I Didn't Think This Would Affect Me The Way That It Has...[Expicit Language]

 Trigger Warning: Transphobia, Murder, Misogyny. Sexual Assault.

I spent a long time on Twitter last night trying to make sense of what I was seeing. And I'll freely admit that I had a hard time doing so. The Gender debate is doing me in as for me, it's pretty clear cut. My take on it, in black and white, is pretty simple:

Everyone has the right to be who they want to be as long as no-one gets hurt.

"But safe spaces".

Everyone should have safe spaces.

"They're trying to erase women".

No, they have a form of Body Dysmorphia that needs to be taken seriously but no-one's listening.

"They'll assault women!"

It's not that simple.

Most of the arguments against Trans people annoy me because it's so reminiscent of previous struggles by other groups. And the tone is similar to. I was born long after the decriminalization of homosexuality and the Stonewall Riots. I arrived not long after the AIDS Epidemic was taken more seriously by society rather than just assuming it was only a gay-related disease. I've grown up my entirely life, broadly speaking and literally speaking, around LGBT. As a young man, most of my Mum's friends were either gay or lesbian. And I was privileged enough, as a teenager, to hold someone's trust enough that I became the first person they came out to. I'll never forget that moment.

And while, for me, the Trans debate is fairly new, the same kind of vitriol and hatred that the LGB community experienced in the 70s/80s is happening again with the Trans community. I've even seen similar wording applied to the debate which makes me extremely uncomfortable.

Before I go any further, allow me to explain how I came to terms with my sexuality and gender identity. To anyone who knows me personally, these anecdotes should come as no surprise to you.

I was 12 when I realised I was not straight. And I worked it out in about 10 minutes. I had a massive crush on a girl called Zoe in our class. She was, and continues to be, stunning and I had my crush. However, I also realised one day that I was also attracted to a young man in my year called Paddy. Not that I wanted to do anything about it, I just thought he was very good looking too. When I realised this, I pondered it for a moment and arrived at the conclusion I must like both if I think both Zoe and Paddy were attractive. I accepted it and went about my day as I realised this was me now and couldn't change it. Nor did I want to. I didn't particularly care about it.

I was 27 when I first described myself as Androgynous. I've never felt "male", though I'm comfortable in a male body. The idea of Gender always felt kind of weird to me, even before I totally understood what it entailed. I never got the whole "boys wear blue, girls wear pink" thing. Growing up in the late 90s/early 00s, this was still a thing and Mum still got me "boys toys". I always preferred playing with my friend Katie's Barbie and Cindy dolls than I did the Action Man that Mum got me one time. Action Man was this masculine, khaki-laden, muscular creature that I held no affinity with. Not that I shared anything in common with Barbie, but I saw women as caring and kind. So I gravitated more to them. And I adored Baby Annabelle dolls. The chance for me to be a Mum or a Dad was exciting. I asked Mum for one once when I was 5 but it was a vehement no. I get why now. "Those toys are for girls, Josh", she said. Perhaps she was right at the time. I wouldn't deny my kids one if they wanted one. 

Though, to be fair, I don't even identify as human most of the time so what do I know. All I know is that as young as 11 I remember saying to Mum's friend Kathy "I don't feel like a boyish boy or a manly man". I still don't. I never have. I'm just happy being a neuro-spicy Time Lord, bypassing gender entirely. Maybe I am non-binary? Gender is a really weird doctrine to me anyway. And I hate doctrine.

Then I saw what Rowling was saying. Initially, after reading her first essay on the subject, I felt some minute modicum of sympathy. I know that a lot of Trans people online were criticizing her but, after reading her essay, I could kind of see where she was coming from. I didn't like it, but I could see her entry point into the conversation. But this changed after a conversation at work where someone pointed out a few things to me. Not to mention by sibling-in-law talking to me about it and a mutual friend. But, to be honest, I should've just read Twitter.

And that's where we were. This clash festering away on Twitter servers and, at times, out on the street. Or in the Green Party of all places. Hateful rhetoric from people who had no time or inclination to accept. At worst, it's transphobic. At best, it's a lack of education around multiple physical and psychological processes.

Some debates were reasoned, some were not. Some awful people who raped and attacked others identified as Trans, helping to create a narrative of Predation. Of course, this isn't true for the majority of Trans people. In the same way that not all women or Feminists are attacking Trans people and wishing them harm or death. People like Posey Parker and Graham Linehan continued to make ill-thought-out statements and use disrespectful syntax, allowing others on social media to spread vitriol and hate under the guise of free speech being attacked. The Media not helping in any way and, in many ways, contributing. Creating an "us and them" divide. 

Women were under threat and from men pretending to be women, they said. It's an easy headline and an easy way to create a culture of fear, anger and extremism.

And then Brianna Ghey happened. 

And this is where the main crux of my ranting and musings takes shape.

Allow me first off to send love, thoughts and prayers to Brianna's family and friends at this difficult time. Losing a child is something I can't, and don't wish to, imagine. And they are in my thoughts and prayers.

But, sadly, it was never going to be a clear cut case.

Brianna Ghey was a 16 year old trans girl who was murdered in Warrington on Saturday 11th February. At the time of writing, the police do not suspect her murder to be a hate crime, but have described the murder as "targeted". Warrington Police have also urged people from speculating and theorizing about what lead to Brianna's death.

It's also British Law that Brianna cannot be identified as 'Brianna', or indeed female, on her death certificate. Her dead-name must be used on both the death certificate and the headstone.

Now, while the Police's warning against speculation is a reasonable request, that was always going to be difficult for the Trans community who, for all intents and purposes, are now in a state of panic. 

The Trans Community, understandably, believe Brianna was killed for being Trans. A reasonable assumption given the context but, at the time of writing, this has not been proved with some even claiming it's been ruled out entirely. While the "other side" are accusing the Trans Community of "politicizing" Brianna's death to further the "Trans Agenda". Last night, Twitter and TikTok saw anti-Trans activists celebrating Brianna's death. Not only that, when certain Tweets similar to this were reported to Twitter, they were found not to have broken Twitter's content rules. Which would be fine if it weren't for the fact that some Trans people were told THEY had broken the rules by arguing for Trans rights. (To be clear, one person was reported after tweeting they wished harm to a trans person, all fine. Said trans person wished for them to have a bike tyre puncture and this was found to be wrong).

And now, for whatever reason, a Trans girl has been killed. With the potential of being murdered for her identity hanging over the case. So, of course Trans people are going to be nervous. Because they feel they might be next.

One of the main arguments I've seen from the other side of it is "there's a major problem with knife crime and teen-on-teen violence in the UK anyway, gender doesn't factor into it". They've then shared other cases of dead teenagers in the UK in recent times. I have an issue with this on its own which is we shouldn't be comparing cases of murder when there's no tangible commonality. Unless it's a serial killer case which this is not. That's just common courtesy. Secondly, it seems a bit rich that some people will accuse the Trans community of "politicizing" a Trans-girl's death while they then end up dragging other deaths into the mix to make a political point. (IT Crowd and Father Ted creator Graham Linehan even went as far as to say that "there is no such thing as a Trans child" following the news of Brianna's gender status breaking).

Yes, there is a problem with knife crime in this country and yes teen-on-teen violence is on the rise but stuff like that doesn't really get talked about in depth until something like this happens. When someone who belongs to a group in contention dies and that group understandably becomes on edge as a result.

Can we also accept that celebrating a teenager's death, regardless of the circumstances, is fucking wrong and despicable?

Are Trans people innocent of provocation? No, some are not. I've seen some horrific things said by Trans people and Trans activists but, again, they are in the minority. But, as far as many are concerned, they are fighting for their identity, for better conditions and for acceptance. And now, potentially, for their lives.

I'm not siting here and trashing women either. Most women I know either don't understand or don't really think about Transgender people and just wish them well. Which I believe is the majority view. In the same way that the majority of Trans people just want to live their lives, which shouldn't be too much of an ask.

So why am I here lamenting all of this? Why has this affected me the way it has? In a way I didn't anticipate.

Here's why:

1. The whole situation breaks my heart. Any child death does. And it seems to be happening a lot more at the moment and it's worrying. American children go to school hoping they don't get shot and it looks like British teenagers are having to go outside and worry about coming home. This shouldn't be the case.

2. If it does transpire that Brianna was killed because she was Trans, I know that the "Gender Critical" people won't accept it. They'll argue the toss or, worse, they'll justify it. I've seen some foundations of that with my own eyes already. (I refer you to Graham Linehan's previous comments).

3. I have family who are on the Trans spectrum. People I care about are at risk for their identity. As an Autistic person who has encountered people who want me dead for being Autistic, I sympathize. I do. It's fucking sick but it's a reality. I don't want them to go through that, no way.

4. I'm a parent. My kids may come out as Trans one day. Do I have to worry at that point whether they could be killed for their identity or not? Because even if the motivations for murder this case were not trans-related, it could be only a matter of time before that starts. I want my kids, in a scenario where they do come out as Trans, to live in a society that's accepting of it. A society that's safe for them to exist. Not to worry about about total strangers wishing my children dead because they dare not conform to social "norms".

5. Given what I've said about my own perceptions on Gender, I could've come out as trans. My friends could've. I or they could have been in a position where we were in fear of our lives. As it stands, I'm yet to hear of a case where someone was killed for being openly Autistic but, had I come out as Trans, I would now be in fear for my life. And no-one should be. Not Trans people. Not women. Not men. Not children.

What we're seeing, at the moment, are a few tragic examples of one simple truth. Words have power.

Far-right activists besieged a hotel housing asylum seekers in Merseyside at the weekend. And the Home Secretary, who's referred to asylum seekers as an "invasion", blamed asylum seekers for the clash. 

There is a libel law in the UK which means I cannot say certain things about certain people outright as it could be conceived as slander. So I'll make my point this way:

There are certain people in positions of influence and notoriety who stir up hate. And, while I believe the main person associated does not wish people dead, they inspire and embolden people who do wish and seek to cause harm.

Words inspire. Words hurt. Words cause damage.

"Sticks and stones" is a load of bollocks. Because, as we've discovered this weekend, words can, in some cases, cause death.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

********

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

********

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

*********

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

*********

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

- Articles 1, 2, 3, 5 & 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Regardless of gender identity, everyone should be safe. It should be that simple. It NEEDS to be that simple.

Below is a link to a fundraiser for the family of Brianna Ghey to help with funeral costs. If you can donate, please do. Please also consider donating to charities that work with Trans Youth and Youth Mental Health services. And, as always, please challenge injustice and hatred wherever you find it.

Fundraiser by Victoria Potter : Brianna Ghey (gofundme.com)

I Saw This Hilarious End Of Days Documentary And I Simply Must Share It With You

So, Blogger, we meet again.

Been a while.

But I must share this with the people of the world. It's too funny not to.

The other day, while my son was asleep on me, I went down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Weirdly, this is not what this blog post is about. But I will briefly touch on it.

That conspiracy theory is that the world did in fact end on 2012, as per the Mayan Calendar's supposed prediction. However, the theory suggests that scientists at CERN ended the world after discovering the God Particle (the Higgs Boson) earlier that year. The supposition is that the world did end but, due to either being put in a simulation or the idea of Quantum Immortality, we ended up in a parallel universe. This is said to explain why there have been more instances of the Mandela Effect sine 2012. (Nelson Mandela died in 2013 so makes sense). 

Anyway, like I say, that's not why I'm here.

During this deep dive through tin-foil-hat-town, I found what is, perhaps, the single greatest hour of television I have ever seen. A mid-Noughties marvel that I'm shocked hasn't got more attention. However, through the medium of Blogger, I present to you: End Day.

For those of you who don't know, or wish to remember, 'End Day' was a one off show on BBC 3 back in 2005 with what is, honestly, a pretty cool premise. A guy named Professor Howell, who helps run a Particle Accelerator in New York, is in London. He wakes up in a hotel room and gets a phone call that the experiment will go ahead that day. He tries to get to the Airport in order to get to New York on time. And, with the exception of one particular outcome, he doesn't reach New York. This is because, every time he does, some weird cataclysmic disaster ends up happening. 

There are 5 scenarios in this show which I will go into for you. I'll also attach the full episode on YouTube so that you can see it for yourself should you decide to. Though, I will explain the stories a little bit out of order. The reason why will become clear as this post goes on.

I love End Day for a number of reasons:

1. I absolutely adore disaster flicks. They're so unbearably random.
2. I like thinking about the end of the world sometimes. Sue me.
3. Some scenarios are likely to occur at some stage in human history. So it's fun to see what could happen.

But mostly I love End Day for the absolutely God awful special effects it's decided to use. Now, by mid-00s standards, it was probably acceptable. However, truthfully, it is absolutely atrocious. Only Classic Doctor Who can boast worse special effects in terms of BBC programming. If you decide to watch the show, you will see what I mean. And I'm saying that there are Roland Emmerich level of bizarre moments. A tsunami that goes super fast, despite that not being how it really works. Really fast lava flows, even though that's not the case. That kind of thing.

Anyway, let's go.

SCENARIO 1: LA PALMA ERUPTION/MEGA-TSUNAMI

There's an island in the Atlantic called La Palma. On it has a volcano. Now, at some stage, it's generally accepted that La Palma will erupt and cause a momentous landslide. So bad, in fact, that half of the volcano could tumble into the Ocean. If this were to happen, then it could cause a really bad tsunami that crashes into the Eastern Seaboard of the United States.

This is the general gist of scenario 1. Professor Howell wakes up, attempts to get to New York, but cannot due to the fact that it's about to be engulfed by a tsunami.

Oh, I forgot to mention, there are other little stories woven throughout this. The story from other people's perspectives. The main characters of this scenario are a family of three, a married couple and their little boy, who attempt to escape New York and avoid the tsunami.

They are unsuccessful. 

The tsunami devastates New York City and goes 2 miles inland as well. The Eastern Seaboard is battered and emergency rescue efforts are difficult but initiated. People seem to survive by going to the top of skyscrapers and watch the calamity unfold before their very eyes. You even get a first person perspective view from a shop, which is kind of cool. (If you've seen The Day After Tomorrow, you'll get the kind of thing I'm getting at here). The scenario ends with a Presidential spokesman talking of the devastation. The "credits" roll and we are transported into Scenario 2. (Very Groundhog Day).

Oh, I also forgot to mention, these things are interwoven with interviews and segments taken from BBC's Horizon programs and National Geographic. All experts speaking on the scenario we are watching unfold. These are quite fun as they probably hold more educational value than whatever the awful special effects are trying to convey.

The sole issue I have with this segment is that this was made in 2005. Months after the worst Tsunami the world had seen. (Boxing Day 2004). So this feels a little shallow given that the whole world saw what a major tsunami was capable of. Mind you, I don't know when this was all completed. So I suppose I should give the show the benefit of the doubt that it was completed before Boxing Day occurred. If I am right, then they obviously didn't have adequate time or funds to remedy it in time. When I was watching it, I just felt a little uncomfortable with how quickly the wave was coming into New York. 

The Boxing Day Tsunami really affected me when I saw it unfold on live television, so maybe I'm a little biased here.

SCENARIO 2: METEOR!

At this point, you realise that Howell cannot catch a break. This time, a massive meteor (or 'Dead Comet' is plummeting to Earth and all countermeasures to prevent it fail. To the point where even a nuclear weapon exploding on its surface, surprise surprise, does not work. (Why is this even a concept?)

The other story follows yet another family. This time in Berlin, where the meteor is confirmed to collide with. (Why Berlin? I like Berlin). The mother of the family is at home. She sees the news and decides to try and find her husband and son. However, she doesn't phone them, she just gets supplies and jumps in her car to find them. (I remember phones being a thing back then...)

Meanwhile, said husband and son are in a train station. (I think it may be underground). However, instead of going to an underground station, they decide to take an over-ground train out of the city. (Pointless tbh).

We never see the mother again. But we do see the father and son getting separated. The son gets on a train as the father desperately tries to find him on the train that is now departing from the station. They don't see each other again, at least as far as the program is concerned. In fact, a meteorite just misses the train with the child on and he seemingly survives.

Should've gone to an underground station.

Was definitely less Armageddon and more a comedy of errors.

SCENARIO 4: YELLOWSTONE SUPERVOLCANO

I'll talk about Scenario 3 later.

Ok, admit it. You probably saw this coming.

Yellowstone National Park is built on a Supervolcano. And, again, Howell cannot catch a break. This time, a family sits at a geyser after a series of Earthquakes. (Again, a little idiotic but more than certain to occur). The family die after their 4X4 can't start and it gets pushed over the edge of a cliff. (The director must REALLY like Roland Emmerich). 

Scene cuts to a café somewhere in the park where a lot of people are eating. Suddenly, BOOM. No one is safe from the ensuing explosion of the Supervolcano. Goodbye Wyoming, goodnight Vienna. They even put in a very poorly made up car/lorry collision for good measure which gives no value to the story being told.

Yellowstone is one of those things that just captures the public imagination. And I remember, around the same time, a similar program being made called 'Supervolcano' which spoke about the same thing but in far greater detail. I remember being both fascinated and terrified in equal measure from that. So to see this was a little lackluster. Again, effects were golden. And Howell's reactions are totally deadpan and non-descript.

We then see the Wyoming State Capitol engulfed in volcanic material which just makes zero sense. Especially when you see the speed of the lava. If you've seen the films 2012 or Volcano, you'll get what I mean. Apparently, Yellowstone has the fastest lava ever. Especially given that it's a viscous liquid from the Mantle of the Earth. Anyway. Credits roll and we're back to the final Scenario.

SCENARIO 5: PARTICLE ACCELERATOR

Do you remember the Noughties? The fears around CERN? Remember how it was all ok? Well, this is Professor Howell. And nothing seems to go right for him. 

This particular scenario plays on the fears that we all had before the switching on of the Large Hadron Collider and how we all thought that a Black Hole was going to engulf the planet. And, spoilers, that's exactly what happens in this scenario.

What annoys me is the speed in which the Earth gets engulfed. It's PAINFULLY slow. To the point where the perspective of the other story comes not from one character, but a commercial flight who are dragged slowly towards the well of the black hole. Except, it doesn't go in, because another plane is sling-shotted into it.

Anyway, Earth goes kaput because of humans messing with things they don't understand. We all thought it would happen in reality. It didn't. Woop Woop!

Ok, onto the best scenario in this damn show.

SCENARIO 3

This one is my favourite segment and my least favourite segment for reasons that will become clear. Overall, the meteor one is my favourite as, other than scenario 3, that's the one most likely to occur in our lifetime. But this one just takes the biscuit for a whole plethora of reasons.

I'd like to point out before I explain what happens that, in 2005, this scenario was a very a difficult thing to imagine in practicality. It hadn't happened in the 21st Century up until that point so trying to guess a whole load of variables was always going to be problematic. However, the end result is not only completely farcical, but just plain weird and wrong.

The scenario starts with Howell in the hotel room. Alarm goes off, Howell gets phone call, gets in the taxi to get to the Airport. However, we find out the true meaning behind a rather throwaway detail in Scenarios 1 and 2 that I've left out. In those scenarios, and in 4 and 5, the taxi that Howell is in is always cut up by a black Seat. It has a weird toy in the back window which we always see. However, Scenario 3 reveals that this is an actual character within the law of this multiversal pantomime. This is a lady and her daughter. And, for this scenario, this is the "other story".

A plane enters Heathrow airport. However, there's a problem. A passenger is dead. Dead from a new virus...flu like...from the "far East". Sound familiar? Oh yeah, we're Pandemicing this shit. (You may have worked out now why it's also my least favourite because, deep down, you know what's coming). 

The mother in the Seat's mother was on that flight. The plane was not quarantined (for some reason because, hey, SARS clearly didn't happen in this universe) and the passengers have gone out into the community. The Seat woman tries to phone her mother but, mysteriously, she doesn't answer the phone. (This is why she's parked where she is in order to cut Howell's taxi up on the road). Worrying about her mother given the virus news, she decides to go to the mother's house. (Red flag number 1 but totally understandable).

Howell gets on a flight to New York. All's good for him so far. He just watches the in-flight entertainment. Which isn't a film or anything, it's BBC News. Because of course it is.

Five hours have passed in-world and the Seat mother has finally reached her mother's estate. However, the Army have set up a quarantine cordon. She ain't getting in. So she does what all sane people do in this situation. Go the back way in.

Despite reports of people stealing cars, Seat mother leaves her car (and daughter) alone for a few moments down the end of the road so that she can try and get to her mother's house. In order to avoid detection from the military, she writes a note and puts it through her mum's letterbox. We get a cutscene of the note falling in. Then a body. THE MOTHER WAS DEAD THE WHOLE TIME. (Le shoque, le horreur). 

Seat mother goes back to her car to discover the car is not there anymore. As she tries to work out what's happening, she hears the squeal of wheels. She turns, she sees her car off in the distance. And, through ZERO REACTION, attempts to brisk walk after the car. Her daughter, by the way, still in the car enjoying life. She has no idea she's just been kidnapped. Which is a relief because her mother really didn't seem to care about that aspect.

Howell's flight from the UK has been diverted now to JFK and has been quarantined. This is due to, within 5 hours, multiple countries locking down their borders and their citizens in order to try and contain the spread of this virus. However, when Howell looks out of the window to see "JFK", what we're confronted with is an airport docking bay with the words 'Berlin - Tegel' on it. They didn't even attempt to correct this geographical error either way, they just left it which is sheer genius on the BBC's part. Total twist. Honestly didn't see that coming.

Back to London. The Seat has crashed and a soldier stumbles upon it. He, gas mask and all, looks in the driver's seat and sees the dead driver. Blood on the wheel and windscreen. He then looks in the back seat and sees the little girl, completely fine and intact. In fact, she seems completely oblivious to the fact she's just been in a car crash. (Cause unknown by the way, it just kinda happens). The soldier calls a helicopter over to get the girl out and rescue her. 

Now, this is my favourite part of the ENTIRE show. Because it makes ZERO sense contextually. The soldier finds the girl and it's made clear he's going to rescue her. All's good. I totally understand that the chances are she will be rescued, taken to a safe location, checked for the virus and treated accordingly. She may even be reunited with her mother in this universe. However, what we see is the soldier looking at the girl, the girl finally looking somewhat perturbed and the most dramatic musical stinger I have ever heard in my life. WHAT? WHY? ARE THEY GOING TO KILL HER? It makes zero sense when you watch it. I guess they're trying to convey the girl finds the gas mask soldier menacing but, even so, the way it's presented is absolutely bat-shit crazy.

So why do I love and hate this scenario?

I love it because it is totally crazy. Within five hours of the dead Heathrow passenger, deaths in London alone amount to 300,000 people. With cases detected in France and Canada among other places. But the sheer "storyline" within it is just bonkers. It's nuts and I love it. Especially the mother's non-reaction to her daughter's abduction. 

I hate it because we've spent 2 years in a Pandemic it wasn't nearly this exciting. Yeah, ok, Lockdown 1 was a unique thing because we hadn't experienced that before and it changed EVERYTHING. Covid will affect EVERYTHING for years to come directly or indirectly. Because it's just one of those events that affects every facet of existence. But the closest thing we got to a military quarantine zone was Arrow Park Hospital, people weren't just randomly dying in the streets and we certainly didn't achieve that fictional death toll in five hours. The UK death toll has only just gone over half that figure in 2 years. 

I think because we've lived through (and are still living through) a global pandemic, it's easy to laugh at it and go "ha, wrong!" (Full Moss from IT Crows stylee). But the last global pandemic was Spanish Flu in 1919. Covid was the first 21st Century pandemic. And no-one could've really comprehended what a 21st Century Pandemic would look like. And things like this or Outbreak or Contagion do a good job at the basics, but the pace is all wrong and is done for dramatic effect. Living through one was far more intriguing because it makes all of these films completely obsolete. For a start, the lockdowns happened far quicker in End Day, meaning there was good governance which, as we know from reality, is not always a guarantee.

So that's that. That's End Day. It's a bonkers ride and is a great way to kill 50 or so minutes. I thoroughly recommend watching it for the sheer hilarity that ensues. If you like really OTT disaster movies, this really is one for you. It's so exaggerated it's laughable. 

The only thing that truly annoys me about it is that all of the things put forward (maybe not the particle accelerator one to be fair) are real threats humans could face at any moment. And they're being reduced to jokes. In the space of two days, I went from thinking 'Don't Look Up' was a masterpiece to realizing that it's actually terrible. And he reason I reached the latter conclusion is because it eventually made a joke out of something fundamentally terrifying. I'm not saying we should see films that are 100% accurate and depressing, but we should be portraying these events more as a threat than they are in the realms of disaster movies. 

A mega-tsunami that hit the US would likely cause a major economic collapse because the financial centre of the globe would be submerged. The knock on effect from that event could be catastrophic. Speaking of America, if the San Andreas Fault decided to go for the big one, or the Cascadia Subduction Zone for that matter, it would be an economic and humanitarian disaster.

A meteor, asteroid or a comet hitting Earth anywhere would cause untold levels of devastation and, like a Supervolcanic eruption, could lead to a nuclear winter and cause widespread crop failure. One super volcanic eruption caused the human race to lower to just 5000 people worldwide, why are we laughing at this? Such events could, and I say could with emphasis, lead to millions of people losing their life. So we are we making a joke out of these kinds of things?

Gamma Ray Bursts, Climate Change, Solar Flares, all of these sorts of things get reduced to jokes when they really shouldn't be. Maybe it's the dark humour side of the human race dealing with or else it lives in perpetual fear of its own demise. (Look up Terror Management Theory, it's kind of like that).

Anyway, I ramble. Watch it, enjoy it, see what you make of it. If it gives you a giggle, fair enough. It certainly did me. Especially the Pandemic one. Seasoned veterans of a Pandemic now, ladies and gents. We are allowed to laugh in the face of a virus from the East.

See you next time.

An Open Letter To "Fans" Of Doctor Who [WARNING: CONTAINS EXPLICIT LANGUAGE]

I don't usually write about Doctor Who but, on this occasion, I need to get this off my chest. I'm going to keep it short and sweet, and there will be some explicit language.

Dear "Fans" of Doctor Who.

We need to talk.

If you're in the fandom on Facebook or Twitter, you may have noticed that things feel...negative...since Jodie Whittaker took over as the Doctor and Chris Chibnall took over as head writer. I've certainly noticed and I've been watching it unfold as time has gone on.

However, this morning, I reached the point where I couldn't stand it any longer.

This open letter is designed to be read by all fans that come across it, but it's addressing those who dislike the Whittaker/Chibnall era and comment on every post about Doctor Who expressing this disgust.

I'm going to put my core message to you in the strongest possible terms.

If you don't like what Chibnall is doing, or how Jodie is playing the Doctor, then stop fucking watching. Seriously.

I cannot express enough how much of a waste of time it is for you people to put up a negative comment about the show on every single post you come across about it. Of course you're entitled to your own opinions and it's good you feel the need to express that, but frankly the amount you're posting about the same subject to no effect is tedious and, frankly, it puts those of us who like Jodie into a difficult position. 

I understand you have some legitimate concerns about the direction that the show is going and you have some concerns about how it's being presented. But by calling this era "woke" is frankly lazy and it's not an argument. And it's now a word which usage is now becoming quickly associated with people like Laurence Fox and Nigel Farage.

The writer Vinay Patel, who wrote Fugitive of the Judoon and Demons of the Punjab, recently told a fan to "GTFO" when they asked about Jo Martin's incarnation and many fans, who see the show as Woke now, got up in arms. However, when you consider that this "fan" on twitter changed official artwork to remove Jodie and Jo from them and was a constant critic of Jo's inclusion, of course that should be brought up and taken to task. But the amount of comments I found in support of this "fan" who had been sworn at was overwhelming.

And with the trailer for Revolution of the Daleks, Facebook was swamped with negative comments, while the YouTube upload didn't seem to have many at all. Maybe I'm on the wrong media platform? Maybe I should spend more time on YouTube.

I'm not going to lie, Chibnall's writing is not the best writing the show's had. As someone who started Who with Eccleston and grew up with Tennant, Russell T Davies' era of the show is my favourite by far. However, I absolutely adore Jodie's Doctor. And every time I see someone comment, quite aggressively, that they've stopped watching the show because of Jodie or  Chibnall, I feel like I'm in a strange minority that actually accepts the show's 57 year tradition of CHANGE.

As a result of this, it's increasingly becoming clear that there's a weird double standard with these people in terms of narrative. I'll use the Timeless Child revelation as an example.

1. It's not the first time that Doctor Who has theorized about regenerations prior to William Hartnell. The Brain Of Morbius in the 1970s alluded to this. But, until now, it could also be assumed that they were Morbius' faces. Either way, it's not the first time that the Doctor's chronology has come into question.
2. If the writer was Russell T Davies, and the Doctor was David Tennant, I'd bet there would not be the same outcry by some fans as there has been now. Given that a lot of NuWho fans see the Davies era as some kind of Holy Grail for the show, I'd bet there wouldn't be nearly as much opposition as there is now with Jodie/Chibnall.
3. The show adapts and evolves with time. It did so in the 60s, it did so in the 80s and it's doing it continually. Also, the show has to adapt to both a change in the world around it, but also how people consume television. The episodic formula that has underpinned Doctor Who since 1963 doesn't work the same today. Nor does it work the same today as it did 5 years ago. You expect Doctor Who to get it right every time?

Frankly, I'm thankful we still HAVE Doctor Who.

For so many years, Doctor Who has been a safe haven for people who feel they don't belong in the real world. It means so much to so many. Which is why, when people attack it like they are, there's mixed feelings by those who frankly don't care.

Of course not everyone is going to like every era of Doctor Who. Not everyone is going to like everything that the show does. But this kind of argument, and this kind of aggression, is where politics is going. This is how political discourse operates these days, not Doctor Who!

And of course the show is going to, as it always has, reflect the time in which it airs. So the prospect of a female Doctor, a potential lesbian relationship and multi-racial representation SHOULD NOT BE A MASSIVE SURPRISE IN 2020. 

Doctor Who is not some weird sleeper agent in the so-called "Culture Wars". It's not some leftist device to overthrow the established order and it's certainly not designed to alienate you into accepting certain things. Doctor Who has always been a show that promotes kindness and acceptance over all else. It's always been the show where the person or being that tries to sow discord or division loses and that love and hope wins. This has stood for 57 years. Why are some fans alienated about this now?

So if you are someone who isn't watching Jodie's era because she's a woman and think that the show has become "woke", stop watching Doctor Who and let those of us who enjoy it just enjoy it. Because you're not going to like it going forward. Jodie doesn't seem to be going anywhere right now and it seems Chibnall's going to stick around. Hell, he might even write the 60th!

Or, who knows, maybe he'll leave fairly soon along with Jodie because he can't cope with the toxicity that's infected the fandom.

So to those people I've described, seriously, fuck off and let us enjoy the show we love. There's plenty of other shows that will cater to your tastes. I'm sure Netflix or Prime will have something you can watch instead. 

As an aside, if you've stopped watching because you're just bored of it, or don't like it but don't feel the need to let every person in the world know, I like you. You're fine. It's just those who have nothing better to do but bring it down for everyone else that's the problem.

Just maybe don't try Star Trek as you may have a heart attack.

How & Why I Came To Accept The Simulation [Opinion Article]

Let's get a couple of things straight before I get into this. As usual in my opinion articles, this is not an essay. This is purely my musings on a subject. In this article in particular, I'm going to delve into my personal beliefs and what I personally believe creation to be. It's one of the more honest and philosophical pieces I've written, so please excuse any ramblings featured in this article.

"I think most likely — this is just about probability — there are many, many simulations...You might as well call them reality, or you could call them multiverse".

Elon Musk said these words in 2018 while explaining the Simulation Theory. [Or, The Bostrom Theory to purists]. And Musk is not alone in believing the simulation theory either in part, or wholly. The late Stephen Hawking proposed the universe was, in fact, a "hologram", and Neil Degrasse Tyson has expressed his openness for the theory too.

So, what is the Simulation Theory?

Put simply: "The simulation hypothesis (or simulation theory) is the proposal that all of reality, including the Earth and the rest of the universe, could in fact be an artificial simulation, such as a computer simulation".

Basically, The Matrix. Except perhaps it's not based in a post-apocalyptic hell-scape that you can wake up from at any time. The simple belief that the universe around us is made up of code, created in a super-computer by a race of beings that have the technological capacity to do so. The inhabitants of which are solely convinced that the universe around them is real.

To be fair, this sounds a little bit terrifying. And something out of Doctor Who or Star Trek. But it isn't. If anything, it explains a lot and And I'd to explain my own personal journey on how I came to accept the simulation.

My Struggle With Religion

Like most other children in the UK, I grew up in Church Of England schools. I was taught Christian values in school assemblies. I was made to sing hymns to a God that I believed in, but didn't really understand. I knew God to be an all-powerful being that loved all his children and sent his son, Jesus, to teach us to be better and to follow his example. And that Jesus died on the cross so that we would be forgiven, cut scene. As children, this is the life we grew up around. And I, for one, fully accepted that there was a big bearded man in the sky who looked down on us and that, one day, I'd die and either go to heaven or hell, depending on how I acted while I was alive.

Then 9/11 happened. Or, more specifically, I saw the effect 9/11 had on the global landscape and I remember watching the news as the Allied Forces bombed Baghdad in the Second Gulf War. As I got older and started to understand the September 11th Attacks a little better, I found myself in a bit of a conundrum. I was taught there was a God who was all powerful, all seeing and all loving, yet he didn't prevent 9/11, or the war that followed. What kind of God allows things like this to happen? 

This started my first crisis of faith. 

By the time I reached secondary school, I'd become somewhat disillusioned by God and the faith I found myself brought up around. So, for the next few years, I tried to find something else that made me comfortable. For a day in Year 8, I decided I was Jewish. Then I did more research and that fizzled out pretty quickly. Then I became Protestant, but then I found myself in the same position as before. Then my woodwork teacher found a religion called Raelienism for me in order to help my distress. Bless you, Mr Harris, it was a good find. And one I understand given you knew about my love of science fiction. But I don't think you read deeply enough to find out about Raelien orgies as a form of worship or the high sexualisation that belief follows. Thank the Lord you didn't suggest Scientology.

Then, for over a decade, I became an Atheist. A staunch one too. Which put me in conflict with one of my best friends, who had blossomed in her spiritual practises. Although I accepted that religion was a valid path to choose for someone else, I hated the idea of religion for myself.

Fast forward to November 2015. The dust is settling from the Paris Attacks and Islamic Extremism is topic number one in the public consciousness. For about a fortnight following the attacks, I spent my time defending people who followed and practiced Islam against other Atheists who argued that it was their religion that was the cause of these attacks. I became an Atheist because, as well as the aforementioned reasons, I didn't like the religious division I witnessed within the sphere I was in. ("Christian" v "Muslim" etc). Religion was still my favourite subject at school, and the only A grade I got in my GCSEs. I even intended to go to uni to study it as an Atheist. But, during that fortnight following Paris, I experienced far more vitriol from Atheists than I ever did as a follower of faith. So, I turned my back on Atheism too. For a group that claim to be above religious arguments, I found they were almost worse.

As the following years went by, I found myself in a quandary. Do I believe, or do I not?

Then, something happened. 

I was alone in my room in one of the darkest periods of my life. Alone, quite far from home, and needing solace. And, for the first time in years, I prayed for help. Then, I felt something wrap themselves around me in a hug. And it was just what I needed. The only problem was, I was home alone. And I could smell Old Spice. I can only assume, at the time, that it was my late grandfather who was giving me the hug I needed. Was it Granddad? Or someone else? It matters not, it took me back to square one.

The Simulation

Then came the Simulation Theory.

Aged 23, I became very interested by a concept known as 'Glitch In The Matrix'. This is a phenomena where people claim to have had paranormal experiences around time, space and people which cannot be explained by scientific or, indeed, supernatural means. I myself have had glitch experiences that I cannot explain. Some people may point to something called The Mandela Effect as evidence of glitches, but there are other stories which also claim to document strange glitches. Some of which include The Man From Taured, The Time Travel Case of Sir Robert Victor Goddard, Roanoke and a whole plethora of others. For what it's worth, Reddit is full of interesting stories. Go through them and make of them what you will.

Now, these could all be passed off as stories designed to creep out, intrigue, or entertain. But my contribution (which is the first story on this video compilation) is real as far as my experience informs me. It creeped me out big time and I cannot explain rationally what happened. It messed with my head for days.

Glitches are important when talking about the Simulation Theory. As, like computers we have here, all technology is not perfect. If you consider for a second that we are in a simulation, the processing power needed to maintain our universe must be, for lack of a better word, astronomical. Even post-human supercomputers (which are the cornerstone of the theory) may have some issues. 

Ever played Sims? Seen how buggy that can get? Yep, that's your reality now.

When I first came across the theory, I thought it was madness. But then I read more into it, where it comes from and what the principle arguments for and against are, and that's when something clicked. Something from my teenage years.

Skepticism

I've always been somewhat skeptical of the things around me. Which is why I love philosophy, because it's bonkers. And who knows, maybe one of the philosophers are right. But there's a school of thought in Philosophy called Skepticism, the definition of which:

"is generally a questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more putative instances of knowledge which are asserted to be mere belief or dogma".

What is Dogma? Apart from being an excellent film from the 90s, it's another word for principles, or doctrine. Religion is a dogma. Science is, in many ways, a dogma. 

As a teenager I believed that science had a lot of the answers, but I also believed that human thinking, and therefore some science, is flawed. I still hold this belief. Considering how much of science has changed and evolved over time, it makes no sense to accept that all science is fact when that fact, sometimes, changes. Now there are certain aspects of science that does not change. An atom is an atom, a molecule is a molecule and we are made up of certain things. 

But when it comes to the universe, there's still a lot we don't know. There's a lot science cannot know yet. Which is why it carries on. 

This self-held skepticism that I'd held for years helped the Simulation Theory to form in my head. 

Here are some questions I really wanted answers to as a teenager.

1. Why are we so lucky not to have experienced an apocalyptic event in modern human history? (e.g, Supervolcano, asteroid, gamma ray burst, etc).

2. Where do the idea of Gods actually come from?

3. Why do different cultures across the world, that diverged and didn't communicate for thousands of years, have such similar ideas to one another?

4. How can things that defy the laws of physics exist when they're not supposed to?

I never got answers. But consider:

1. Given the amount of Earth-bound and Cosmic dangers that could wipe us out without our knowledge, especially before the advent of space technology, how were we so monumentally lucky as not to have experienced something cataclysmic within modern human history? Given how many asteroids pass us for instance, or given that we're LONG overdue for a Super-volcano to blow?

2. Was there something, or someone, that gave people the idea for Gods? (See Ancient Astronaut Theory for a fun read).

3. Most human communities compete with the same fundamental challenges, but why do similar ideas, thousands of miles apart, all get thought of?

4. If science was truly infallible, why do we find things that confound the laws, even when they're not supposed to? Dark matter, anti-matter, entropy, etc.

All these things together helped convince me. Maybe the fact that humans across the world had similar ideas was part of a software patch? Or maybe we're just that good. Maybe there was a guiding hand making sure we weren't totally annihilated? Or maybe we're just that lucky

Why I Accept It

I'm not saying that the Simulation Theory answers these kinds of questions, but the first thing you have to do when talking about this theory is keep an open mind. 

At the end of the day, I'm not trying to convince you that this is right. I'm not trying to convince you that we are indeed inside a simulation right now. Why? Because that's a scary thought. The fact that we're all beings inside a digital simulation created by a futuristic society of humans (or Posthumans) is a scary concept. What if someone trips over the plug and ends the universe? What happens when we've fulfilled our usefulness? What if the future of our race is solely in the hands of EA Games?

Even Dr Nick Bostrom, the guy who first popularized the theory, isn't a staunch believer in this. And, frankly, perhaps it should be taken with a pinch of salt. But here are a few reasons why I accept the Simulation Theory.

1. It carries the idea of a Creator. Maybe not all seeing, all knowing or all-powerful, but they'd be there.

2. It brings a certain logic to how I personally perceive the universe and the world around me. It's a little similar to Descartes 'Brain-In-A-Vat' hypothesis, but it's more comforting than thinking I'm a brain in a vat of...stuff.

3. It allows me to believe that we still hold some importance in the fabric of the universe. It allows for literally anything.

Like I said before, I'm not trying to convince you we're in a simulation. There's no religion to convert to, there's no doctrine to subscribe to. I'm not going to go around preaching something that, frankly, I know isn't going to float with most people. What I can do, though, is impart what I believe. Maybe you'll want to look into it too.

Because, hey, what's the worst that can happen if Bostrom is right?

And if we are in a simulation? And none if this is real? Well, take solace in one simple fact.

It's all real to you, and that's what matters.

'If I Were In Charge' [Long Read - Opinion Article]

If I had “my way”, the country would be governed very differently. As I get older, I start to think that the way in which governance occurs in the UK is no longer fit for purpose. This antiquated system that runs this country refuses to change, refuses to adapt, and is now being played by the morally ambiguous for a fiddle. It has given way to a level of tribalism hitherto unseen in this country and, quite frankly, it’s breaking the country apart. Given how Britain is now out of the EU and wants to start a new path in the world, it seems right to me that the country should, much like the Doctor in Doctor Who, regenerate. It’s time to hit the reset button and try to make a Britain fit for the 21st Century and beyond.

Before I start, this is not an essay. This will not have statistics, it will not have evidence backing it up, this is an opinion piece. This is an article showcasing what I would do if I were in charge, while also recognizing that this particular vision of mine will never occur. Even if like-minded people saw this and decided they wanted to see that change occur, the chances of it actually coming to fruition are minimal. This is for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that I doubt it would get widespread support across the country, another being that any kind of change like this would have to come from some kind of uprising or revolution for it to really kick-start. This particular method of governance does not benefit the people currently in power, so they would have no need to alter the system.

I must also recognise that, despite my best attempts to talk about how my idea would work and what I would personally do to cement it in permanent governance, it is not without flaws. It would not be a perfect system, nothing is. But I will try my best, anyway, to illustrate it as best I can. I’m sure many of you would disagree, but I would implore you to see this more as a thought experiment than anything else. I’m not Marx, I’m not trying to advocate an uprising to get something changed, I’m merely putting forward an alternative if, one day, a revolutionary change occurs in this country. (Which, to be completely honest, I’m close to arguing it’s needed).

THE ROYAL FAMILY

I’m going to write something now that I’ve never admitted to before. The reasons for this include it’s a little bit taboo, people wouldn’t necessarily understand and it could be seen as anti-Democratic. But, for the past few years, I have developed Monarchist tendencies. I’m not a full Monarchist, nor do I believe that the Royal Family would be a suitable replacement for governance in this country on its own. However, I personally believe that the Royal Family still have an active role to play in 21st Century governance. Partly because I think it would be useful for them to further earn their extraordinary annual pay packet, but also because they are still an important part of British culture, especially the perception of British culture abroad.

At the moment, the King/Queen has a limited role in the day-to-day running of state. The Monarch has the power to open and close Parliamentary sessions, as well as give Royal Assent to bills before they become enshrined in law. However, unlike Charles I, the Queen cannot enter the House of Commons and close the Parliament on a whim. The Monarch could, once upon a time, refuse to give Royal Assent which could lead to a Government resigning, especially if the issue was contentious. However, this was somewhat negated with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011. (Which, let’s be honest here, has become a little dead in the water of late). But the Palace’s role in the day-to-day running of Britain is minimal. The Royal Family has been, since the restoration, largely ceremonial in favour of Parliamentary democracy. 

An increased role for the Monarch, in my personal vision, would not necessarily be a bad thing. Especially once I’ve laid out my vision in full. This is all background and context. Of course, one of the major downsides for an increased role for the Monarch, is who that Monarch is. We don’t want a return to the Georgian period where the Monarch, or indeed Prince Regent, was held in disdain due to their somewhat luxurious tendencies. For instance, I don’t believe the Queen would abuse that increased role. Nor do I believe Charles or William would. 

I won’t comment on George right now as he’s young and we don’t know how he’s going to view the world the older he gets. But a few generations down the line, if you have someone who favours dictatorial rule, then that could create problems. That being said, once I’ve laid out my visions in full, there may be a way to negate this behaviour.

Despite this, I believe that the Royals definitely have a role to play. Especially given their public and charity work in recent decades. Especially the younger Royals. And, like I said before, there’s no harm in making them work a little harder for their annual pay check?

PARLIAMENT AND THE ROLE OF POLITICAL TRIBALISM

I’m not against Parliamentary Democracy. I want to make that clear. If a country wants to go down that route they should be allowed to determine that for themselves. I’m merely offering an alternative thought experiment. However, my opinion on Parliament has changed in recent years. Especially since the Brexit Referendum.

It is my opinion that the actions of Parliament, on all sides, in the 2010s has led to a period of tribalism and division that is the worst we’ve seen since the Victorian Period. You can start this process with the 2008 Financial Crash, or you can start it with the election of the Coalition. Either way, we are where we are. And it is my opinion that the Conservative Parliamentary Party, and other supra-Parliamentary actors, have sowed the seeds of division. On balance, I would also argue that many in the Labour grassroots organisations, especially Momentum, have sown this further. But Brexit was the ultimate catalyst for the division we see now. Although Covid-19 dominates the stage here now, Brexit dominated it for the 4 years prior. Families were torn apart, friendships were lost and even lives were lost in the pursuit of a break from the EU. (For those who are confused, I am referring to the murder of Jo Cox).

That’s not to say everyone has been this bitterly divisive. I was largely indifferent to the issue but still voted to Remain. My opinion on that has changed and even reversed a few times in the years that followed. But even once the result came through, I was put in with a group of people who had the opinion of “Not what I would’ve liked, but let’s make it work anyway”. (I would argue a silent group these days). 

Despite this, the Brexit divisions have left no part of the country unscathed, especially in Parliament. Theresa May, for all her faults, tried her hardest to make her mark on Parliament by trying to be the PM that got it done. But she faced criticism on all sides. In another time, she may have been a decent PM by pre-Brexit standards. Alas, it was not to be. And now we have Boris. Who, in my honest opinion, is a class-A racist charlatan. A Etonian classist who has zero integrity and would happily throw anyone under his red bus if it meant he got the ratings and the limelight. I do not like Boris Johnson one iota. I felt sorry for him when he was in intensive care with the virus, but I do not like him at all whatsoever. And it is actually Boris that I would like to use as the example for tribalism.

Whether it’s his rhetoric, his change of mind, or his bus, Boris (and Cummings) has been the centre of a campaign of disinformation and propaganda since the day he came to Downing Street. The job he’d wanted all his life, and he has proved time and time again that he quantifiably unfit for office. Boris will not be remembered as a statesman. Depending on what happens in the future, his complementors will compare him to Churchill, while his critics will compare him to a dumpster fire. 

With that in mind, there is an interesting trend. People still defend him. There is now a whole tribe of people who will readily defend him no matter what he says or what he does. I’ve experienced it for myself. Though it may not seem like it now, I do try to stay in the middle ground of things. I like balance. Giving credit where credit is due and criticism where it is required. But I have been in situations where people have defended Boris, and other Brexiteers, for quite questionable things. 

Now, on balance, this is not unique to Boris. Jeremy Corbyn had the same thing with Momentum. Jeremy Corbyn could call for a total Leninist-style takeover and Momentum would probably beat their drums with the heads of the Bourgeoisie. But there has been a more tangible and noticeable increase in Tribalism through the 2010s. It happens on all sides. And in a lot of Western countries. Some people on the Right would refer to it as the ‘Culture War’. (I have a massive issue with that name anyway but that’s for another time). But with the recent BLM protests in the US and across the West, this division is becoming much clearer to the average person. Trumpers or Antifa, Remain or Leave, there are distinct tribes now. They’ve always been there, but they have become more apparent and much more mainstream in the 2010s. Is this down to the internet? In large part, yes. Probably. But, again, that’s for another time.

Is Tribalism useful in politics? Well, that’s debatable. As this is my opinion article, no. I don’t think it is. Because, in my opinion, it limits societal progress. Because you either have those who want to advance a cause to catch up with modern change or thinking, and those who think or believe it’s an abhorrence, or some kind of ideological takeover that threatens their very existence. It’s pointless. And this tribalism is being exploited by the prominent voices in those camps. For the Right Wing, it would be the likes of Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson or Americans such as Tucker Carlson, Jim Jordan. For the Left, Owen Jones, Ash Sakar, Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders to name a few. (Just to point out my own left-wing bias, I like Owen and Ash, they were just names I’d come across).

But even then, to me, Tribalism accomplishes nothing except stagnate political and societal progression. And, in my experience, this tribalism usually comes down to a name. “Labour”, “Conservative”, “Democrat”, “Republican”. When those names are invoked, suddenly a whole cache of stereotypical characteristics are thrown into the ether as pre-judgement. “Oh, you’re Republican? You’re clearly a racist”. “Oh you’re Labour? You’re a Communist!” “Oh, you’re a Libtard”. Pfft.

Let’s get a few things straight here. Not everyone who supports Labour is a Marxist/Communist. Not everyone who is Liberal is easily “triggered”. Not everyone who is Republican is a Trump-supporter and not everyone who is Tory is a heartless classist. 

The name-calling, the venom, the needless stereotypes are pointless in the grand scheme of things. And, again, this is being exploited by the people in charge. Which, in turn, affects the outcome of Democracy. It’s part of the “Us v Them” mentality. Give someone an enemy or a scapegoat and they become putty in your hands. This is why immigration (and illegal immigration) became one of the main talking points during the Referendum. Because a lot of people, UKIP and right-wing Tories especially, made it that way. It’s not a new talking point, but it certainly poisoned a lot of the reasonable debate around a pretty important topic.

The right to free speech is a key and integral part of any functioning society. It’s a good cause to defend and it’s an important right to uphold in the 21st Century. 

But that doesn’t mean that the current system is still fit for purpose. Of course, with free speech, there needs to be a better understanding of the fact that just because you have an opinion, it doesn’t mean you’re right. And with the onset of a new wave of “Fake News” and disinformation online, the fight for free speech has become more intense than ever. The enemy is not necessarily an opposing ideology that censors free speech, like the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but it’s the enemy within. The enemy in your hand. Technology is a wonderful thing, but democracy is still coming to terms with how social media and technology is advancing. Because, let’s be honest, it’s advancing at break-neck speed. 20 years ago, “Fake News” was a sensationalist headline in a tabloid newspaper. Now it can be literally anything. To the point where there are multiple camps of people (or tribes to recycle a term) who are so consumed in their own echo chambers that truth is diluted now.

If you’re Donald Trump, CNN is the bastion of ‘fake news’. This is largely because they are highly critical of him, and rightly so. But if you’re like me and left-wing, Fox News or Breitbart is the ultimate form of fake news because of how evidently politically slanted it is. But within that, where is the truth? Does CNN tell the truth all the time? Does Fox News lie always? Because the tribes are so consumed in their own worlds, it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to see the truth for what it actually is. 

But then, even ‘truth’ comes under multiple definitions now, depending on who you ask. Again, CNN will claim they’re telling the truth when they say that Hydroxychloroquine is not a cure for Covid-19, while “Dr” Stella Immanuel claims to be telling the truth when she says it is. And different people believe both. I can’t remember the last time the majority of a population actually agreed on a universal truth. There are still people who believe that NASA is lying about the Earth being round, it’s really difficult to discuss the truth these days. You’re either telling the truth or a sheep. You’re either sane or a conspiracy theorist waiting for tin-hat-time. 

And so the fields of division grow further. And leaders these days prey on this. Trump, Duterte, Bolsonaro, Johnson and others, they like this level of tribalism and division. It comes straight out of the populist playbook. But no-one seems to be doing anything vaguely constructive in order to sort it out. Because the more people who are scared, the easier their message spreads. The more people believe someone else is to blame, they can divide the population. The more people they can control, the easier their ride becomes. Especially when the enemies tend to be foreigners or BAME groups, who have a hard enough time as it is in Western nations.

This is why democracy is stagnating. And this is why leaders are playing democracy for a fool. Democracy is brilliant when it works. Right now, in many Western nations, it’s not. And, in my opinion, in the UK, it’s not working correctly right now.

Do I want to end free speech? No. No I don’t. Do I want to end Democracy? Again, no.

So what’s the Alternative?

THE VISION

Here’s the melt-in-the-middle centre I’m getting at. If our Democracy fails, we cannot allow the country to fall into a power vacuum. History shows that when power vacuums occur, that’s when the extremes take over. We don’t want to be under a Soviet-style dictatorship, nor do we want a fascist Britain. (Well, most sane-minded people don’t anyway). So, what can we have instead?

Here’s what I’d do if I was given the political sandbox.

We need a robust style of Government that can overcome the challenges of the 21st Century, can protect free speech and allow free-speech to prosper while also serving the ever changing needs of a modern population and a modern nation-state determined to be world-class in everything it does. Something that works for everyone, and something that can’t easily be played by amoral people who want to use it for their own ends.

First thing’s first.

In this particular vision, we need to abolish both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Palace of Westminster still has a role to play, but it will not house the Commons or the Lords.

The Commons would be replaced. The Lords, however, would not be. In this new system, there would be no place for inherited titles and there will be no place for anyone to put their friends or supporters in to try and gain an advantage. The Lords, in this system, would be permanently abolished. There would not be a need for 2 Houses of Parliament in order to govern.

The Commons would be replaced, however, by a Citizens’ Assembly. Now, the idea of a Citizens’ Assembly has been mooted countless times before. The Green Party are one of the main proponents of this, but this is to work in tandem with the current system. Instead, in this system, the Citizens’ Assembly would be the main body of Governance.

The Citizens’ Assembly would be a smaller body than the House of Commons in the sense that there would not be 650 seats in the House. There would instead be between 100-120. This would account for every county in all 4 nations of the UK, as well as major cities having their own seat. (In my personal vision for this, Yorkshire would actually be divided into 2-4 seats given its size, with 2 going to York and another city). Obviously, this amount only works if Scotland remains in the UK once this was instigated. 

Each representative would be decided by a democratic election. There would be a democratic exercise every 3 years to elect the Assembly members. Although, sitting members will be subject to a 2 term limit. Meaning that, potentially, the Assembly’s makeup would refresh by 50-75% every six years. Allowing for more new ideas to come through and be put forward. 

Each representative, although allowed their own ideology and may be a part of an external political group, would have to stand as Independent come the election. No candidate would be allowed to stand for Assembly on a party affiliation, meaning no party gets a majority in the Assembly. The idea is that a mix of ideologies and a mix of different ideas come together and try to get things done. I understand that this is very much easier said than done, but the capacity is there.

The AMs would also have to abide by a strict code of ethics, which they have to swear during an inauguration ceremony at the start of every new Assembly cycle. These codes would include (but not be limited to):

• Not be “bought” by big companies or accept bribes by individuals, companies or lobbyists.

• Speak only for their constituents, gauge their opinion before any decision is made.

• Adhere to a strict expenses policy, with a cap on how much an AM can claim, as well as strict criteria for what they can claim for.

• Dismiss and retire all political affiliations upon ascending to the Assembly. They would not be allowed to accept any endorsement or funding from said organisation either. They can take them up again once their term expires.

• Agree to one month’s voluntary service in the community so as to gain more perspective of the lives of ordinary people. This could be in any sector and would be part of the annual 2 month Assembly recess.

A breach of many of these codes could end in a dismissal from office if found guilty of said breach. Candidates can stand for Assembly if they have a criminal record, but they must not have had any serious criminal convictions. (Assault, rape, murder, manslaughter, financial crime, etc).

The actual ins and outs of the Assembly would be decided by committee while it was being set up. But the day-to-day running of the Assembly would not be too dissimilar from what MPs do now, only with more of an emphasis on being available for community sessions as well as committee meetings, many of which would be a mixture of online and not. AMs whose seats are within an hour or two of London would be expected to attend in person, while those who have to travel from further away may be allowed to attend virtually.

To which Governmental Department each AM would lead would be decided by the Assembly itself. While the electorate would choose who they want to be First Minister, AMs would put themselves up for selection to the offices and would be elected by their colleagues. This saves voter fatigue. (Given that, in this scenario, the election cycle is every 3 years). 

As for the higher echelons of the Assembly, the head of state, and the head of the Assembly, would be shared between 2 people. The first would be a democratically elected AM to the position of First Minister. The First Minister’s role would be not too dissimilar to that of the Prime Minister now, except for the fact that they would be sharing leadership duties with the sitting Monarch. 

The First Minister would be subject to the same rules and regulations as an ordinary AM, but they would be expected to perform more duties in relation to the office. The First Minister would take more of a role in domestic issues, concentrating on things at home, while the Monarch would be more concerned with the Diplomatic side of British politics. So, for instance, when it comes to international summits, the sitting Monarch would be expected to attend and not the First Minister. (If the Monarch is of an older age and cannot perform those duties, the First Minister would attend such engagements in their place). But the division of Home and Abroad would be reflected in how Governance is practised.

The First Minister, however, could attend international engagements with the Monarch if the Monarch so requested. That being said, the power of the Monarch would not be absolute. The Assembly would be the Second body of Governance that would keep the Monarch in check, or vice versa. 

• THE EXECUTIVE BODY - The Monarch
• THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY - The Assembly
• THE JUDICIAL BODY - The Supreme Court

The role of the First Minister would also be somewhat ambassadorial in nature, being the main figure that would connect the Assembly and the Palace. The Monarch and the First Minister would be expected to work together closely in order to help shape Britain’s path. This would mean splitting the duties that a Prime Minister might perform between the Monarch and the First Minister, though the Monarch would still be the head of state and the internationally recognised leader of the UK. 

The Assembly would be able to pass legislation, but there would have to be a majority for it to pass. The Monarch would not have a vote in the Assembly as they would not be an elected member, but they can introduce legislation. They could also introduce legislation alongside the First Minister jointly if it were appropriate to. 

For checks and balances on power:

• While a First Minister could not bring forward legislation to have a Monarch removed, the Monarch could bring forward a vote of no-confidence in the First Minister, but only if certain criteria were met. The Monarch would not be allowed to remove a sitting First Minister unilaterally.

• The Assembly could reject legislation brought about by the Monarch without legal or constitutional recourse. If a piece of Royal Legislation was rejected by a slim majority, the Monarch may be invited to work with the Assembly to amend the bill in order to help it pass in a future session.

• The Monarch would have to be invited to attend Assembly meetings. They could not arrive unexpectedly or without invitation. Though they would be required to attend Committee hearings.

• The Monarch could not unilaterally dissolve the Assembly. They would need to put forward legislation for that to occur and, if it was a premature dissolution, they would need to be invited to the Assembly to justify why they’re introducing the bill.

For the Monarch’s part, many of the Royals (when they are adults) would be expected to have an active role in governance. In a sense, like a Cabinet, the Monarch could choose certain Royals to be Palace Ambassadors for certain departments. (For example, if Charles were King and this system were in place, he may select Princess Eugenie to be the Palace Ambassador for Culture and Sport, or select Prince William to be the Palace Ambassador for the Foreign Office). The Monarch would have control over who they selected to which post, but would have no say to which AMs would be selected to the office as well. There would also be no number of times that the Monarch could change who represents which department if it doesn’t appear to be working or the Royal selected is not suited to the role.

The idea is that the Monarchy and the Elected Assembly work closely together for the progression and the betterment of the UK. The role of the Royals becomes much more involved than it currently is, while the Democratically elected body becomes a constantly-moving conveyor belt of ideas. 

This is merely a snapshot of my idea. I understand that it all sounds very odd, far-fetched and impossible, but all embryonic ideas do at the start.

The key takeaways from this:

1. The Monarch would not have absolute power, but would have the ceremonial power they still enjoy while having a more active role in governance than they do now. 

2. The British Assembly would solely consist of democratically elected officials and not have two Houses.

3. There would be a First Minister, who would work in tandem with the Monarch to govern Britain.

4. This would be an attempt to modernize governance to reflect modern values and modern practices against a system of governance that is, in my opinion, becoming unfit for purpose. 

I understand that this seems far-fetched and is probably fraught with flaws. But this is merely the first attempt at writing down a system of governance I’ve been trying to concoct for years. It will evolve as time goes on. I will continue to revisit this at various times and add things to it. Iron out kinks and try to work out various flaws that people may raise. So please don’t take it as gospel. It’s a thought experiment. Or at best, something someone can read in the future and think “Hmm, could work…”

Feel free to critique constructively. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this. What would you like to see within this framework? What issues do you think would arise from it? Like I say, it's a thought experiment. So provide yours. At the end of the day, if this were ever to be implemented, (it won't), it would have to be a collective effort.

Or, what would be your preferred method?

Until next time.