Michael Jecks's Blog, page 37

Surveillance

I have recently written a modern thriller which is all about the injustices brought about by the – for want of several better words – people at the head of our government.

Over this weekend (they were clearly hoping it would be dismissed as an April Fool's Day joke) the government has let it slip that there is to be a new law on surveillance.

Now, let's not forget the track record our Revered Leader has on surveillance. He said: "We will scale back Labour's database state and protect the privacy of the public's information…. Labour's approach to our personal privacy is the worst of all words – intrusive, ineffective, and enormously expensive". He was, in short, against increasing surveillance on the British people. He wanted to "Restore the civil liberties that are so precious to British character … regulate CCTV, stop councils from spying on people, scrap intrusive ID cards … end plans to store your email and internet records".

This sounds fine. I am very happy with that. But now, apparently, he and his government wish to end those plans by increasing surveillance into texts, phone calls, web browsing history and email, including also instant messaging, social networking and online gaming (thanks to the Kernel at http://www.kernelmag.com/yiannopoulos/1689/and-you-thought-jacqui-smith-was-bad/ for that list).

There are plenty of misguided individuals who will think that this is OK. The government will, after all, put protections in place so that people's records will be safe. As they were when 132 councils lost private data (over 1,000 times since 2008), or perhaps when the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency lost the data for 3m people. Or maybe they were thinking of how safe the records of children were when two CDs with the personal details of 25m people went walkies in 2007?  If you want to be reassured about the government's careful treatment of private data, you need only look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_government_data_losses.

In short, I do not trust government with my private data. I do not trust them because there is no agency that takes my private data and treats it with respect. There are poorly paid staff, many abroad, who have no interest in the security of people in the UK and who can be easily bribed. Corruption of one or two people in an agency could allow a DVD with the records of millions of private individuals to be sold on.

This is more than a step too far – it's a five year hike too far, and deserves to be rejected out of hand.

For sheer moronic cluelessness, this government takes some beating. I cannot believe that a conservative or Conservative government could have accepted this kind of proposal from its civil servants.

It just proves, sadly, how utterly out of touch these people are with the concept of civil liberties and what it means to be British. To try to bring us to Russia's or China's level of surveillance is shocking.

How could a British Prime Minister, or his advisers, think this was a good idea?

Tagged: government, privacy, security, spying, surveillance

Politics

I have always been a conservative. Yes. Small "c". But I stopped voting for any of the three main parties when they decided to ban pistol shooting.

It was a big issue for me. One illegal shooter went mad with his guns, and as a result all legal pistol shooting was banned forever (yes, Hamilton in Dunblane somehow gained a licence illegally and held onto it even though he was found with illegal weapons in his house, when he threatened people at home and in the street with his firearms, when he was not a member of a relevant gun club to own his weapons – in any other police jurisdiction in the UK, he would have not had his licence granted in the first place, or if he had, it would have been revoked after any one of these infractions. In his area it has to be concluded that certain members of the police were either culpably negligent or were enthusiastically incompetent. Since several investigating officers recommended that his licence should be revoked and had their recommendations squashed by senior officers, I think it's more likely that senior officers were responsible).

I only have a few sports. In my youth I was a keen Karate student. That ended when I accidentally slipped down some stairs and lost the tendons in an ankle. I was still able to ski, though, and I guess skiing is one of my favourite sports – but I haven't been able to afford to ski since the 1980s. It's not a cheap sport in the UK.

No, my favourite sport, always, was pistol shooting.

Still one of my favourites: Colt 1911A1 Series 80. Great to shoot.

Pistol shooting was another English-invented pastime: the modern martial art. Before 1945, it was considered a safe and sensible pastime for any Englishmen and women. And with good reason. Pistol shooters had always been trusted. When I had a licence, I could prove I was safer than other people, because I had been carefully checked by the police. That licence proved I had never been suspected of a crime, never been convicted for drunk driving – nothing. No shooters I knew would risk getting drunk in case their licence was revoked and guns confiscated – alcoholics weren't allowed guns. Pistol shooters were the most law-abiding group in the country, and demonstrably so.

Before gun licencing, when there were robberies, the police would call out in the street for anyone who was carrying a gun, borrow them, and hare off after the criminals. London was a safer place in those days. People would routinely carry pistols in their pockets. They were tools for self-defence. That is, after all, what handguns were invented for: defence.

But now self-defence is not allowed. In theory, all citizens have the right to self-defence, but in practice – no. Pistols are too dangerous – anyone touching a gun could become a crazed murderer – and as for Tasers, mace or pepper sprays, they too are listed as illegal weapons. A little while ago, it was proposed that bullet-proof and stab-proof vests should also be illegal.

The police, of course, are different. They have permission to possess any weapon – while in uniform or on duty. As soon as they clock off, they are not allowed guns. But while working, they're allowed any form of weapon. They lied to government in Wilson's era in order to be able to buy submachineguns – by simple describing their toys as "carbines". And their lies were swallowed then. God only knows what else they've fibbed about.

But all political parties decided to ban pistols. Fine – that meant I swore I wouldn't support any of them.

Ah, my favourite still: the Glock 21 in .45 cal. Lovely, reliable and fun to shoot.

My oath was easy to maintain. I always mistrusted Blair. He struck me as a poseur who would say anything to anyone in order to gain more power. I hadn't realised how greedy he was as well. Mandelson was clearly only ever in it for the money; Brown was a mediocre politician and execrable economist who destroyed the British pensions industry, savaged our gold reserves and then went on to ruin our economy. I hated, and still detest, the Labour party.

I had always voted Conservative, but that ended in 1997. I wouldn't vote for a party who took from me my only affordable pastime. As for the Liberal Democrats – well, I have a brain.

Instead I began to search for newer parties who reflected my views.

They aren't extreme. In fact I think my ideals are pretty much middle of the road.

I want a good safety net for all those who need help when they lose their jobs or their health. Easy as a statement.

I do not want any further integration into an anti-democratic European superstate.

I want the freedom to find my own happiness without any interference from the state.

All of these things used to be the key proposals of the Conservatives.

When I saw Cameron take over the party, it made me happy. I thought that a guy who had enjoyed a privileged life so far would be more reliable and less likely to be corrupted than the greedy crooks who had preceded him. I was fairly convinced that the NHS would be safe in his hands, because he had needed the NHS when his own son was ill, and later when his son died. Someone who has gone through that would surely, I felt, be so grateful that he would protect the service with all his strength.

But the sight of tubby, chortling front benchers jeering and heckling their opponents, all equally chubby and giggly, eating massively subsidised meals, drinking hugely subsidised drinks, and claiming allowances of hundreds of pounds a month for more food, is sickening. One side places VAT on pasties, the other side makes political capital by going to a pasty shop.

It is pathetic.

There used to be a saying "sells like hot cakes". In the 1970s, when we joined the EEC, that saying went out of date. That was when VAT was imposed, and since hot cakes received VAT and cold ones didn't, hot cakes ceased to be sold. But I would like to be able to buy them still.

VAT is now 20%. Anything, pretty much, that you want to buy in the UK is one fifth more expensive than it should be. And that is on top of the other taxes we have to pay – the fuel duty, the rents and rates – everything.

But VAT is needed for the massive sums which Britain pays every year into the European Union. It goes to poorer countries so that they can join. There is a belief in the socialist, undemocratic Union that richer nations must impoverish themselves to help the poorer nations.

I don't agree. I think nations should find their own way to increase their wealth, just as families should, without expecting others to help them. Because at the end of the day, my duty is not to some nebulous concept invented by a politician seeking to gain himself some momentary fame, my duty is to my family first, and my local community second. After that I'll think about duty to the state.

And families survive and support themselves far, far better when their future and their income is controlled by them themselves. Not politicians, not bureaucrats, not civil servants, and certainly not faceless unelected people in Brussels.

The good thing is, all the main political parties have accepted that this is the feeling in the country. Which is why Gordon Brown promised a referendum on membership of the EU. The hugely pro-Europe party, the LibDems, also promised a referendum on Europe, "in or out". Oh, and Cameron's Conservatives promised it too.

And every single party reneged on their promises. They were "political" promises. Clearly not to be taken seriously. They were merely indications of what would be good when the time was right. At some point in the future. Perhaps.

So, my political choice is a lot easier. I still cannot vote for any of these mendacious people.

Nigel Farage, here I come.

Back in the good old days, when pistol shooting was fun.

Tagged: author, Conservative, David Cameron, EEC, Europe, Farage, guns, Labour, Liberal, shooting, UKIP

Booze

Today I am brewing up a good, old-fashioned British ale. It's from a recipe I found many years ago in a book by a mad home-brewer called David Lines, and I've made some whenever I've had the means.

David Lines had a brilliant idea. He went to all the major brewers about fifty years ago, and made them an offer they could easily refuse: 'I'm going to write a book about beer, and I'd like to include the recipe for your beer in my book.'

Brewers, apparently, looked at him askance before offering to point him to the door.

'No, you don't understand,' he continued, and went on to tell them that most home brewers wanted, when they went out, to buy beers like those they had brewed themselves. Brewers would be increasing their market by offering him their recipes.

So they gave him their deepest secrets, and he had a publishing success.

Home brewing was illegal in Britain for many years, just as distilling is now in many countries. It was said that this was for the good of the people: so that people don't get made blind, so that their livers and kidneys survive. It wasn't. It was a means to protect one of the many Inland Revenue income streams. But after the Second World War, people couldn't afford to go to the pubs, so a movement began to brew at home again, as British folks have through the centuries. And soon it was realised that so many were doing so that it was making a nonsense of the law, and it would be impractical, to say the least, to try to punish all the perpetrators. The law banning home brew was quietly repealed.

It did not cause the end of the world.

A pint of the best in Belstone!

However, in recent years there has been a movement to be ever more prohibitive towards drinking. We hear that the government now wants to impose a minimum price per unit of alcohol on all alcohol sales.

This is, we are told, a 'good thing'. Government is alarmed by the scenes of drunkenness on our streets. Rioting last year was surely helped by booze. The police say that many cases of bad behaviour can be attributed to drinking, and doctors, well, doctors know that alcohol damages livers, kidneys, causes multiple fights, and harm from the drunks falling and hurting themselves. Casualty wards are full of those who've drunk too much.

So it's a good thing.

Except I don't like a doctor telling me I have to stop enjoying myself just because he, or she, doesn't like my lifestyle. And yes, it's a lifestyle. Mine happens to be fairly English in nature. I like a few beers of an evening or – better – at lunch on a sunny afternoon. I really, really like a good Old Ale in front of a roaring fire. I love a weak mild on a hot summer's day. And bitter is my tipple of an evening. I may well be shortening my life by a few days – perhaps even years. And know what? That's my personal choice. I will not have it made by some morally-challenged medico who has decided he or she wants to save me.

It is one of my pet hates just now, this idea that doctors are saving lives. They aren't. They are deferring deaths. Still, back to the main point.

The police have no part and no say in this. They are not there to decide on how people should live.

ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, is a dangerous little cartel. If you're senior in the Police, you get to join the club. They hold secret meetings each year, and at one per annum, they invite their 'boss', the Home Secretary, to hear their conclusions. Basically, it's a shopping list of all the laws they'd like to be able to enforce.

Their suggestions range from banning guns, to control orders for disruptive kids, to the right to shoot dangerous dogs – or people – without the risk of prosecution. This year, it's also banning excessive drinking.

There is a cynical, nasty streak in this. The two law-making and enforcing groups most dedicated to banning drinking are police and politicians. The police do not have a good reputation for drinking. You only have to look at recent revelations from the Leveson enquiries to see how senior coppers were routinely bribed with meals and fine wines. When I was younger, the drinking culture of the cops could be seen all over the country in pubs. Politicians have a higher standard of behaviour, of course. We saw that with the arrest of a Scottish Labour MP recently after he head-butted a companion in a Commons bar.

Perhaps now MPs will stop drinking massively subsidised alcohol in their VAT and Revenue-exempt bars in Westminster? Or do the risks of alcoholism and bad behaviour only affect the poor schmucks who elect these thieving wasters?

MPs have already passed some laws affecting booze. Or rather, they haven't. They haven't passed a law to protect pubs or publicans. They have allowed massive pub companies to grow, soaking up spare pubs and forcing the landlords to pay unsustainable rents. It's forcing pubs to close all over the country at an alarming rate – over 30 every week. But that's OK, because MPs gain big sponsorship from those pubcos. I assume so, anyway, because I cannot see any other reason for them to wish to see the pubs get closed.

In my area, when I moved here, there were five pubs. At present one remains. That's four closures in about ten years. It's not because of a lack of fondness for pubs, but because they cannot survive in the economic climate.

Pubs are essential, though. They provide spaces for safe drinking, where a landlord monitors those in his bar and hopefully stops the most drunk from carrying on. In the past, when everyone went to pubs, children learned to drink more safely, watched over by older folk from their communities.

Life has changed, and TV has destroyed many communities – a chat with friends in a pub is clearly not so pleasant as watching 'Britain's Got Talent' (a hilariously ironic title), drinking strong alcopops and 'texting' one's friends during the adverts.

God help us.

I can't afford to visit pubs. The kids have this mistaken belief that they need shoes for school, and I cannot beat it out of them, sadly. So instead I stay at home. I brew my own, and save a fortune.

An excellent Braumeister brew kettle.

But what is really annoying the hell out of me just now is that it's the same as other legislation.

(I'm back to the concept of the minimum fee per unit. Keep up!)

You see, there is no evidence for it. None whatsoever.

From all I have seen, the instances of drunkenness have steadily decreased in recent years, according to reports. The radio reports that significantly fewer deaths are attributed to alcohol, that the quantity drunk by individuals is reducing, that, in short, there is no problem.

But the NHS and police want it more closely restricted. So now do politicians.

Why?

Simple. MPs had a bad week last week. They needed a change of news, directing it away from the Granny Tax. So they came up with this ingenious little scam. Hit alcoholics. No one will mind that.

Of course, they do have a problem. The minimum charge per unit means billions of pounds shoved into the trousers of the big supermarkets. No one wants that. So presumably we'll soon hear of a new tax on alcohol. One that redirects more money towards the government.

Which is good. It'll help pay for more doctors to tell us how we should not be enjoying life any more.

Long live tax free home brew.

Tagged: booze, CAMRA, drink, drunk, pubs, tax

Why We Need Real Freedom of Information

Today we hear that the government has come up with a brilliant new scheme: charge drivers for driving on the roads.

Not clearly, the same as charging people to own a car, and thereby defraying the cost of maintaining the British road network. No, this way actual usage of the roads would be chargeable, which must be a good, climate-aware concept.

Many years ago my brother took a job in the US. He must have had a terrible time: enjoying hotter summers, colder winters, making good money, living in a house that was, apparently, lovely (I couldn't afford to visit him) and generally making the best of a different culture and way of life.

That's him, there. Behind the map.

One thing in particular delighted him, though: the whole concept of freedom of information.

Over in the UK, we have a Freedom of Information bill, and it works really well – in some cases. Provided the government hasn't declared the matter to be a matter of national security, or something that is commercially confidential, many things can be learned.

Ah, but that's not how it is in the US.

While my brother was wandering the streets looking for clients for his services managing pension funds, he learned of some US government pensions he should learn about. So he called and enquired about them: how much they cost, who managed them, anything he could in order to get a handle on the accounts and see whether he could win them for his own business.

The clerk on the other end of the line agreed to his requests, and then asked if he wanted to see past tender documents, too.

He said, yes, that would be helpful and sat back to wait for the documents to arrive. And when they did, he felt his heart sing. Because all the tender responses were in there, as promised.

But not old ones, from years ago, these were the up-to-date responses from the most recent process, including the most recent winner.

Why shouldn't we know how much it costs to maintain this road?

In America, if you want to submit a tender to the government, Federal or State, you are accepting that the people who are buying your services have a right to see how much you're charging. There is no "commercial in confidence" clause. The whole lot is out there.

Naturally, most firms won't deal with the government.

No, actually they're all happy to. Because the government in the US spends a lot of money. As does the British government.

But in Britain, we have to keep officially secret all those tenders which are in place. We don't know how much road builders charge for each mile of motorway, how much firms demand to run a school, nor how much different companies look to make in profit from taking on NHS services.

In America all these are transparent. And you know what? In an open market, when firms have to admit what they're charging, their competitors will often drive their prices down by competing on a level playing field.

It is time that the UK learned from America. We need to stop this daft concept of protecting individual companies from disclosing how much they are charging us all for services we need. What can they have to hide?

Any organisation seeking to make profits from UK government should be forced to accept that every aspect of the deal can and will be disclosed to any interested parties.

Oh, and the idea of toll-fees?

Why not come clean, and admit that all these new taxes, especially those to do with climate change, are actually designed to be money-earners for central government? Fewer people can afford to own a car, so they drive less. So you have to increase the cost of driving to bring in more cash.

Displacement Activities

I've been trying to type the first paragraph of the next book. For quite some time. It's there, in my head, but my head is an irrational location in which to story it with any hope of getting it out and down on paper.

Dr Wang, who created Wang Laboratories in the 1950s, was an electronics genius. He made his money not from Wang, even though the firm employed 35,000 staff worldwide, but from IBM.

This is what I should be doing. Typing and checking.

Back in the 50s, many people had the idea of using computers. But while it was possible to perform calculations, and then output the figures -  no one knew how to output while leaving a copy in the computer's memory. So you had to start again from scratch when you wanted to continue from that point. It was Dr Wang who invented a simple way to make a copy internally, while also printing out results. And as a result of his patent, he was paid a dollar for every computer IBM made from then on. And he invested much of his money in a safe-haven – IBM.

Well, my head's like computers before his time. I've got the information in my skull, but …

There are so many ways for an author to delay writing. Just now, as an example, I feel a little peckish. And a coffee would be good. My hearing aid just bleeped. That's good – the battery lasted two weeks, which is really impressive. The last machine used to last one week only. My phone is flashing at me – wonder why? – and I have several calls I really need to make, but …

You see? I just managed to digress neatly for quite a while without any effort whatsoever. Because it's easy. When I'm on form, and working at my own ramming speed, I type at 1,000 words an hour. I type them, which is basically one scene, take 15 minutes for coffee, disposing of the last coffee etc, and that's an hour gone. And while making coffee, I can concentrate on the next scene I'll type. It's quick and efficient.

But not yet. I'm still cogitating.

Let me say, however, that this is not, repeat, NOT, writer's block. No one I know who is a crime or historical writer has ever enjoyed the luxury of a block. Why? Because we don't come from wealthy backgrounds. Only those who have no concern about what is in the bank can afford a block.

No, this is the opposite, if anything. There is so much going on in my noodle that needs to be thought through, that even planning is itself a displacement activity.

I really should tidy the office. But I could just read another book ...

Yesterday, for example, I bought a book. Not shocking news for a writer, I know: but this book was the excellent David Hewson's book on how to use Scrivener, the author's project planning and typing software from Keith Blount. It's superb software, and I have written the last six books on it.

However, there is always more to learn, isn't there? You can spend your life learning more. Luckily for me, I have already spotted five different aspects of Scrivener which will make my life much, much easier. And usable.

But it is displacement. Just as is, now, reading more about my period. Because I know enough to start the book now. I know, I know perfectly well, that when I do start typing, I'm going to be flying already. I don't need more research.

Which is why I'm typing now. Writing a ruddy blog post.

See? Everything is displacement!

Tagged: authors, blogs, novelist, Wang, writer, writing

Warfare through the ages

I am in the middle of writing a new book that will be based much more on war and how medieval fighters lived, fought and died.

Obviously the start point has to be the history. I've been soaking up books on the period for the last few weeks, trying to get a good basic understanding about the period – but that is only a general, rough concept. Much, much more relevant are the books of modern warfare. Or more modern, I should say, because most books since Vietnam (perhaps Korea) have portrayed people differently.

It's natural.

In the second half of the twentieth century, attitudes to war and military life changed, probably forever, especially in the UK. There were too many conspiracy theories (I've had a few myself), and far, far too much rationalizing. Academics saw the brutality of wars in Indochina and Arabia and decided that they were unjust. Wars to prevent Soviet world dominance were irrational, because they couldn't achieve it anyway, and in any case, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was felt simply wrong to glorify war.

Here in Britain there was a sense of extreme revulsion at the idea of bombing with nukes. Even lesser weapons were judged unpleasant, so "Bomber" Harris, the leader of our aerial bombardment offensives in the Second World War went without recognition after the war. His men did not have a specific campaign medal like those in other arms of the services. It's only now that a statue to him, remembering the hugely brave aircrews who died in their tens of thousands, experiencing perhaps some of the most terrifying battles, time after time, is to be erected.

In Britain, even guns themselves are now demonized. A ludicrous concept has emerged (deliberately sponsored by senior police) that assumes that all guns are dangerous, as though they are infected with the spirit of a Viking sword, such that all who touch them must go and kill someone. Even to touch a handgun in the UK carries an automatic five year sentence. Not firing, merely to hold one. Yet since our draconian gun laws were enhanced by Tony Blair in a stunt to win an election, the pistol offences have continued to increase.

It wasn't always so. Kitchener's army was full of brave young men who had gone to school and there learned how to shoot accurately. They went on to little rifle clubs up and down the country, and when the call came, those little clubs were almost wiped out in the first days of the Somme.

In the Second World War, people didn't join up because they were morons persuaded by propaganda. They knew that the war was going to be unpleasant. The young men going to fight in Africa, Burma, Italy and France didn't go off thinking they'd be home by Christmas. But they knew that there was a good reason to fight to protect their homes, their livings and their families.

And that is how English and British men have gone to war over the centuries. In Burma (read George MacDonald Fraser's superb memoir of his war in "Quartered Safe Out Here") the soldiers complained, rebelled against poor food, lousy conditions, grumbled about tent canvass that rotted in the humid jungles, and fought with courage alongside Baluchi tribesmen, Gurkhas, and East Africans.

They didn't fight because they had an understanding of an overall plan. They fought because they were called to a specific place, and lined up. They fought as their fathers and grandfathers had, all the way through history to the dim and distant Saxon days, next to their friends, next to their mates, looking after each other.

So when I go to think about how the guys fought in the 1300s, I don't read modern academic books written by researchers who have studied the dates and the locations so much as the books by historians around the 1940s. Because they had lived through similar wars, and like our ancestors, often didn't know where they were, nor why.

Our modern soldiers are no less brave. In fact, with all the education about war and fighting, I think that they must have to be braver than those who went before. They can read or view on television so much about what it is like to be in battle, that to be mentally prepared must involve great courage.

So today I am thinking of the six young men who died yesterday in Afghanistan in another IED blast. RIP.

Here's hoping they all return safe to quarters tonight.

Tagged: books, fighting, soldiers, war, writing

A New Project for Me!

It was a few years ago that I first talked to the Royal Literary Fund about their Fellowship scheme.

As a concept, it takes some beating, I think. Going to university is a difficult time for many students: they have a whole new lifestyle to get used to, without parents and friends. A whole new world of responsibility, study and hard work (in most cases!), and one aspect is the writing of grown-up essays.

Most universities do all they can to make the experience as non-threatening as possible, but it still creates a lot of tension and alarm.

Students arrive and are given a reading list. The first thing many of them will do is, buy all the books and try to read them all. Then, they learn the hideous truth, that academic books are all but unreadable. And they believe that this is a writing style which they must emulate.

It's enough to make any sane person want to throw their books in the nearest river and leave to become a full-time road-sweeper.

And it was for this that the Fellowship was started some years ago.

RLF Fellows go and work for a couple of days a week in various universities up and down the country. They offer themselves to the students just to help them with their writing. Not the content, incidentally, but just the writing itself.

Students who are petrified with terror at the thought of writing a piece on a given subject, need all the help they can get. And sometimes a tutor or lecturer is not the person in whom they feel comfortable in confiding. That is why the RLF Fellows are instructed to maintain absolute confidentiality in all their discussions and work with students.

Well, I am delighted to have heard that the RLF and Exeter University have accepted my application to work with them later this year.

No, it doesn't mean I won't be writing. I still have my contracts to work to, and I will be fulfilling them. But for me to be able to get out of the house a couple of times a week, to meet with new people, and to have a chance of learning a little more about how young people speak and think.

For more information on the Royal Literary Fund and the Fellowship scheme, please go to http://www.rlf.org.uk/index.cfm and use the tabs at the top of the page.

Tagged: books, crime writing, Exeter University, Fellowship Scheme, publishing, Royal Literary Fund, writing

Slaves in Workfare

 

There is a lot in the press this week about workfare and the idea of poor jobless fellows becoming mindless drones, slaving away at a supermarket's shelves without decent compensation.

Up goes the shout: Slavery!

When I was out of work (thirteen times in thirteen years before I employed myself), one of the worst aspects of unemployment was the total lack of communication with other people. Old colleagues were themselves looking for work, others proved that they didn't value my friendship as much as I had hoped and didn't help me search for work, and what with that and the inability to go to a pub to socialize because of the cost, I was left alone and miserable.

I did go once, and a guy I'd considered a friend offered to help me by buying my Morgan. I had nothing else left of value, all my savings from my twenties were gone, but I still had my Plus 8. That car was my pride and joy – but I had nothing else. It represented something of value.

Well, my drinking companion offered me less than half its value. When I pointed out it was worth rather more, he told me yes, but I needed the money urgently.

I still miss this car. Waited ten years for it to be built, and lost her in less than half that time!

Oddly enough I never drank with him again. I don't like people who try to take advantage.

Still, missing company is one of the worst aspects of unemployment. It is the first issue that people contend with. The sudden loss of work means an equivalent loss of confidence and sense of shame, as if it's the worker's fault that it all went wrong.

For them it is hard, but for those who have never had a job, it's probably still harder to motivate themselves. It's not easy. Much easier to stay at home and hope it'll go away. Smoke a cigarette, drink another beer, watch mind-numbingly poor television, and wait for someone to call.

The real world isn't like that.

Some weeks ago, I was looking at a BBC page here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185 – if you look down, you see lots of interesting detail about a family on benefits. For one, their weekly shopping includes 24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco. I had to give up all smoking when I lost a job, and haven't started again. I had to stop drinking too. Now, apparently, I'm paying for someone else to enjoy the pursuits I had to stop all those years ago!

There's more. They have a budget for "entertainment". Not sure what that is. Ah, but there's "Sky TV" in there. That's nice. I still can't afford that now. But at least my taxes go towards someone else's enjoyment of it.

Now, I'm not sure that too many people who are working shifts to fill the supermarket shelves can necessarily afford Sky either.

In the real world, people get up and go to work. They find jobs – any jobs – that pay minimal amounts, so that they can go out at the end of the week and have a couple of drinks with friends. They don't enjoy it much, who does, really? But they know that nothing in life is free. If they want beer, they have to earn to buy it. If they want a television, they need to save to get the money together.

And the people who stack the shelves at the supermarkets up and down the country work not because they want to, necessarily. It is menial work: drudgery. But their taxes go to pay the living standards of those who remain on benefits.

Often those in supermarkets are only there a short time. They move up into other jobs, in retail or some other line, and finally discover a career that they do enjoy. But that is the point. People need to try out different jobs before learning what it is that they will want to do for life.

There are many who deserve benefits. The disabled, the ill, the old. But of those who can, they should work. No one should expect a free ride.

It seems absolutely crazy that people who are unemployed – and I don't mean the disabled or elderly, I mean those capable and strong enough to earn their own living – are paid the equivalent of £35,000 to be unemployed. It is far more than the guys filling the shelves who are employed by the supermarkets – the ones who pay taxes so that the unemployed can have their incomes covered.

In the same way, I do not understand why people should be allowed to stay in council housing when they get back into work.

Council housing was always intended as a stop-gap to help those in most need while they needed it. It was not intended as a gift. Yet now if a family goes out of work, they can be rehoused and will remain there, paying lower rents, in a larger house than they could afford if they were working, and then, in a supreme ironic gesture, I am sure, then they can expect to be offered the house at a massive discount after some years.

Why?

Is there any other benefit that offers gifts once the period of difficulty is passed? It is absolute madness to throw away our Council housing stock in this way. Houses should be provided to those who have a passing need for a house, but it should be assumed that if they become fit and well, they should go and find work, and find their own property. The house should then go to the next deserving family in need, just as used to happen in the past.

Harsh? No. I never had my mortgage interest paid when I was out of work. I didn't expect it. And recently there have appeared too many examples of senior politicians and trades union leaders who not only enjoy great incomes, but who also have council flats or houses. It is ridiculous that men and women with good incomes should be permitted to take houses and keep them at low rents, blocking those properties from much more needy and deserving people (Bob Crow, head of RMT union, earning £145,000 a year but using a subsidised council house; Frank Dobson, MP's salary of over £80,000 a year plus allowances and subsidised food, drink and living costs, but has a council house as well as his other properties).

But a first pass at helping the unemployed would certainly include helping them to get out of their houses, and into working environments, where they can make friends with new people, get themselves motivated, perhaps even expose themselves to the risk of getting a job.

 

Tagged: benefits, council houses, slaves, workfare

Blasted BBC Again!

Blasted BBC stupidity once more!

There are few things that can reduce me in moments to sheer, gibbering rage, but this one's got me. Worked in a nanosecond.

No, not one of the usual ones. Not politicians claiming their food allowances, not even politicians lying through their teeth. No, this was much, much worse.

It's the BBC.

All right, yes, I know the Beeb has its detractors. And yes, I am one of them, actually. There are some glorious heroes and heroines in the BBC, such as Jeremy Paxman (and Clarkson), but apart from them it seems to be full of very biased reporters and presenters. Much though I adore some BBC efforts, their reporting is too often sloppy and very distorted.

And they are enthusiasts for the nanny state.

I was watching a glorious programme last week. It must have been glorious because it had Hugh Dennis in it, and it was about Devon and Cornwall (with a chunk on Dartmoor). Superb.

Early in the programme, I sat up with excitement . . . well, not really, but you know what I mean. The delicious Julia Bradbury was on the programme, talking to a man I know well. Professor Nick Groom. They were discussing some old Dartmoor legends.

I know Nick. He's a stalwart of our Morris side.

 

Nick Groom. Not his usual work clothes!

This is him. Sadly he wishes he was King Richard the Lionheart.

Anyway, Nick has long been interested in the Dartmoor legends. And there are many of them: I've made use of a few myself.

There is the tale of the "Hairy Hands" which grab the hands of the driver of cars down past Postbridge and invariably make cars crash. Yes, really. And there are headless horsemen, ghost carriages, tales of the Devil and his Wish Hounds searching out souls (which is probably where the House of the Baskervilles came from), amongst many others.

So did the BBC use these?

No. Having asked for scary stories about the moors, the producer (who is clearly only just out of kindergarten) refused to use them. He thought they would be too alarming for a BBC audience. So Nick was only allowed to use a little non-terrifying story.

I told my son (7 years). He agreed with me. After all, none of the stories are as scary as him.

Tagged: author, books, Dartmoor, Devon, medieval, Michael Jecks, writing

Pirates and SOPA

 

I don't think SOPA was well written legislation. In fact I can easily understand why it would have been so unpopular, because it did seem to be a catch-all for any misbehaviour.

The UK and USA already have extradition laws in place. There is a fellow, Richard O'Dwyer who is currently fighting his extradition to America to stand trial. His crime? Providing links from his website to people who could provide downloads, for free, of books, TV shows and films.

I have no doubts that the UK/USA extradition laws are a farce. If a US court wants to extradite a UK citizen, they need to ask and show that there is a reasonable suspicion of that person's involvement in a US crime. There is no need to provide evidence to have the fellow arrested, held, and eventually shoved on a place. If a US subject is suspected and the UK asks for him or her to be extradited, there is a need to show that there is a case to answer. Evidence of the crime must be shown. It is very one-sided.

The laws used to extradite many people were not designed to prevent copyright infringements. O'Dwyer is being held and is to be extradited under laws designed to prevent terrorism.

This is daft. It is an extreme case, but it's yet another example of British law being forced to bow to American law. In the past, Britain was accused of legal imperialism, forcing other, weaker nations, to submit to her demands. It now seems as though American ambitions are no less world-encompassing when it comes to the US's most reliable ally.

First there were the National Westminster businessmen who were extradited for offences that were not committed in America but London, and whose offences did not directly affect America, but possibly their employer – a London bank based in London.

Then there was the Gary McKinnon case of a man who suffers from Aspergers, who hacked into a large number of computer systems in America. Not because of terrorism, but because he was convinced that the US military were hiding details of alien contacts. Yes, he was a believer in little green men and flying saucers. If he does get extradited, he will be a definite suicide risk, but he is being pursued.

And that's natural, isn't it? Someone who broke into computers in the military in a clandestine manner would deserve to be arrested.

Trouble is, he wasn't operating in a clandestine manner. He was taking advantage of crassly incompetent security, and when he found poor security, he flagged it up to the US agencies concerned. His ten year battle against extradition will hopefully end in the summer.

And now we have young Mr O'Dwyer.

He will be fighting extradition, no doubt. It will cost a lot of money to fight his case, but he's only twenty-three years old. Going to the US and facing five years in gaol will not help anyone. And he certainly isn't a terrorist threat.

At the same time the owners of Megaupload are being held in New Zealand while extradition proceedings proceed.

Megaupload. And TVShack. Two companies that have nothing to do with terrorism, and all those involved are being extradited under terrorism laws.

It's shameful, and I have really no sympathy whatsoever.

There is a new culture growing that seems to expect anything on the internet for free. If you want to watch a movie, go to the web. It's free. A new game for your Nintendo? It's going to cost you nothing. You want music? There are plenty of sites there which will let you take it without charge. And books. There are hundreds of thousands for precisely nothing.

Oh, you want a new one? One that is still in copyright? Well, if you go to TVShack or Megaupload.com, and you can get the new books too.

Why should you pay? The fact is that books cost nothing to produce. If you pay four, five, maybe seven dollars for a book, that means you're filling publishing houses' pockets. It's a risk-free and conscience-free crime. You need feel no guilt. Why should you? A massive corporation like Mr Murdoch's, or like Hachette, or Simon & Schuster are full of rich guys who don't need the extra bucks you'd be passing them. Why should they get anything for the books they're promoting? It's like paying a banker for his job.

Except these sites don't affect the super-rich in publishing. The additional downloads probably don't cause Ian Rankin a headache. JK Rowling has already made plenty of money from Harry Potter and won't pull her hair out at losing a few sales. Nor will John Grisham, I suppose, or Harlan Coben. They aren't going to be hurt.

But the ones who will, the ones who are affected every day, are the struggling, lower-level authors. The ones who've written a book and seen it do not very well. The publishers are tough negotiators, and many of these poor devils have to earn advances back across an entire contract. That means, if you are paid a total of ten thousand pounds for three books, you have to earn enough to pay back the whole ten thousand before you earn a single penny.

Tools of the trade. Books and computers - and all cost money!

Put it into context: you write a book that takes a year to write and then you got a contract. For signing the contract you will earn some money. Usually you will earn a share for signing, then a second share for submitting the contract, and two more on publication of a hardback and the paperback.

So, you were writing for a year to get paid £3,333. About another year goes by before the first book is published. Another £833. Another year and another £833. If you are lucky, when the paperback of the first book comes out, it may do really well. You might get paid some 30 pence per book sold – and you may sell, if you're really lucky, 20,000 copies. That will earn you £6,000. And at the end of the next royalty calculation, that will be added up and set against your debt of £10,000 to the publisher. But when the next book comes out into paperback, a year later, you may earn the same. And now you are £2,000 in credit. And a half-year later, because that is how publishing pays, that money will at last find its way into your bank.

Of course, by then you will probably have lost your house. It's taken, what, four years to get this far?

In THE BOOKSELLER magazine last week there was a quote from Mark Billingham: 'I hope I don't get any more emails from readers furious at having to pay more than 49p for an e-book. Saying things like: "Why should I pay that much for something as ephemeral as the words?"'

Something has to be paid to the man or women who is stringing those words into long sequences, which hopefully make sense, and which all add up to a book.

If you go out for a meal, you will pay a few pounds for a quick burger, or considerably more for a good sit-down in a restaurant. If you go to the cinema, you will pay pounds for a couple of hours' entertainment. If you buy a video, you get the same result. A concert will last two to three hours.

But a book of 120,000 words will last you days. And for all that entertainment, for getting into the lives of people you could never hope to meet, for being involved in the trials and successes of their lives, for experiencing their doubts, joys, terrors and horrors, for travelling to parts of the world you would never see, you should pay a few pounds. Because it's worth it.

And authors are worth their small income.

Those who provide free downloads are actively destroying the livelihoods of authors. Authors can live only because of the small amount they get paid for each book sold, either a real chunk of dead tree or a download. If others are designing websites where they get paid some £70,000 a year in advertising, like Mr O'Dwyer, in exchange for destroying my income and the money that other writers like me depend upon, he will not win my sympathy.

SOPA was bad law, I think. The Extradition treaty between the UK and USA is too one-sided and must be renegotiated on the basis of parity.

But if either of them stop the theft of my work and that of other people, I will be pleased to support them.

 

Tagged: authors, books, crime, downloads, ebooks, megauploads, novelist, piracy, publishing, theft, TVShack