My never ending war with the civil service inevitably continues. The most incompetent and impotent workforce in society ticks all of the boxes of a stereotypical snoozy desk clerk, who are reluctant to get their lazy backsides off a chair and speak face to face with a human being.
Trying to get these inactive units in shirts to acknowledge the receipt of a letter that they requested is like pulling teeth. They cannot even read and comprehend the paragraphs within the letter and subsequently they never process said information, despite asking for it and receiving it, twice.
Throw in gross incompetence, and a lack of understanding of how the world works, and the tropes are there.
These souless grey drones wouldn't last 6 months in the private sector due to their glacial pace of a work ethic. It just wouldn't fly.
Sometimes I wonder how these cretins even manage to get the job as they are often clueless and in a half asleep daze. It cannot be through ability as often it's rare to see in action.
Maybe it's through nepotism and giving blowies to the powers that be that results in their rise through the ranks? The most effective and productive thing that these units could do would be lift their fat arse off their desk chair, walk to the nearest door, lie down and adopt a new position of being the office draught excluder.
The cogs of industry in the private sector are always turning, yet the public sector's cogs barely move. Maybe a clear out of the dead wood would help as these people just hinder progress. They cause and exacerbate problems rather than solve them.
- Ian French
With such much aesthetic beauty that has been lost to time, perhaps we should explore what we have lost, and appreciate it? Perhaps even we should embrace its return to our towns and cities.
Traditional Architecture- Are we losing the battle to love it? By Ian French, of Huddersfield.
Huntingdon, UK. An excellent example of how a mishmash of traditional styles of architecture can be timeless and merge together so well, ageing beautifully.
In the western world during the most important times of human civilisation and the development of organised societies, art played an important factor in culture and our ability to advance our language both in terms of paintings, but also fine architecture, resplendent in aesthetic beauty.
The buildings which sprang up during the Georgian and Victorian eras of the and 1800-1900’s are still seen amongst many of our towns and cities, and were pinnacles of artistic expression. The Industrial revolution led to these towns and cities developing rapid growth both in terms of dirty factories and other less sightly additions. But they also developed their own beautiful and unique structures filled with strange and ornate details which showcased art to the people. Statues, gargoyles and reliefs can be seen on both exterior and interior walls, and even just a regular window was seen by architects of the day as an opportunity to display ornate flourishes in their surrounding brickwork, stonework or even tilework. The streets were incredibly beautiful and an art museum.
Irvine Street, Liverpool, UK. Even when dilapidated, a row of Georgian townhouses can still look charming and classical, and can still inspire a realistic hope of restoration back to its original glory.
But as the decades and centuries rolled on, other artistic movements were created. In and around 1900 to 1920 we saw Art Nouveau spring up on the facades of theatres, banks and what we now regard as lavish apartment buildings. Ironically and amusingly this movement was a symbol of architectual anarchism, and could be interpreted as a revolutionary rebellion against uniform 90 degree angles found in all manners of traditional architecture.
As the 1930’s arrived, Art Nouveau then developed into Art Deco, one of the most elaborate and decandant artistic movements of the time inspired by the beauty of ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman temples to combine and romance these arts. This movement was a powerhouse of aesthetic prowess, and property owners invested to build and even refacade their buildings with art deco themes in order to impress and attract the people that walked by them.
This 1930’s example of Art Deco style cinema is resplendent in it’s ability to ‘WOW’ and seduce the passer by. Egyptian and Greek design elements can be seen in its facade.
Yet these movements became under threat to social and political ideologies which both inspired and infested the world of architecture. The likes of Bauhaus and Courbusier were born from social unrest and the ideology of Marxism. They were inspired by the statement of political power, such as Socialist principles where function was more important than form, as was an expression of civic power. Aesthetic appeal was just no longer seen as an important need. After WW2, these modern takes on architecture from eastern Europe began to infest themselves into the western Capitalist world, and Modernist quickly became Brutalist. Our skylines began to change as our traditional architecture was replaced by Brutalist monstrosities bereft of any individual character with reference to the local area.
A Communist inspired ‘Brutalist’ style of office block building, in Leeds, West Yorkshire UK. This ex-government monolith of excessive concrete has not aged well, and almost looks like it came from a ‘Bladerunner’- esque dystopian nightmare, It casts a shadow over everything around it, depriving and oppressing the street of sunlight.
Gone was the local stone. Gone was the desire to display local family heritage enscribed in the porticos and above doorways, and statues of important local figures such as property developing industrialists began to vanish from an architect’s drawings . A uniformity became apparent, where a new office block in Huddersfield or Newcastle, could be replicated all around London, and any other major towns or cities. Carbon copies of simplistic and mundane modernist buildings were copy and pasted across all our communities, as we fell out of love with the traditional street art we held so dear.
Modernism destroyed our heritage, or local identity. Our once decadent towns and cities became a mishmash patchwork quilt, where the beauty of an ornate Victorian bank showcasing local landmarks in the reliefs in the doors, could be overshadowed by a towering concrete box with uninspiring uniform window apertures.
A soviet era Apartment block that screams ‘Communism’. This Brutalist monolith lacks charm as well as flowing lines.
Art should inspire. It should seduce, and this translates into architecture. If a building has not been able to ‘WOW!’ you, then it hasn’t impressed you. If it hasn’t impressed you then it must have fallen short in aesthetic appeal. If a building is lacking in aesthetic appeal, then there is nothing to spark our interest to look up to. It no longer becomes an expression of art. If the design of a building causes oneself to react in disgust, then it has utterly failed to be beautiful as it now becomes controversialy divisive and ugly.
Councils have lost the ability to love and respect our buildings, and sadly this problem is still prevalent to this day. The modern office blocks, educational campuses and apartment blocks that are being welcomed by todays council planning commitees, still hold strong links to the past of Brutalism. Surely with such talk of respecting heritage and the restoration of old buildings, commonly discussed amongst civic societies and local authority planning officers, one would expect someone in such authority to think twice about if the appearance of a new development maintains the important need for aesthetic appeal and a reference to local heritage characteristics.
This new build residential house has been built with traditionalist style and locally sourced bricks which lends itself well to the area. This is ‘Architectural Revival’ in motion.
But it’s not all doom and gloom. Around the world, there are others who share the same concerns, and there are property developers out there who respect and admire traditional architecture and aim to replicate forgotten architectural styles. This movement is called ‘Architectural Revival’, and although seems to be a fringe interest, it is garnering support amongst social media platforms. If only councils could sit up and take notice that there are still some people that care. If this architectural movement is welcomed by planning committees, we could see the the improvement of appearance in our streets. It’s a mammoth task, remeniscent of the fight of David VS Goliath, but all it takes is a word of encouragement to property developers to embrace traditional architecture themes in their conceptual drawings. If councils have their hands tied to give such advice, then maybe central governments can play a part in allowing councils to advise in such a manner.
A beautiful row of Georgian townhouses in London. At the end of the row, one of these houses burnt down and was then demolished. It was later replaced with a 1970’s ‘Modernist’ style of apartment block which does not integrate well into its surroundings. In recent years, this too was demolished and the streetline was restored to its former glory by rebuilding what was originally there in its traditional Georgian style. This is what is known as the ‘Architectural Revival’ movement....
One can only hope. There are solutions out there to rid the streets of further Modernist and Brutalist advancement, and to restore artistic beauty. Boris, are you listening?
Flooding has become a recurring issue in this region.
THERE’S been lots of talk in the news regarding Storm Darcy and the damage it has done to the local area, but does the blame solely lie on the weather and climate change?
Firstly, the storm has been overhyped. It’s rained for a few days, that’s all. It tends to happen in winter especially in Northern regions such as Yorkshire, and always has done.
What is actually needed is for local authorities and river and canal maintenance organisations to dredge watercourses and to clear the banks of trees and shrubs, including getting willow trees out of the channels. Watercourses must be maintained or they will block up.
Flooding in Leeds last weekend.
The same goes for blocked drains. They will burst and overflow, causing flooding.
Maybe some common sense needs to be utilised here rather than sensationalising the weather conditions. Maybe the blame lies in an inability to prepare for such conditions?
To quote the well-known phrase: if you fail to prepare, then prepare to fail.
This letter can also be heard in podcast episode audio format…
The problem largely is Socialist ideology. In my opinion it appeals those who are driven by emotion rather than by common sense. Their emotions often convey compassion and empathy which are positive traits, but are also driven by negative emotions such as anger, hatred and envy. Sadly these emotions are responsible for some of the most ludicrously engineered policies as well as actions and attitudes that the Labour Party is well known for.
I'm not against the use of emotions in political decision making, but utilizing common sense should always be 1st on the list when thinking up policies. And that is where Socialists so often fail as they often think for the moment charged by emotion, but neglect to think about the long term consequences for their actions.
In a socialist's mind everything they dream up is 'for the greater good' which in theory might sound great. However whilst their ideas may help some people, it also harms others, and for that reason they will never achieve this target of equality. It will always result in inequality of some sort and is ultimately doomed to fail and will always be seen by the swing voter as poorly thought out unelectable policies created by a deluded ideology utopia.
Jeremy Corbyn supporters as well as other socialists cannot see this. They seem to think that the world needs to be driven by emotional outlook that mirrors their own ideology, but they also fail to realise that common sense needs to prevail.
Socialists go against the grain of human nature, because we as the collective human race will always be individuals capable of independent thought processes, different ideas, beliefs and attitudes. It is for this reason that Socialism will always fail in their goal of an equality utopia that benefits all mankind.
The harsh reality that they fail to see is that they will never please everybody, and whilst ever human being is different in ideology, they will always be different in intellect, ability and skills. As such there will always be different levels of natural hierarchy and inequality. That's natural cause and effect, yet socialists are so arrogant and ignorant in thinking that their way will solve the problems of natural division, and they get frustrated when they cannot achieve it. This is because they are deluded in their own little cult where they cannot think outside of their bubble.
The problem with socialist countries / economies is that their economics is often flawed. Excessive spending to pay for nationalised industries / infrastructure / welfare means the country is spending more than it receives in taxable income, and because it is a country that has no capitalist systems in place, it is not creating any wealth. They borrow and print so much money to ease the situation that their currency is almost worthless and fluctuates in value regularly-it is that unstable. Their idea of the people and the state running the means of production just is not working at all. An ideology turned sour, their utopia is a nightmare.
Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it, and it's worse.
One thing that really grinds my gears is the warped diseased beaurocratic attitude of "I'm sorry that's the rules" regarding ludicrous methods.
I've always been pro-active and always endeavour to find a logical way round hindering rules. If I come up against a hurdle, I try and find a way round it. It's the logical approach to find a solution to a problem.
Yet many beurocrats are content to just stonewall those who are trying to get things done. I cannot fathom this mentality of "those are the rules, sorry" and being ok to continue with a flawed system / method of approach.
Whatever happened to an employee identifying flaws in a system and trying to improve it, by way of positive influence? Surely that would be the logical approach. Why continue to roll with a flawed system? It makes no sense to me. I've always fought to improve areas where there are inneficiencies. Lobby those who have an element of influence at the top. That's how positive changes are made. That's how things improve.
It frustrates me immensely when others do not think the way I do about this, yet I consider my logic to be a common sense approach.
What has happened to the Independent in recent years? We've seen the newspaper lose its published format due to lack of interest and then it was sold on to a Russian investor. Now it only exists in online format, that is promoted by its social media team.
But the problems don't end there. I remember when the Indy was a groundbreaking newspaper with award winning journalists and what seemed to be a unique edge in retaining a largely neutral political stance in it's reporting. The name 'Independent' referred to the fact the media group was not backed by wealthy political donors, and nor were the media group aligned to any political party.
Remnants of evidence of this can be seen on the Indy's Facebook page such as here;
'The world's most free-thinking newspaper'.A bold claim which still sits proud for the public to see. But is it free-thinking?
Freethought (or "free thought") is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and rationalism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or other dogma.
Now that may stand relevant if the newspaper was made up of one person's opinion in the form of a blog such as this one for example, but we are talking about a newspaper that publishes many journalistic opinions. A collection of lateral thought from various viewpoints to form a balanced view of the world. Something the Independent was rather good at presenting itself as.
A lot has changed since then and not for the better. It seems to have been hijacked by the self-proclaimed 'Progressive left / liberals', of which I cannot determine much difference between the two ideologies. The newspaper used to appeal the centrist viewpoints, and many classical liberals were drawn to it such as myself back in the day.
Classical liberalism and 'Progressive' liberalism sound similar but are worlds apart. Classical liberalism is not far removed from libertarianism, an ideology based upon the founding principles of liberty, respecting people's freedoms and opinions. Tolerant of other's opinions and their way of life, or each to their own. Everyone's voice should be heard and respected even if some may disagree with their views.
'Progressive liberalism' seems to be very similar aligned to Social Democrats, which is more of a left wing Socialist ideology, and this is where massive differences are found when compared to Classical liberals. Progressives, in my opinion, have a tendency to be authoritarian and intolerant of other people's opinions that differs from their own. They also seem to have an arrogant air of self-importance and overly-moralistic views that they tend steamroller across with an element of loathing.
The Independent seems to no longer have a balanced journalistic portfolio, but rather it seems to have taken the left wing route to appeal to the Social Democrats / Socialists and as such panders to their moral standings. It has little to no evidence of centre-right political opinion published anymore, and as such it has lost me as a reader that likes to read opinions from all over the political compass.
BREXIT BASKETCASE
During the Brexit campaign, it became obvious that the Indy had chosen to be the voice of the Remainers, and criticised the Brexiteers at any given opportunity, often neglecting to listen to, or even comprehend the arguments for leave. It was a time of ignorance and arrogance.
I listened to both the pro-EU and the anti-EU opinions, weighed up the pros and cons, and heavily researched the opinions put forward before I made up my own decision on the matter.
The Indy and many of the Remainers however, tended to arrogantly misinterpret their opinions as 'facts', and heavily spun many of the Brexit opinions in a way that pandered to the remainers, helping to reinforce their loathing. It was an obvious agenda of confirmation bias for the reader's loyalty.
After the Referendum proved successful for the Leave campaign, the Indy as well as many of it's readers, seemed hell bent on trying to thwart the will of the majority, disregarding the 52%, and arrogantly declaring the 48% as more important. They turned against democracy when it didn't suit their narrative, and has reported many times with articles on how to derail Brexit.
ARTICLE 50
After Article 50 was activated, the Indy were behaving like spoilt brats, crying because they didn't get their way. Brexit is happening and there is no turning back now, yet the Indy still is obsessed and niavely on a mission to try and stop the process. Here are just a few screenshots of their Facebook page, and how their admin clearly forces their personal opinion across when they post the article links. You can almost imagine the page admin clapping with joy when they agree with the article, or frothing at the mouth in a student activist type manner when they have to post links to something they dislike. It's sad and unprofessional.
The Republican agenda
The Indy's page admin also likes to make it clear that they hate the monarchy, and usually every few weeks they go on an obsessive tirade posting old Indy articles that hate the Royals, and preaches for a Republican led country. A common post of this nature is when they post an article that mentions about a republican protest, and spins it as 'PEOPLE ARE ANGRY' or 'COULD THIS BE THE END OF OUR MONARCHY?' with a 'BREAKING NEWS' sense of importance about it. Many people comment that the Republican movement is tiny and futile, and has been around for centuries. But the page admin chooses to ignore these points and continues to obsessively post any Anti-Royal articles with obvious remarks.
I implore the Independent to drop it's name and change it to the Daily Bias. It's more apt given their obsessive agenda and clear political spin. It is a pro-EU Socialist's wank rag, that has descended rapidly into student political activist acts of desperation. What is even worse is that the page admin must surely read the comments section where much criticism can be found. Not only does the admin shy away from debating these concerns, but they clearly never think to themselves that there must be reasons for the newspaper's demise, and as such they have no idea that they a big part of the problem. It's either a case of ignorance, or that they just don't care that they are destroying the reputation of a once great source of balanced journalism.
I wonder if the new owner of the Indy is aware of the catalyst reason for the downfall of their media investment?
There are many reasons for the Labour party's demise, of which many I will discuss here. It's sad to witness the death of a behemoth political party and movement that was once a positive force, although at the same time it is well deserved as the members, activists and significant political figures are largely to blame as to why the voting public are shunning the LP at the ballot boxes.
History has shown that Labour are only ever elected out of frustration when the public rebel against extreme Conservative party measures, or the lack of support for the average worker. In theory it could be argued that they could be re-elected again in years to come, however the reality is it won't and cannot happen when the party remains unelectable and a complete omni-shambles of epic proportions ( *omni-shambles. Credit goes to Malcolm Tucker for the discovery and apt use of the term ).
Many reasons include the unfathomable and highly immoral Iraq war that was enacted by warmongering politicians both on the front benches as well as the majority of back benches during Tony Blair's New Labour.
This was actioned after a dubious and dodgy 'Weapons of mass destruction' dossier was released which had been heavily doctored to fulfill an agenda to go to war. In recent times we reflect on the controversy that is linked to shady middle east deals over the control of oil, at the expense of thousands of deaths of soldiers as well as innocent people in the name of collateral damage.
Thanks to the then war mongering Labour party, they helped to significantly affect the political instability in the middle east, while collaborating with Neoconservative war hawks in the US, to help manufacture democracy in countries whose culture is just not suitable for such radical reform.
The term 'blowback' as to the best of my knowledge was first mentioned by the then US republican anti-interventionist politician Ron Paul. He referred to how the USA's foreign policy resembles the formula of action = consequences. And the UK's Labour party were just as guilty in helping to destabilizing the middle east, creating a catalyst that is a breeding ground for religious extremism and home grown terrorism fueled by hatred and revenge against the west. This problem continues on to this day and beyond. Thanks Mr.Bliar for your 'things can only get better' bullshit.
Since the days of Blair and Brown, we have seen other leaders take charge of the LP such as Ed Miliband taking a soft left socialist position, and Jeremy Corbyn taking a far left socialist position bordering on the realms of militant and semi communistic sentiment.
It doesn't take a genius to realise that the further left ( or right ) you go to on the political spectrum, you will end up in wading into political extremist waters that only appeals to the fringe element, who are driven by hatred who are immersed in their own ignorant bubble. This is a massive turn off for the swing voter who make up the majority of the British voting public.
Elections are fought and won all the time in democratic countries and it is usually the centre ground swing voter that helps to determine the winning outcome. Most of the voting public know this but for the loyal supporters, activists and many of the politicians in the LP, they just cannot see that their alignment to the far left will ensure they are unelectable.
The problem largely is Socialist ideology. In my opinion it appeals those who are driven by emotion rather than by common sense. Their emotions often convey compassion and empathy which are positive traits, but are also driven by negative emotions such as anger, hatred and envy. Sadly these emotions are responsible for some of the most ludicrously engineered policies as well as actions and attitudes that the LP is well known for.
I'm not against the use of emotions in political decision making, but utilizing common sense should always be 1st on the list when thinking up policies. And that is where Socialists so often fail as they often think for the moment charged by emotion, but neglect to think about the long term consequences for their actions.
In a socialist's mind everything they dream up is 'for the greater good' which in theory might sound great. However whilst their ideas may help some people, it also harms others, and for that reason they will never achieve this target of equality. It will always result in inequality of some sort and is ultimately doomed to fail and will always be seen by the swing voter as poorly thought out unelectable policies created by a deluded ideology utopia.
Jeremy Corbyn supporters as well as other socialists cannot see this. They seem to think that the world needs to be driven by emotional outlook that mirrors their own ideology, but they also fail to realise that common sense needs to prevail.
Socialists go against the grain of human nature, because we as the collective human race will always be individuals capable of independent thought processes, different ideas, beliefs and attitudes. It is for this reason that Socialism will always fail in their goal of an equality utopia that benefits all mankind.
The harsh reality that they fail to see is that they will never please everybody, and whilst ever human being is different in ideology, they will always be different in intellect, ability and skills. As such there will always be different levels of natural hierarchy and inequality. That's natural cause and effect, yet socialists are so arrogant and ignorant in thinking that their way will solve the problems of natural division, and they get frustrated when they cannot achieve it. This is because they are deluded in their own little cult where they cannot think outside of their bubble.
The idea of equality for all maybe the Labour party's driving force but in reality it is an ideology that is not as popular as they think. The LP will never overcome this problem of unpopularity when they behave like a cult, deliberately ignoring and disregarding the views of others that disagree with the Socialist's way of thinking. And as such the LP will always fail to connect with the majority of voters.
Whilst far from perfect, at least other parties such as the conservatives, UKIP and to some smaller extent even the Lib Dems aren't as arrogant enough to think that their ideology benefits all, and as such don't try to lord their beliefs onto others with the aim of trying to convert everyone. With this in mind maybe a good metaphor would be Socialists are similar to vegans perhaps?
Maybe that sounds far fetched to some, but think back to what I mentioned about going against the grain of human nature. People will always be made up of different opinions, cultures, attitudes, abilities and skills.
There will always be a significant majority that will not agree with other people, and vegans will always try and convert others into adopting their way of life. The same could be said for how socialists try and convert everyone into adopting their vision. It's arrogance and ignorant to assume everyone can be converted to think the same way.
Ironically the Labour party has descended into civil war with plenty of division, hatred, wealth envy, sneer and ideological purism that is tearing the party apart. They only have themselves to blame and the public will not vote for a party that resembles a sinking ship.
Nor will the public elect a party which is no longer an effective opposition to the Conservatives. A good party should always find a workable and well thought out solution for every problem, and for that pragmatism and constructive criticism is key to highlighting issues and offering alternate measures to solve it.
This is where Labour has truly lost the plot. It heckles and criticises yet no solutions are offered. Labour is no more than a protest group that thinks it can run the country better based upon vague sentiment and platitudes. That to me is not a political party but more of a campaign group.
I haven't even begun to discuss the anti-Semitism, anti-christianity and the hatred of the British that is so prevalent in the party. Nor the obsession with increasing the population despite having a damaging effect on the supply VS demand of our infrastructure. It's no wonder the British voting public no longer feel represented by this party that masquerades as the party of the working man.
Whenever there is a forthcoming election and the LP are out in force campaigning and on the doorstep of concerned voters, they convey the illusion of listening to their concern whilst completely disregarding it at the same time, choosing to instead follow their sentiment utopia.
The LP will never learn whilst they behave and act like a cult. And when they shout, scream and verbally at those they disagree with it just charges up more political division and the disconnect between the party and the person. Nobody is going to vote for somebody that insults them, yet the LP seem to think that is acceptable behaviour. Their cult like intolerance of other opinions are driven by a mixture of ignorance, arrogance, ideological purity as well as s on and hatred.
And while their activists riot, verbally abuse and protest against the will of the electorate they will never achieve full support. The toxic LP has took voters for granted for too long, declaring themselves to be unsinkable. Well as far as I'm concerned they are the politics of hate and division, and deserve to sink like the Titanic.
