in which animals (in their natural habitat, it must be said) are filmed attacking and killing their prey. This is also entertainment, but in what we no doubt think is a sanitised form. We are watching it in our sitting rooms, as opposed to going to the zoo to do so. And in addition, there is an educated voice in the background giving us such revealing gems as ‘the tiger circles his prey for the last time.’ Yes, this is entertainment, the civilised way.
I spent part of my early years in Africa. My parents worked all over the world and we ended up living in many exotic places. It was very common in those days for the zoos to put on the sort of entertainment that the Chinese are now doing. In one particular town, the lion was fed only on Saturdays. The meal never changed; one live goat. The time also never changed; midday. Eleven thirty on Saturdays therefore found the local (and also some expat) children and their parents waiting at the zoo gates for their weekly entertainment. And the lion never failed to disappoint. As for the goat, well, no one spared much thought for it, reason being that it would have been killed and eaten, anyway, whether or not by the lion. I never went to watch; my mother wouldn’t let me. However, the next Monday at school, the place would be abuzz with blow-by-blow accounts from the children who had attended the weekly proceedings.
Why am I telling this story? Who knows, actually? Maybe watching Sky News being so incredulous about it made me think. I am not making any judgement here, simply recounting my experiences. Perhaps the only point I will make is that, in places where human rights count for little, animal rights do not even enter into the conversation.
What happened to the lion in the end? Oh, it eventually died of starvation. As is the way with many African towns, poverty began to bite, and the zoo attendants began to baulk at feeding a whole goat to a lion when they themselves had very little to eat. At first the weekly entertainment was cancelled, as the lion began to receive only portions of the goat - the rest being diverted away by the attendants. Soon, even that was too much, and the lion stopped getting anything at all. Before long, the lion was dead, and by some bitter irony, its cage was occupied by two goats, so frail and advanced in years, that nobody had the heart to kill.
What exactly are they supposed to achieve? Do people just want to feel that they are ‘doing something’? Sometimes in life, circumstances arise in which there is very little we can do to help. Perhaps we would be better off acknowledging that. The yellow ribbons seem more than anything else to be ministering to the emotional needs of the wearer, that is, the need to feel useful in such a desperate case.
A different case if payment were actually being made for the ribbons, with the sums collected being added to a fund to find Madeleine. Now that would be a useful contribution.
Something very wrong with this proposal:
Travel restrictions could be imposed by America on 800,000 British citizens of Pakistani origin because of concerns about terrorism, it emerged yesterday.
The move has been prompted by fears that British Muslim men were behind several major bomb plots.
I sincerely hope the Government do the right thing and reject this move, even if it means abandoning the visa waiver scheme altogether.
Once a person has acquired British citizenship, whether by birth, marriage, or any other way, that is all that matters. As far as the visa waiver scheme is concerned, the US Government is not entitled to look behind the passport and impose restrictions based on who is carrying it. That is tantamount to creating different categories of British citizens, and we should not allow that.
Under our law, every British citizen is entitled to the same rights that attend upon citizenship. We should never accept a situation that creates a dividing line between our people, that deems some holders of the passport to be somehow less worthy than others.
The Telegraph reports that the Foreign Office is uneasy about the proposal, with a spokesman stating that:
“The Muslim community, including those of Pakistani origin, are an important part of our society and we would oppose strongly any proposal to single them out in response to the actions of terrorists”.
All well and good, but that is not the point. We should resist this proposal, not because the muslim community “are an important part of our society”, but because if they are British, they are entitled to the same rights and privileges as anyone else. In other words, even if they were an unimportant and insignificant part of our society, so long as they meet the citizenship test, that should be enough.
I would advise the Foreign Office to consider carefully what is at stake here; the deliberate devaluing of our citizenship by another country. I put it as high as that.
Alcohol Concern, a charity dedicated to fighting the evils of the demon drink, have come up with some proposals. Among other things, they would like to see the prosecution of parents who give alcohol to their children, even with a meal at home.
I would argue the other way. Perhaps introducing children to alcohol early, and in a responsible manner, would demystify alcohol in the minds of the chidren. Having a small amount of alcohol with a meal at home with one’s parents would remove part of the ‘rebellious’ aspect from the thing.
Because one may not legally purchase alcohol before the age of 18, many children unsurprisingly regard it as a mark of adulthood, and feel the need to show that they are grown up by drinking irresponsibly well before that age. That also explains the unedifying sight, in market towns up and down the land, of comatose youngsters on their eighteenth birthdays, collapsed on the floors of pubs, and being cheered by all and sundry. What does this tradition tell us? It tells us that for many, there is something mystical about alcohol, some inexplicable feeling of achievement for being deemed worthy to be able finally to partake of this great wonder-working potion. But why should that be? What is the big deal about alcohol?
In all the countries in which I have lived, I have never come across anywhere else like England with such an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. I marvel at the way this country deals with alcohol. By it, many measure their worth, and only with it, would many even dare to participate in social situations. That is what Alcohol Concern should be addressing. Why are the English this way about alcohol? Perhaps people need to be taught that alcohol is not such a big deal after all. Perhaps introducing children responsibly to the more civilised aspects of alcohol consumption will enable them to stand firm against its common corrupting influences. Let children know that alcohol is not a big deal, and that it is not a magic potion. Then they will be able to deal sensibly with it.
Another week, another house trashed by MySpace invaders.
How long before some Government minister (John Reid? Alan Johnson?) wades in with talk of a ban?
Here are some interesting articles about the hostages etc.
Morag considers armed forces recruitment ads and wonders if perhaps the true nature of what the forces are about has been badly downplayed. Also some analysis of the MoD’s thinking. A very interesting and thought-provoking post.
EU Referendum calls for a properly constituted Board of Inquiry into how they were taken hostage in the first place. Richard North makes the valid point that the Conservatives should be demanding a proper inquiry instead of making feeble noises about ‘lessons learnt’. Well said.
Calum Carr contrasts two recent MoD actions:
True word, Calum. To that I might add a third, the MoD’s self-righteous persecution of David Kelly for talking to a reporter, even threatening him with dismissal.
Very good articles, all.
The shameful episode of the 15 Navy personnel refuses to go away. They can now sell their stories to the press. I wonder if any of their number would be so honourable as to turn down the offer, but I doubt it. Faye Turney is reported to have agreed a tabloid deal and an interview with ITV.
I wonder what form her tabloid interview will take. Going by past interviews, they will probably expect her to pose in her underwear, or better still, scantily clad in some of her uniform. Maybe she will have a gun slung over one shoulder as she pouts for the cameras: ‘Faye takes no hostages!’. The pictures may or may not appear on page 3. All this should make her story more salacious, and therefore more interesting than it currently is: female sailor captured by Iran, freed after several days.
What do you mean, she wouldn’t stoop that low? The way I see it, she may as well. It doesn’t matter what form the interview takes. Clad or not, the Faye Turney interview marks another low point in this dreadful saga.
Not to single her out, though. Most of the other ex-hostages are reported to have seized upon this money-making opportunity with both hands, not stopping to consider their profession, their uniform (what uniform?), or the effect of their decision on the morale of other serving comrades.
This is the same sorry group of captives who [edit: some of whom], despite being humiliatingly stripped of their uniforms, saw nothing wrong in rejoicing on Iranian television like drunken footballers returning victorious from an away game. Having lowered themselves in that way, they have probably calculated that they have nothing more to lose, and may as well gain something from their debased status.
EDIT. As to the final paragraph above, Verity has rightly pointed out that not all of the ex-captives participated in what I may call the ‘Farewell to Ahmadinejad Extravaganza’. The pictures showed about three dignified looking men maintaining their composure, whilst all around them, their colleagues comported themselves like reality TV stars. Verity is right, it is not fair to lump these dignified men together with their less inhibited brethren, so I have edited the post to reflect that.
