I was going to tweet: 'Is Brian Coleman a 20th century Marie Antoinette? Off with his head!', but then I remembered the case against Paul Chambers who received a £1000 fine and a criminal record for a sarcastic tweet and I decided to compose a blog post instead. So just for absolute clarity: this quip was intended solely as a humourous jest reflecting the ignorance and distance which separates the political elite from the 99% of the masses. Based on an alleged historical quote stated by Marie Antoinette dating to the French revolution; the beheading reference reflects the use of the guillotine dating to that historical period and certainly not some malign intent on the authors behalf. I abhor violence and merely wish to express my shock and disbelief at the behaviour of an MP. Although in light of the expenses scandal and the ongoing fallout, perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised.
This BBC links to some details regarding this story should you be intrigued: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11742182
However, although I read the story in the evening news, I find myself feeling increasingly angry about this comment. Briefly, Brian Coleman, a Barnet councillor on a salary of £120,000/yr responded to a query from one of his constituents, with a tirade of blind stupidity which beggars belief. His constituent, a part-time student with a disadvantaged child who had asked for assistance regarding housing when her private landlord increased her rent from £950 to £1100. In response, Mr Coleman made numerous noteworthy quotes:
'I am afraid you have to live in the real world where the country has no money and residents will have to deal with their own issues rather than expecting the system to sort their lives out. This correspondence is now closed.'
After being challenged regarding the lack of empathy in his response, he is also quoted as having said
'Lack of empathy???? Councillors simply cannot conjure housing out of this air and the private sector is your only option. That is a fact.'
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24000058-pound-120000-a-year-tory-tells-desperate-mother-to-live-in-real-world.do
I find these responses the political equivalent of a defence lawyer stating to their client: 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime', a Dr. saying to a cancer patient 'Perhaps you should have taken more time to consider the consequences of smoking, sucks to be you', or a Priest stating to a parishioner 'AIDS is God's punishment for your homosexuality'. Of course the difference is that I can imagine consequences for all three of these examples, whereas I somehow doubt the repercussions to Brian Coleman will extend much beyond a brief and transient public lambasting in the press.
And I can certainly empathise for Ms Osman. As a private tenant myself, I am constantly awaiting the same axe to fall on myself. As it happens, this was ultimately the initial incentive behind this blog. I already work as many hours as humanly possible and as my career choice will never lead to high earnings, although I maintain that my choice is correct as I believe what I am doing is of lasting benefit to more than just myself. Therefore, I started the blog to condemn social injustices and argue politics, with Adsense adverts dotted around the sides of the blog as a potential source of income. In theory, if people click on the adverts, I will allegedly make some money. Fortunately I wasn't expecting much; this was more of an optimistic daydream much the way you enter contests to win trips or gadgets but of course you never do. Nor does anyone you know. Or at least this is my experience but perhaps there are those who have actually won random contests. Either way, I will continue to be optimistic, or idealistic, I'll leave the decision to you dear reader.
As it happens, most of my early blog posts involved railing against the bankers in light of the economic disaster. Turns out that Google selects words from your blog to define the 'likely' target audience for the adverts it posts, hence many of the adverts relate to banking and finance. Sadly I am still attempting to see the humour in the irony. It's not as though I am affluent. After rent, bills and food, there simply isn't more money to be had, so payday is a rather short trip. And I suspect that my colleagues view me as anti-social as I rarely, if ever, socialise, although I still find this preferable to the loss of pride should they know the truth, which they probably have deduced but are socially capable of not making this an issue. It is clearly fortunate that I do not work with Brian Coleman.
And I am quite certain I represent the norm, not the minority. The '99%' whose voice seems to grow stronger by the day. I can't recall the exact phrase, but hopefully the following roughly paraphrases a line from the Handmaids tale by Margaret Atwood: 'Better never means better for everyone, better only ever means better for some'. Times are getting harder and greed is insatiable and it seems that current political changes offer no benefit for the masses but seem to protect the rich. This does not bode well for the future. Let's hope that Brian Coleman's colleagues choose to send a strong message to him the way they have for Paul Chambers, Edward Woollard and the London rioters. Accountability for actions should be equal across society, not dictated by affluence, as always I remain optimistic for an appropriate result, but will likely have to settle for disappointment.
This BBC links to some details regarding this story should you be intrigued: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11742182
However, although I read the story in the evening news, I find myself feeling increasingly angry about this comment. Briefly, Brian Coleman, a Barnet councillor on a salary of £120,000/yr responded to a query from one of his constituents, with a tirade of blind stupidity which beggars belief. His constituent, a part-time student with a disadvantaged child who had asked for assistance regarding housing when her private landlord increased her rent from £950 to £1100. In response, Mr Coleman made numerous noteworthy quotes:
'I am afraid you have to live in the real world where the country has no money and residents will have to deal with their own issues rather than expecting the system to sort their lives out. This correspondence is now closed.'
After being challenged regarding the lack of empathy in his response, he is also quoted as having said
'Lack of empathy???? Councillors simply cannot conjure housing out of this air and the private sector is your only option. That is a fact.'
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24000058-pound-120000-a-year-tory-tells-desperate-mother-to-live-in-real-world.do
I find these responses the political equivalent of a defence lawyer stating to their client: 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime', a Dr. saying to a cancer patient 'Perhaps you should have taken more time to consider the consequences of smoking, sucks to be you', or a Priest stating to a parishioner 'AIDS is God's punishment for your homosexuality'. Of course the difference is that I can imagine consequences for all three of these examples, whereas I somehow doubt the repercussions to Brian Coleman will extend much beyond a brief and transient public lambasting in the press.
And I can certainly empathise for Ms Osman. As a private tenant myself, I am constantly awaiting the same axe to fall on myself. As it happens, this was ultimately the initial incentive behind this blog. I already work as many hours as humanly possible and as my career choice will never lead to high earnings, although I maintain that my choice is correct as I believe what I am doing is of lasting benefit to more than just myself. Therefore, I started the blog to condemn social injustices and argue politics, with Adsense adverts dotted around the sides of the blog as a potential source of income. In theory, if people click on the adverts, I will allegedly make some money. Fortunately I wasn't expecting much; this was more of an optimistic daydream much the way you enter contests to win trips or gadgets but of course you never do. Nor does anyone you know. Or at least this is my experience but perhaps there are those who have actually won random contests. Either way, I will continue to be optimistic, or idealistic, I'll leave the decision to you dear reader.
As it happens, most of my early blog posts involved railing against the bankers in light of the economic disaster. Turns out that Google selects words from your blog to define the 'likely' target audience for the adverts it posts, hence many of the adverts relate to banking and finance. Sadly I am still attempting to see the humour in the irony. It's not as though I am affluent. After rent, bills and food, there simply isn't more money to be had, so payday is a rather short trip. And I suspect that my colleagues view me as anti-social as I rarely, if ever, socialise, although I still find this preferable to the loss of pride should they know the truth, which they probably have deduced but are socially capable of not making this an issue. It is clearly fortunate that I do not work with Brian Coleman.
And I am quite certain I represent the norm, not the minority. The '99%' whose voice seems to grow stronger by the day. I can't recall the exact phrase, but hopefully the following roughly paraphrases a line from the Handmaids tale by Margaret Atwood: 'Better never means better for everyone, better only ever means better for some'. Times are getting harder and greed is insatiable and it seems that current political changes offer no benefit for the masses but seem to protect the rich. This does not bode well for the future. Let's hope that Brian Coleman's colleagues choose to send a strong message to him the way they have for Paul Chambers, Edward Woollard and the London rioters. Accountability for actions should be equal across society, not dictated by affluence, as always I remain optimistic for an appropriate result, but will likely have to settle for disappointment.
No comments:
Post a Comment