The Undeserving Poor?

My post on the Reverse Robin Hood started a lengthy and interesting discussion – thanks to Andrew Oakley and Tom Ruffles for their comments. Part of the discussion came to revolve around the role of risk and unpredictable elements in people’s personal financial situations – and I must admit that I am woefully unqualified to comment upon this. Down in the City of London there are extremely highly paid analysts who sit all day fiddling with formulae to try and predict market fluctuations, and this country must have tens of thousands (at least) of highly trained and highly paid experts in exactly this area – underwriters. I have no idea how successful these methods are, but I’m assuming they must have some value. After all, if you know the outcomes of ten thousand decisions made previously, then maybe another 40 year male with a fairly academic past and many years freelancing and living without visible source of income becomes predictable. Sure, you might make errors in regard to individual outcomes, because you can never have all the data -and the same applies to market analysts – but you might hope that on average you would do well (– though as we shall shortly see, I am not actually convinced this is true!)

I think at the heart of the discussions of the last piece was the question of individual responsibility for financial outcomes. The poor may always be with us – unless we manage an imaginary “true communist” equality of money, which would end the moment someone bought  something, by definition someone is always poorest. It is certainly true that we don’t seem fond of absolute measures of poverty, and this can lead to problems in our understanding and policy decisions – poor children in the UK today are probably a lot better off that say poor children in the UK in 1950 -most have shoes and a meal a day at least?

I think, and I may be wrong, that Andrew thinks most financial outcomes are predictable, given good planning and money management. Tom and I (and again this is my impression, speak up if i am misrepresenting you) are more inclined to believe that random factors may play a large role in how ones personal finances pan out. I don’t think any of us think its all one or the other: Andrew clearly accepts that random factors can cause problems, but simply believes they can often be mitigated by shrewd money management. Tom and I suspect that some situations may place one in a position where no matter how careful one is, you may end up in real trouble. Yet clearly many people who end in financial trouble have been extremely reckless, and at least partly instigators of their own downfall. (And I would go as far as to say that the State does much to cushion the blow these days compared with in the past, and that equally our culture is geared to actually promote fiscal risk taking, indebtedness and bad financial management by individuals. But I would say that, I don’t have any credit card etc, wouldn’t I?)

The Deserving (and Undeserving) Poor

In fact it seems to me we are rehashing one of the great debates of the last few centuries. It certainly filled the 18th century mind – and it was a major theme of 19th century thought. We are back on the question of the deserving versus undeserving poor.

In my last piece I commented on how I missed the security of the bi-weekly giro, and having my dole money guaranteed. I sympathised with those who work, and are on bitterly low incomes. I may have here been apparently aiming at a deserving/undeserving poor distinction, but that was not my intention – I was actually trying to point out that for many self employed, freelance and entrepreneurial types there lives are marked by a greater degree of uncertainty in financial matters than for those who receive state benefits. If you look at what the average UK soldier serving abroad is paid, or many low grade civil servants, you will notice they face the same problem. Those in manufacturing also have the problem – the uncertainty of th future of their jobs. So at least on the dole you can plan, to some extent, and know it will never be more than 13 days till your next payment — assuming they are still bi-weekly – the days when I used to sing a little song to thank God (and the British taxpayer) for my giro  have long since passed…

Now once we get  in to the deserving/undeserving poor debate we instantly hit problems, and are conditioned by our Right Wing or Left Wing political roots. After all, the modern Conservative and Labour parties were shaped by these questions, and the response, be it Socialism or Social Darwinism or whatever is deeply ingrained in how we see the world. People always say to me “I’m not interested in/don’t understand politics” Actually they are an ddo – they just don’t feel any interest in what happens in Westminster, and don’t understand the minutiae of the British system or what the parties stand for – but they generally can grasp the actual politics, because it comes down to Big Questions which are easily graspable, if impossible to easily answer.

I’m not going to rehash all the thought of two centuries and political responses here on the so called deserving and underserving poor. I will note it is my gut feeling that no one hates the undeserving poor more than the deserving poor do – the British Working Class appears to me to have a real horror of “benefit scroungers”, “junkies”, “drunks” and “gamblers” and others they categorise as the undeserving poor.   I’m not actually convinced the categories are all that important – if you place genuinely stupid people (and half of British citizens are below average IQ for a British citizen after all!) in a situation where they are offered easy interest free credit, mortgages for huge amounts based on nothing more than what you can lie to claim you earn, and then bombard them with shows about exotic foreign holidays and advertisements implying their lives are not worth living without the Gizmogadet 2000 what do you honestly expect to happen?

Politicians Are Predictable

Before I start the heart of my argument though, I guess we should consider wht this deserving/undeserving dichotomy may not be useful. To Labour, well it’s obviously nonsense: they see people’s financial situation as situated in a wider social context, so that market forces and teh economy are responsible for poor people, not the fact these people are reckless or lazy. To the Conservatives – well Cameron has told the fat and the poor it’s their own fault.  That’s me told twice then!  In fact he is keen to qualify this  –

“Of course, circumstances — where you are born, your neighbourhood, your school and the choices your parents make — have a huge impact. But social problems are often the consequence of the choices people make.”

So both political parties manage to continue the debate by stating the bleedin’ obvious, in line with their Left and Right wing prejudices. Of course if you are laid off because your factory closed because US mortgage brokers gave money to people who never could or would repay it, it is not your fault if you suffer financial catastrophe.  And of course if I go out and spend all my weekly disposable income  on, I dunno,  Dominos Pizza (thats easy – one medium 11″ pizza, one chicken wings starter for dinner tonight — and I have absolutely nothing left after that for the rest of the week for food, electric, water or gas bills — job done!) then it’s my own stupid fault. I could have bought  pasta, cous cous, jacket potatoes, some cheese, butter and a loaf of bread, and still had a fiver for the bills.Trust me, I bloody know!

So Labour blame the economy & society, the Conservatives the individual. Or rather that is there emphasis – both clearly realise that both are true. The Victorians tried a slightly more novel approach – the Poor House, where you were locked up, separated from husband or wife (to stop you breeding more poor kids) and set to work, while being lectured on the folly of your choices. I dunno if it worked, because it was not really for the benefits of the inmates, but rather designed to inspire horror and a real terror of ending up in there. Many of these buildings still stand, bleak reminders of the social trends which culminated in the inscription over the gate at the concentration camp at Auchwitz – “work makes you free”. Yeah right…

The gate at Auchwitz - "works makes you free", a great lie that long predated the Nazi's

We have heard a lot in recent weeks about Labour’s pledge in the Queen’s Speech to abolish child poverty. I’m genuinely baffled by this one – the major cause of child poverty might just be poor parents who don’t look after them properly or can’t, because they have no money? No if those parents are poor because of the credit crunch and losing their jobs, or are poor because their parents spend all their money on SKY TV and drinking down the boozer, whether Labour or Conservatives are right, what difference does it actually make to the poor kids? Might I hazard a guess that poor kids of the undeserving poor are just as miserable as poor kids of the deserving poor? Neither chose which family to be born in to after all?

Let’s go budget!

Still, at last I will address my main point – how predictable is financial disaster? Using this handy budget calculator and basing my figures on an 18K salary, with no kids, renting in a cheap area (in this case Derby) I can assure you that a couple will struggle to survive, let alone save.  In fact I worked out after the cost of getting to work, bills, council tax, rent, and a £50 weekly food shop their disposable income is less than a hundred pounds a month. Unless one partner is earning maybe 21k + a year, you can’t afford to actually have a homemaker or stay at home partner anymore, because our economy is predicated on dual income households now. In my figures I was scrupulous to keep costs to an absolute minimum – these puritans do not drink, smoke, go on holiday or eat out. (They do have internet and phone though!) Yet they can not possibly hope to weather any unexpected financial set back, and are budgeting only £10 a month for clothing. They might be able to put maybe £10 a month in a savings account – but to get interest much above the rate of inflation they need to tie their money down for a long period – which is exactly what you don’t want to do if you are trying to save against sudden unexpected costs. And let us remember that HSBC have declared that current account customers don’t want interest on their money, as they would prefer it went on higher rates on other accounts! I don’t recall them asking me, I must have been out that day.

Now a lot of this comes down to energy costs – maybe they will fall. Here Labour’s analysis scores points, because gas, electric and petrol prices have a major effect on most households finances, but are not controllable by the individuals. Rents have remained pretty much static, while of course mortgage costs have generally plummeted again with the drop in interest rates. Unless you are Governor of the Bank of England this is again outside your control — I have no choice but to pay the rent, my main priority, and I always do. These factors do seem n the buget I looked at to make a huge difference.

So financial responsibility, what you spend your money on – sure it is important. But it only cuts in when you cease to be poor. In my situation it does not seem to make a lot of difference – when your disposable income is under £80 a month, you ain’t gonna have many choices to make.

CJ & the Beggars

This actually reminds me of something which appalls many of my friends. When I have money, I sometimes slip a quid to a genuinely messed up looking beggar on the streets. “but they will spend it on drugs or booze!” they cry. And I reply “good for them!” Why? Because actually when you are really poor, it’s not the lack of money which really degrades and makes you miserable – it is the fact you no longer get to make many choices. I can reliably predict what I will eat next week, and the week after, and the week after that. I won’t be buying much, because I can’t. I might get to make the choice between two titles in a second hand book shop if I am lucky. Poverty erodes choice, and erodes personal responsibility - because you can’t learn how to be responsible when you have nothing to be responsible with.

The Inevitable Passing Reference to the Credit Crunch

As Axel and others who have listened to me moan over the years know, I had long been predicting a Credit Crunch based on the fact that UK mortgages no longer bore any resemblance to actual bricks and mortar costs or annual incomes and salaries.  This was not based on any economic brilliance on my part, but upon a simple understanding that if people defaulted and banks stopped lending, well a lot more people would face the situation that the deserving and undeserving poor face every day – No Credit. In fact a good way of telling how depressed a part of town is is to go in to a shop, and look for the felt tip sign posted above the counter “Strictly No Credit”. Then go to the richer part of town – and see the Store Card adverts, and the endless encouragement to take interest free credit (“subject to status” – in other words if you are CJ and you have wandered in here, piss off!).

The Undeserving Middle Class

Many of the “undeserving poor” may actually have high incomes I guess – and far more choices – they just made bad ones, and are now faced with ruinous credit card debts for that holiday they enjoyed in some hot exotic location, the repayments on their flash car, and the huge amounts they spent at Waitrose and Threshers or wherever rich people shop. A couple of generations grew up expecting a nice house, nice car, nice holidays and well nice things – hell I’m heading in to a Jamie Reid single cover for the Sex Pistol’s

Jamie Reid's bleak cover for the Sex Pistol's Holidays in the Sun

Perhaps when we talk about the undeserving poor, who blew their money on bad choices, we actually mean the British Middle Class- the people who actually had the capacity to make serious financial choices in the first place? Maybe that is why this is so deeply ingrained in Cameron’s view of poverty – because he reflects the deserving, hard working and frugal middle classes, and the deserving poor working class (who make the best of very limited means), who can’t imagine  how people would make reckless choices like investing in the markets,  pensions  or shares?  I jest of course – but I do notice that bastion of Conservatism the Daily Mail seems a lot more worried about “House Prices Plummeting” than about how those working for the NHS on 12k a year like Lisa are meant to pay their share of the rising gas bills? Should we not castigate those foolish enough to irresponsibly put money in houses in the belief property prices will never fall, or who could not read the small print that reminded them that the value of their investments could go down as well as up? But enough teasing the noveau pauvre! It may shock many people, but I love the British Middle Class, who encapsulate much which is great about our nation – I just get tetchy when one group  are labelled undeserving, profligate and irresponsible, but others who made equally bad decisions, but are seen as unfortunate victims of greater forces - regardless of the party proclaiming the double standard. Maybe it is just my inherent left wing biases showing?

It seems clear to me that the middle class investor who lost big in the Credit Crunch and the working class person who lost their job are equally victims of circumstance, and that they can not really be held to blame for their choices – but the investor did get to make more choices in the matter than the person laid off. Yet for some reason they attract more sympathy? I actually feel deep compassion for both – ’tis rough on all at times…

So Let’s Get Back To The Point

So how predictable are financial emergencies? This was where we started, and where we return. I’m going to look to an unlikely source to resolve this – after all I have no statistical data at hand – David Hume, the great Scottish Philosopher.  (Of course I recall Dire Strait’s song Industrial Disease (link contains sound)- listen to it and you will get the joke – but anyway…) Hume made famous The Problem of Induction: nd the second part is relevant here -

presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold.)

Which brings me back to those market analysts and underwriters, who try to generalise rules from past data, and who try to make models that predict based upon that data. How well do they perform? I dunno, I’m guessing that is sensitive commercial data. My guess is not that well.  Some will get lucky, some unlucky, and ost will perform as well as the data they have available and inherent unpredictability of financial markets allow.  Because yes, as I have been hinting, I think markets are fundamentally unpredictable, and I think personal finances are similarly chaotic.

The Tory emphasis on sound fiscal planning and personal responsibility makes  a lot of sense and to some extent is rooted in our Judeo-Christian heritage (but then read Job!). The fundamental assumption is that people are to a large extent responsible for their personal financial outcomes. I question this assumption on a  number of grounds. Firstly, the playing field is not level.  I have done pretty well in some ways in terms of education and using the talents I have – I’d like to believe that I might have done better if I had more opportunities when younger, and particularly if I could have got a PhD in something I wanted to so I could keep lecturing, the single thing I was best at. Hey, shit happens. A few knocks, set backs and I sunk forever in to the great unwashed. It happens. Others start off much worse off, and do much, much better. But no one can pretend on average we are an equal opportunity society yet. Born poor, you tend to stay there you know? (Darwin in one of his few reactionary moments argues this was good, or humanity would cease to struggle and evolve. This was why he opposed Trade Unions and industrial reforms. Shame, he was remarkably liberal in most ways!) Still for 10K I could have returned to lecturing – and then I could have had a slightly rosier future. But I never had it, could never borrow it, and my studentship applications never worked out.

Secondly, the future is not predictable. Why? Because we do not exist in a financial vacuum. All kinds of decisions from others, from the gang of muggers who decide to use your head as a football, to the decision of American mortage brokers, to government policies, to the laws of the land and moral responsibility, set limits on personal freedom and choice, and upon the outcomes we face. The citizens of Herculaneum and Pompeii might have saved and practiced Stoicism and financial probity, but on August 23rd, 79AD, they learned that living under an active volcano was not so wise.

I saw plenty of right wing US claims a few years back that the victims of the 2003 Asian Tsunami should have chosen to live somewhere safer — but few explanations as to how that was a financial reality for them, or how they were meant to assess the risk they faced. I suspect a lot of them may have not fully paid attention to the subduction class in their plate tectonics education at school, as obviously this must have comprised part of their elementary school education? Well maybe not. Maybe they lived where they did because they knew no better, and because their families had always lived their, their livelihoods were there, and Alfred Wegener’s theories on Continental Drift passed them by because they were dreaming of affording another goat next year? Can anyone really blame them for not knowing their worlds were about to catastrophically change? No – because very few people if any knew that.

And this is how I perceive the world: we are perhaps little more in control of our lives than those people were. Financial outcomes are not predictable. All we can do is try to save when we can, to alleviate poverty and distress where possible, and to try our damnedest to actually help people make informed choices, and drag themselves through.  We are like doctors – preventative medicine is laudable and a great cause, and we should encourage sensible health measures – but if a new disease like SARS or a new Flu breaks out, a new unforeseen disaster – we can only fight to save the victims.  We might have made all kinds of contingency plans, and perhaps like Mormons we have stockpiled a months canned food for this scenario or similar, but ultimately, if a hacker cleans our bank accounts out, we can only check if we were following sensible security precautions. If the bank’s computer system was compromised. and yet we can’t make a mortgage payment while we try to get compensation sorted, whose fault is it?

Chance, risk, the unpredictable, the irrational and unpredictable actions of others – for long I have worried that our economists assume markets are rational, when all the evidence shows me that humans are often quite irrational in their economic activity – all these things clearly impact upon us. Of course our personal responsibility is vital;  of course we must plan to make the best uses of our resources to cushion us against the blows of fate – but ultimately, rugged individualism is possible only to  the extent one has the power to make choices, and the resources to prepare – and the poor have far fewer options here??

I’m sorry to write so much – thanks to everyone who took part in the previous discussion. I fired this off in an hour, in one sitting, so it might not make a whole lot of sense. Thansk to anyone who troubled ot read i tthrough.

cj x

The Reverse Robin Hood: or I Fought the Beast and the Beast Won

I’m not sure exactly when it happened that the British public decided that Bankers were agents of the devil, but it certainly seems to be the case judging by headlines this week. Well, maybe the press is on to something…

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Revelations 13: 16-17 (King James Version)

A sad day today: in the case of The Office of Fair Trading versus The Minions of Satan (aka the High Street Banks) a decision was found in favour of the banks, ending several years of legal uncertainty. Well, for now…

Aleister Crowley, who declared himself the Great Beast. I'd prefer to have a cup of tea with him than sign a credit agreement with a high street bank any day!

Of course I do not literally think the British High Street Banks are the Beast prophesied in the final book of the Bible ; do they look like a lamb while speaking like a dragon? Um, well, now you mention it… That they are anti-christ seems quite clear: I mean usury (the lending of money at interest) is a mortal sin anyway isn’t it? So I like the term  “minions of Satan”, and encourage people to treat them just as you would if Old Nick appeared and asked you to sign a paper in exchange for a pile of  hot gold – if you must sign, sign in blood. This usually gets you chucked out of the bank before proceedings get nasty. Trust me, I know.

CJ applies for an overdraft facility.

Better you get chucked out or an ambulance or the police called than you lose your soul by dealing with the Devil.

What profiteth a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose his own soul?

Luke 9: 23

Yes I’m joking – I’m just mightily sore at this decision, and yet I can’t argue with the legal logic. It was the correct legal decision – but there are wider issues at stake…

The Reverse Robin Hood

So what is the Reverse Robin Hood? Something I found in the Anne Summers Guide to Improbably Acrobatic Acts? Not quite!It’s actually a memorable line from the Supreme Court ruling today

though Mr Sumption QC (for the banks) vigorously disputed Lord Mance’s suggestion that his clients were engaged in a sort of “reverse Robin Hood
exercise”

The phrase amused me, and lies at the heart of the controversy.

Banks exist to make their shareholders a profit. This is actually the responsibility of any publicly floated company, and therefore one can not blame banks for trying to make profits, no matter how many billion that may be. What is actually at stake here is not if bank fees are appropriate – I think it entirely appropriate I pay for the service provided; the question is how that payment should be taken.

At the moment we have ‘free banking’ in the UK – well 80% of people do.  The remaining 20%, the villains, in fact subsidize the free banking by paying these charges, which make up 30% of the revenues gained by the banks from their Current Accounts.

The villains who go overdrawn without proper authorisation pay many times the actual cost incurred to the banks by their indiscretion – and as a result, the 80% of good folks pay nothing. Fair enough?

Except — those 20% are the poorest members of society on the whole. People with enough money to live rarely go in to these unauthorised overdrafts simply for fun. OK a few do, because they have failed to watch their spending, or because a £25 fee is no big deal to them, so they would rather pay it than delay gratification. Unfortunately, for those who are actually in the bread line, an emergency like sickness means one often has to make the decision between going over and paying £25 fee to get the seven pounds fifty  for a prescription charge, or  not getting the pills. And trust me I know -I have a drawer full of prescriptions I have never collected.  A job interview? Same problem. I have lost all my savings I had amassed and bunt through my disposable income and had to borrow heavily just to get to an interview for a position I really wanted – the train fare alone was two weeks income for me. And I did not get the job, again…

Now to be fair, much of this is NOT a problem if you are on the dole, Income Support or similar. I know it’s hard, but I honestly miss the luxury of knowing I would get my bi-weekly giro. And free prescriptions! Unfortunately the only  state benefit I receive does not give on exemption from that or Council Tax for example, and a helluva lot of other people are in the same boat. It’s really mainly a problem for the working poor – those who actually do work, but are on low incomes. No amount of financial planning or savings can protect you against some of life’s disasters when you have £17.50 a week after rent & council tax to live off, and these people make up that villainous 20%.

And they pay everyone’s bank costs, covering the 80% who actually are never going to need to worry about having to go suddenly overdrawn. Hence “reverse Robin Hood” – not a sex position, but actually the way UK banking works - “robbing from the poor to pay for the rich”

The Sheriff of Nottingham ponders the size of his bonus as he prepares another Credit Card launch - so much easier than the olde methods of oppression!

This was NOT the issue at stake in the court case. In fact the Court Ruling goes some way to making clear that in fact the ruling was on the appropriateness of the tool used by the Office of Fair Trading to pursue the demonic horde – er sorry, I mean High Street banks – and that the tool in question, an EU directive, was incorrect. The OFT has gone off to lick it’s wounds, and I expect an announcement shortly – there are still plenty of legal options if they have the will to continue the fight. There is actually a FAR more dangerous legal threat to the banks lurking in the wings, but I shall ignore that for now as it has nothing to do with bank charges.

My Situation

I have just been hit for £100 by my bank for bank charges – puzzling, given that I have only one direct debit or other agreement, no standing orders, only one payment goes out – my phone bill – which I had funds to cover and have not gone over my agreed overdraft as far as I can see – until the charges came in last month, pushing me over.  Now i have been charged for being in debt cos I could not clear the last charge before this month.  That charge was equal to 10 days disposable income for me – the new charges represent six weeks disposable income. I am now locked in what will rapidly become a spiral of charges, which will eventually result in my ending up with a huge debt to my bank – all from one £25 charge, the cause of which I am still not aware of.

I have written to my bank, and had some correspondence – and was interested by what was said. I noted that I had signed up for a current account on the understanding that I could not actually go overdrawn, and that my solo card prevented me spending money I did not have. I was informed that in fact I can now go overdrawn, the contracts T&C’s* having been subject to change, and that they as a bank can in fact not stop me doing this, and can not allow me to put some block on my account so I can’t spend what I don’t have. I can NOT have a limit by which I can not go outside my overdraft. I asked why, and my understanding is this “service” is provided by a third party company. I need to look in to this, as it could have quite serious ramifications in terms of the legality of my original contract, subsequent variation,and Data Protection regarding sharing of my personal data with subsidiary or affiliated groups.

The End of Free Banking?

And here is the big bogeyman – the fear that like America, most of Europe, in fact most of the World we might have to pay a small charge for our banking.  The righteous 80% are positively frothing when you suggest that actually everyone paying the ACTUAL cost of their banking services would not really be unreasonable, rather than the poorest subsidizing everyone else.   The fact such an arrangement would be in agreement with principles of natural justice does not seem to bother them – they are terrified the bank might take their money.  Yet to the poorest the current arrangement is crippling, little more than loansharking. Why do I say this?

As you may have gathered I resent paying bank charges beyond my usual debit interest and the odd small fee, like the £9 which I used to be charged when I actually signed up to my contract if I did something dumb. That is today £25.  So when I needed money last month  (and I have just been scraping around to get change off the floor to buy a loo roll  – I get my money on Saturday) I decided that I would be a good responsible citizen, and extend my overdraft by fifty quid. It’s £200. I did not think £250 would break them. I had not been overdrawn beyond my limit in three years. I have no CCJ’s against me, and a small but regular income. So applied online for a one month £50 extension.

And they said it would cost me £25 for arranging the overdraft. Er what? It costs me £25 to go “informally overdrawn” – and £25 if I do it properly too? SO I phoned up, they confirmed the charge, and refused to extend my overdraft anyway. I ended up borrowing off friends, who ar every long suffering but realise my situation. Thanks to everyone who has helped so often!

Now the bank’s defence on their practices is that if you make an arrangement with them you will not incur the charges. I tried to make an arrangement – and the charges were still there? No less – exactly the same fee. So if i actually went overdrawn illegitimately, or legitimately, it would cost sthe same. And what is worse, they refused me anyway. So the bank has clearly decided I’m a bad credit risk – yet when I put my card in to try and get my last fiver out, it asked me if I wanted to pay £25 for the privilege of an “informal overdraft arrangement”.

I declined, and added another prescription to my collection.

So if Free Banking is threatened, I won’t cry too much. I’ll still pay, but you can be certain that te 80% will make sure that they are not ripped off, as they have the voices and power, and I don’t think it will happen anyway. Why? People are getting used to shopping around for the best bank account deals. They are realising that when a bank changes the rates or charges, they can move their money elsewhere. Credit Cards (which I don’t have) taught people the esoteric joys of balance tranfers. We are not like our parents who stayed with the bank down the road for life. Competition would reduce bank charges immediately once they are moved from those who can’;t afford them to those who can.

Furthermore, the government is the biggest stake holder in many of the High Street banks now. The bail out, what was it £62 billion or whatever, saved the economy. From my reading Gordon Brown actually did save the world, well at least the global economy while the Americans dillied and dallied. Good on him! I’m no fan of New Labour, but it was a beautiful bit of political intervention.  So maybe the political will exists to actually stop this nonsense, and stop the increasing gap between rich and poor in our society?

There is something pathetic about an administration legislating to end Child Poverty, yet not looking at the causes of that poverty, of which ruinous bank charges on the parents of said kids must come high in the causes. The government controls the banks – and can promise free banking on the banks they are major stakeholders in.

And the banks: the banks can stop this now. All they have to do is cap unauthorised spending – stop people taking money they have not got out of the cash machine, and charge what it actually costs to bounce a direct debit or whatever, not some exorbitant fee.  Sure people would suffer, as I do, because they can’t lay their hands on cash at the end of the month – but if you put them in a cycle of bank charges like this they will soon have no money by the middle, then the start of the month. So stop selling debt to third party companies banks, and make your limits stick. And get rid of the ludicrous charge on AGREED overdrafts.

Yes, profits might fall a little. Yes shareholders in the banks might get slightly lower dividends. But how many bank shareholders actually have kids in poverty? And aren’t we all shareholders when we pay tax since the bail out? Are we not entitled to join the party?

I fought the Beast – and the Beast won – for now. Yet it will not continue forever…

cj x

* and before anyone says – bet you did not read the Terms and Conditions carefully – oh, how wrong you are! I actually read them and understood them fully, and in fact far better in light of the relevant legislation than my bank appears to have.  I wonder why they do not hire solicitors to read their own T&C’s, rather than apparently just copy them from each other and earlier agreements? One day very soon this could cost them so much that a lot of banks might go under…  I find it incredible that many Banks seem unaware of the statutory requirements of the Consumer Credit Acts…

The Mescaline, Apologist & Book Depository

What do Aldous Huxley, CS Lewis and JFK all have in common? They all died on this day forty six years ago today – November 22nd 1963. Oddly, they all strike a curious resonance with me — though JFK the least of the three, I was far more influenced by Huxley and arguably Lewis, though I never liked his apologetics works, apart from The Screwtape Letters.  Anyway, in memory of three great minds, I’ll raise a glass. Heaven and Hell, wherever they ended up, that would have made one hell of a dinner party that night…

cj x

Bark at the Loon – Most Haunted and Halloween

I saw some of this year’s Most Haunted Live – not much different to previous years! I wrote this in the last days of my involvement with the old MH forum, and stumbling across it tonight I thought it might amuse, even though it is two years out of date now, I still stand by what I said then!

“I watched Most Haunted Live last night, and I found the experience extremely painful, excruciating actually. Now before people tell me to ‘get lost if you don’t like the show, you don’t have to watch’, I’ve actually been involved for quite a while with the whole Most Haunted scene – I worked briefly for HanrahanMedia, and ANTIX as a researcher, have appeared on the show as an “expert”, and then worked on a related contract with the LivingShop people, and have been involved in parapsychology and ghost investigation for twenty years now.  Some of the older posters on this forum will know who I am. I’m not a nay sayer – I usually am supportive, and like many of the people involved and regard some as good friends.

This time however I was really depressed by it all.  Firstly, there is this whole pentagram business. (Note: they were doing 5 nights, in 5 locations to form a huge pentagram across England) Now I’ll declare my prejudices – an ex-pagan who practiced ritual magick I’ve been a Church of England Christian for over a decade. I’ve already joked about the pentagram thing, but really, while not offended on a religious level, this is just silliness.  Inscribe an inverted pentagram all over England and pretend that something bad might happen? Wow!  Hammer House of Haunted!

Now look, let’s get this straight. The pentagram has a long history as a symbol, used by occultists, Christians, Jews, ancient cultures – drawn all over their text books by me as a kid – and in itself its a pretty star.   With two horns exalted (upside down) it’s generally these days associated with teenage pimply heavy metal occult wannabes, pagans with wonky jewelery, and Satanism.  So are Yvette and company actually advocating Satanism?  Of course they aren’t – so why indulge in this amateur dramatics black magic crap?  Are we going to have virgin sacrifices and inverted crosses next?

Now it’s ‘just entertainment’, I know that and you know that.  That’s what hurts though – Karl and Yvette were completely sincere when they started out, and for a while the show was moving towards sound research.  It was good TV.  Now it has degenerated in to cheap schlock horror occult cliches.  Worse than that, it’s become stupid. Why?

Because…

1. if you believe in this stuff, and real evil powers, and after purportedly being attacked by a demon in Edinburgh Vaults they should have every reason to, why on earth would you mess around with these things?

or

2. they don’t believe in any of it, and it’s strictly for colour, in which case why mess around with these things?

Now I don’t actually think that we are all going to be eaten by the Staypuft Marshmallow man on Halloween. If they had real style the last night would be a complete fake, misleading the viewers, a scripted drama a la Orson Welles War of the Worlds, and would apparently end with the casts messy demise and demon’s pouring out of the studio.   Be hilarious, would go down in history, and end the show with a bang not a whimper. If you wanna go entertainment, that’s got to be the way to finish your amazingly successful run of series – and MH has been amazingly successful.  I’d laugh, the regulators would slap Living’s wrists and for a while we would all be spooked and freaked – but it would be a great end to Most Haunted.

Now all this occult crap – and I’m sorry the line “David went with Karl and Stuart but they failed to use protection” still has tears running in my eyes with laughter, maybe you are all too young to recall  the safe sex ads of the 1980’s? – anyway we now have spells.  What was Yvette shouting? Malleus Decorum?  That’s what it sounded like – Hammer Behaviour? Perhaps she was invoking the spirit of MC Hammer? I’m guessing I misheard and she was shouting Malleus Maleficarium – The Hammer of the Witches, Spengler and Kramer not Kramer versus Kramer, but a 14th century I think manual. “Whatever is done for the security of the state is merciful.”  I dunno if a 17th century witch would know the implied threat though? It’s a book title guys, not a spell!

And what was this crap about witch trials often being suppressed, and covered up?  I have never heard the claim before. It seemed a bit disingenuous to not mention the lady hanged in the State Records for 1684 and referenced in the episode was in fact hanged in Exeter as well – nowhere near Lancashire. Still that I can put up with. This whole “let’s play at being black magicians” and whitter on about “dark stuff” and ‘the Goat of Mendes’ – and do any of them know the origin of that phrase? (I mean the Egyptian one not Eliphas Levi). That practice would be worth seeing on TV, and definitely be the end of the show!

Now I’ve long pointed out the dangers of inviting spirits if you actually believe in them to use your energy,etc, etc, if you can’t tell what they are. When said spirits start going on about seriously dark stuff, surely the time has come to back out?  Yet nope, they charge on, insulting, cajoling and demanding. That says to me you either don’t believe any of  it –or are just plain daft. Draw your own conclusions.

So do I think it’s dangerous? Well it’s their souls not mine. A lot of people care passionately about the team, and probably are tearing their hair out in worry. I’m fairly relaxed, but it was not pleasant viewing,and I am nervous for them. I’m figuring at the end of the day its no more “real occult” than an Ozzy Ozbourne concert – one almost expected “Bark at the Moon” to start playing – but I have another reservation.

Ten years ago there were less than fifty ghost groups in the uK. Today there are I think over 600. Most Haunted is remarkably influential. The general public had I thought moved beyond a perception of parapsychology and ghost investigation which had overtones of John Constantine, Hellblazer. I know of six people who really know the occult, and happen to be ghost investigators, and four of them post on this forum – there may be more – and two of them (I’m counting myself) are Anglicans these days.  Yet this is in no way representative of psychical research, and all this inverted pentagram silliness might be seen as bringing the whole thing in to utter disrepute.

Oh well – Most Haunted, still a great show I guess, nice people -  but dark powers, penatgrams and all this beastliness? Knock it off! It’s not big and it’s not clever. It’s Wayne’s World meets the Exorcist.

Rant over. Normal service can now be resumed.

cj x

15,000 served – if only I owned a burger chain!

Well I have finally hit the 15,000th visit to my blog, and things are picking up so fast I’m astounded. Lord Kelvin, Heroquest, Futurism and the discussion about Science and Religion make up most hits, with a few people who know me reading it for the general wittering about my dismal life, parapsychology and I suspect the odd person who is looking for something completely different and gets very disappointed on arriving here!

I have not had much time recently to post, I have been incredibly busy with  cats, friends, and psychical research. I did return briefly home to East Anglia to see my parents and have been as usual immersed in working on books, planning events and running roleplaying games – Geist, the New World of Darkness game, Ars Magica, Call of Cthulhu and  Unknown Armies if anyone is interested!

My life is changing quite fast at the moment, and despite many set backs and disappointments I feel confident that being forty is not as bad as many folks imagine. I’m actually quite happy, and desperately trying to sort out a postgrad, but as always funding still seems incredibly remote. Still I have found one possibility which excites me, and hey, I’m trying. What is clear to me is that I need money, and fast, and that I am profoundly psychologically ill suited to trying to make money — I simply don’t like charging people, I find it embarrassing, always have.  I expect one day I’ll overcome this, which might reflect a deep seated lack of confidence in my own abilities, that what I can offer is actually worth anything, but hell I’ll have to get past it if I am going to have a future. I’m just not sure where my talents if any lay, outside of working in a university.

Well as always with these updates let’s end with a quick look at the latest search terms used by those who find my blog –

“invisible woman loitering” — an all time favourite, I have no idea! Great though!
“norfolk (uk) geology” – er, boulder clay as I recall, over chalk and sandstone outcrops? The Breck, Fens and North Norfolk coast are all fascinating. But why this blog?
“demolition puts nuns on the run” – I’m speechless!
“easter fart” – looking for a South Park episode maybe?
“massage mediums” – there could be a gap in the market. Which is more reputable?

Jokes aside, I think things are going OK. Hopefully I’ll have more time to update the blog soon. Take care everyone, and thanks for reading!

cj x

A Logical Argument for Existence of God(s) or Goddess(es)

Had a bad day. today. Dave Sivier came over and we had an enjoyable discussion on increasingly bizarre plans for “better faster cheaper” space exploration – NASA’ s current strategy in case you have not heard the phrase, culminating in a discussion of ideas for building a cheap Brunel-era tech space elevator, and I read some stuff Beast brought over on the development of the mammalian brain, and got very excited about the morphology of Eocene Lemurs. The gas man failed to show, but I slowly went down with a feverish cold and feel rubbish, and not at all with it.  Therefore as I feel rough I shall attempt to offer something not too ambitious in the way of posts tonight – my old attempt at a logical proof of the existence of God seems a good start…

OK, it was a couple of years ago, and someone challenged me to prove the existence of God in one post on the Dawkins forum, and silliness ensued. May amuse…

“OK, I shall argue the existence of God from the World of Warcraft.

1. WoW (or any MMORPG) is a simulated world with it’s own programmed physics in which players take part in an immersive mutual reality. If you are not familiar with it the best documentary is South Park’s episode Make Love, not Warcraft (link contains sound and obscene humour) which is on cable most nights this week I think.

2. My proposal, based on Nick Bostrom’s famous paper http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html - the Simulation Hypothesis – is that given predicted exponential growth in computing (assuming we break the supposed Silicon limit) future virtual universes may be indistinguishable from the real thing. See the work of noted theologians Rob Grant & Doug Naylor in their opus Melior Quam Vita, part of their Rutilus Dwarf series of philosophical investigations for an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Than_Life

3. Given that our universe is said to appear to be highly “designed”, as in the infamous problem of Fine Tuning, and the collapse of our normal understandings at Quantum levels, I suggest that this may simply be the level of programming code, and that it is extremely likely that we are living in a simulated universe generated by a civilization that has surpassed our own level of advancement. As virtual universes are easier to construct than real universes, we might infer the odds of us existing in a virtual universe are far higher than those of us existing in a real universe.

4. As the response to Fine Tuning usually suggested (including by Professor Dawkins) is multiverse, let us run with this and allow an infinite (or vast as required by Fine Tuning) number of universes. The odds of those universes having produced an advanced civilization which manufactures virtual universes therefore approaches certainty, and as these numbers increase vastly so does the number of virtual universes increase (probably exponentially) as does the likelihood we live in a virtual universe. This argument was amusingly developed by cosmologist Paul Davies. SO Fine Tuning or NO Fine Tuning, the argument holds.

5. The programmer of such a universe is outside time/space, super-natural, can change physical laws at whim, created and can destroy the simulation, and can of course “incarnate” by entering the simulation. Furthermore they can provide virtual afterlife, or switch players from previous simulations, giving reincarnation type effects. In effect with regard to their creation (including us) they are a God. This idea fits perfectly with the model of reality proposed by certain atheistic forms of early Buddhism, or more recently by William James in Human Immortality. If you must you can mention The Matrix, a film I have never actually seen, because my friends try to lynch me whenever it comes on.

6. Therefore the existence of God(s) is at near certainty! If Christianity’s claim that we are made in the image of God is to be considered, then these deities might be rather worrying though.

Feel free to critique my logic — somehow I doubt anyone is going to convert! As you may have gathered, I’m not entirely serious, though actually it is rationally coherent and entirely as far as I can work out logical. I welcome any serious critique, because though I have not, you can seriously argue this! Is it not a rational proof of the existence of Gods? “

This led to much discussion – but despite the bad humour and tone, I was being serious. I’m not convinced, but once you start to think in these terms it’s much easier to understand  how real theology works and why the whole God hypothesis is not as ridiculous as people seem to assume.  If you are interested in the cosmology underlying this look for the works of Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society – especially Just Six Numbers – and Professor Paul Davies excellent The Goldilocks Enigma which I had not read at time of writing but which covers all the arguments for Fine Tuning of the universe wonderfully, as well as  giving you a whistle stop tour of modern astrophysics. However one night a few weeks ago I was up at 4am or something, and caught What We Still Don’t Know, a documentary series presented by Lord Rees. It was superb – and one episode in particular struck an incredible resonance with me, and might well amuse anyone who has read my argument. Have a look at it, because the exposition of the ideas I’m playing with is a thousand times more beautifully presented here, by people who know what they are talking about.  If I have time tomorrow I’ll talk through the critiques of Cosmological Fine Tuning briefly, and discuss why “I still believe in God, even if He no longer believes in me” to slightly misquote Wayne Hussey  Here is the episode on YouTube (contains sound and flashing images) – but really, do take the time to watch this…

What We Still Don’t Know -final episode, Lord Rees

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylxRBESxAlM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1FFs4g9Y10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Beve83wmY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9-RSyuw_9E

I’m off back to bed to rest. Night all.

cj x

Stopping smoking again

I’m stopping smoking again. This will make me a bit out of it for the next few days, but I doubt I will murder anyone who does not richly deserve it much; I might kill a few innocent bystanders but I will stop short of desecrating their graves, burning down their houses, eating their relatives and singing comic songs on the ruins unless they really annoy me, you know by wearing a loud shirt in a built up area or possession of an offensive wife or similar. (yes I watched Not the Nine o Clock News too much!)

OK, stopping smoking usually makes me a bit depressive/anxious/unpredictable/suicidal/tense/angsty.   Housemates often take sudden unplanned holidays when I mention I have stopped smoking, and a few friends do leave town immediately and hide out at relations or in the woods.  Yet really I give up fairly quietly, and without fuss, and the only thing that stopping smoking is guaranteed to do is to make me is immensely fat, so I end up looking like a happy pig who has been genetically modified with beachball DNA, before being greased in butter and blown up with one of the air pumps they use to inflate airships. Last time I stopped I put on two stone in a few weeks, making CJ resemble this   -

CJ naked after giving up smoking - well a close resemblance to how I will look in three weeks time.

I never bother with the pills/potions/patches approach to stopping smoking – I could not afford to if I wanted to – I just stop. This usually works quite well for me for a good six months of any given year, then something happens and I start again. I have no real problem conquering the addiction (apart from the usual mood swings/self destructive/homicidal impulses and starting screaming for no reason while smashing everything in sight, but aren’t most people like that first thing in the morning?) but then something happens and I get really upset and I start smoking again. At the moment my life is so utterly depressing and stressful it may just be the wrong time to stop, but I really don’t want to buy cigarettes, and can’t afford to if I wanted to anyway, so I guess I’ll just whinge and put up with it.

Worst of all I’m getting my sense of smell back. And I really don’t appreciate that!

Feel the fear and do it anyway – CJ tries a Roller coaster

This summer I had a rather unnerving experience, and for some reason I never got round to sharing it on my blog. I refer of course to my  adventures with Becky, this time in Alton Towers. No not that sort of adventures! This is a respectable blog, and Becky is a respectable kind of gal!Anyway it might amuse the very bored amongst you.

Our friend Yvette managed to get some free tickets to Alton Towers, but was unable to get time off work, so she offered them to Becky and Becky in turn asked me, so I caught a train to the Frozen North and escaping the sweltering heat of Cheltenham set off for the more clement climes of Derby. OK, so both trains I was on conked out, and th air conditioning failed,  so I arrived in Derby hours late, with a rip in the side of my trousers, (notice a recurring theme here?), smelling like a dead dog, and rather tired and stressed.

Becky picked me up form the station, and then she bought me a white t shirt so I would not bake – yes, CJ in white – I know! That’s the end of my goth street cred. Armed with trainers, new socks and an appropriate t shirt I was all set for Alton Towers. I got to meet Dale, Becky’s brother, a great bloke, and to worry Becky by wandering round her parent’s house, which was fun. Oh and she darned my trousers. Becky is sweet!

Anyway, we went to Alton Towers, and boy was she to get her revenge for making her darn my trouser. CJ has never really been one for rides – anything faster than a push bike tends to make me anxious. I get nervous in cars and trains, and am rather scared of heights. Apart from one rather extreme experiment many years ago with a wurlitzer, I have never been on any big fairground ride. Dodgems are my limit. So Becky decided I should.

We qued for a short ride, which I thought looked ok. It was called Oblivion - the name should have given me a hint. We queued the best part of an hour, and when I actually saw the track my legs turned to jelly and I was barely able to not run out the other side! To be honest, if Becky had taken another second putting her handbag in the box thing and returning to her seat I would have fled. If I had realized what was ahead I would have definitely run.

Oblivion is a VERTICAL coaster – it flips you face down, and you fall straight down, vertically, in to a hole in the ground. Here, have a look – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-EA0l9JUsc (contains sound).  The video does not begin to show how terrifying it actually is.

Amazingly despite being terrified of heights I managed not to scream. I got off the ride, and was more concerned with the pain in the center of my chest. Maybe this was a muscle strain from the 4G you experience as you plunge from the fall in to the tunnel, or maybe it was my heart complaining – I’m still not sure. I hyperventilated a bit, smoked two cigarettes in quick succession and when Becky asked did I enjoy it could only say”I think so, I’m still alive”. That was how I enjoyed it – I came through the other side in one piece.

Actually my chest just started hurting again just thinking about it, so maybe a strong anxiety reaction, or it really did give me problems! Becky incidentally, seemed to really enjoy it. Next up was AIR, so I led us across the park in what fortunately turned out to be the right direction. (I had mentally memorized the park layout from the top of that terrifying ride while waiting to plummet to my doom!)

I took her by what I thought was the shortest route – straight through a long stretch of parkland and woodland. On the way I started to tell her about strawberry gothic, chinoisserie and 18th century changes in notion of the landscape (I have an MA in it after all), but before I could get on to Repton and Brown I noticed a) she was staring vacantly in to space with that look she normally reserves for me talking about politics and b)was sneezing horribly.  Becky suffers really badly from hayfever and I had led her on a forced march through the gardens that made her horribly unwell. I still feel bad about that. Well, fairly bad – after she tried to kill me by taking me on Oblivion not too bad.

At AIR I took the precaution of watching the ride, and realised I would probably die if I went on it. Here’s a video — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mxo5Fi1gYI (Youtube, contains sound)

It was the hottest day of the year, the queue was an hour, and frankly confessing my cowardice Becky decided I could be forgiven and despite really wanting to go on AIR herself  she let me off. Instead we did something I’m better at – we ate burgers.

And then it was off to queue another hour for a sort of rapids rafting ride. It was lovely to splash around in water, the element I am most comfortable with, but even so it seemed rather tame. Still it was a nice sedate boat ride, and I did enjoy it. Then I saw what appeared to be a tiny, rather tame roller coaster – Runaway Train - and it really was not very high or frightening looking. I thought it was a kid’s ride, but as I had still not been on a roller coaster I said I’d try it. What a mistake! You go round twice – now I was expecting a gentle fairly slow run, oh no – runaway train is what the name suggests, and I was convinced I would be hurled to my death and the chest pain was troubling me again (and once more as I write this and recall it) I really thought I might die, even though I KNEW the ride was safe – I thought I might just expire from terror.

I swore in ways that would have made Yvette Fielding blush. Yes, really. And those of you who know me know I never normally swear – but my words were deeply disturbing. Becky seemed rather amused by my utter terror. Second time round the track and I was almost beginning to enjoy it, but then it stopped and I went and took a phone call from Richard Felix, who had called me. By the time I had finished talking to him I was no longer in agony, just shaking and terrified.

Stopping only for donuts – why does this woman who never stops eating not weigh more than me? — it’s just not fair — we went on to the log flume. Again it took about an hour to queue – we spent most of the day in queues, while I bored Becky by wittering on – but this one was worth every minute. We got to sit in the front of a bathtub, and go round the track. I LOVED it! I adore boats,and water, though I am a terrible swimmer – well more of a terrible drowner, my father is a superb swimmer but I am not. Still I adore water.

Becky sat in front and shielded me from the worst of it, and when I got scared I just hung on to her. So excited was I she generously agreed to queue up all over again, cos I wanted to do it again! Second time round however something was up. I have since heard from Tom that rides like this have a car called a “drencher”, where you get fantastically wet. We got the drencher. From the very first splash we were soaked to the skin, and the searing heat had finally gone as it was late afternoon, so it was actually a bit chilly! I just could not help laughing at Becky, who was getting absolutely soaked, even though the water came straight over her head and splashed me full in the face, till my shirt and trousers were saturated – and Becky looked like she had been plunged head first in to a lake several times. She stopped to pour water out of her trainers, and some people in the queue applauded as about a pint poured out taking a couple of minutes, I had no idea how much water they could absorb!

I took a photo of Becky soaked to the skin, looking dreadful, but sadly I deleted it cos if I had shown anyone or posted it here she would have KILLED me. And not in a nice Oblivion sort of way either! It was 5.30, and tragically we had to leave without going on Air. Becky was just too wet, and I don’t think my jovial “let’s get you home and out of those wet knickers” helped much. When she got off the monorail for the car park she left a big puddle,and I laughed, but when she asked why I just said it was because we had such a great time. She modestly removed her jeans behind a blanket from her car, and drove home with her blanket skirt on – practical as always! Amusingly she did ask me if it was legal to drive in a blanket. It was an amazing day out, and while Becky will doubtless stop speaking to me for month when she reads this, we had a truly fantastic time. Many thanks to Yvette for the tickets, and to Becky for taking me and showing me that I am not really a big wuss – I’m a colossal wuss!

cj x

Insomnia, Indecent Exposure & A Bad Reception

Let us start at the beginning – whatever the faults of such a strategy, there is tradition upon its side…

Once upon a time there was a boy called Christian Jensen Romer, and he almost deserved it. It was late on Wednesday night, and he was terribly excited. A book he much admired (despite reservations given Gray Barker who was heavily involved known propensity for hoaxing), The Mothman Prophecies by John Keel, had been made in to a movie. Christian was very excited; three times that day he had been reminded of the book, which in some ways is the closest thing he has ever read to his own rather bizarre ideas on ‘the paranormal’.  He was now thinking of buying the DVD, but whilst flipping through channels on TV, he found that BBC 1 was screening it at 10.45pm!

Oh joyous day! Calous, Calay! He galumphed down to his basement chortling, and posted a Facebook posting tipping people off, and settled down to watch the film. Lisa was in the house, asleep upstairs with the cats, and I watched alone. Every someone commented on my Facebook status, and I replied via my mobile, texting a comment reply.

And then it all got very weird. Suddenly a whole string of random numbers appeared on his status as a comment supposedly from him, and he pondered on what was happening. A cat on the keyboard? Stephen Atty’s suggestion was reasonable, but no cat and how did it hot the post button? That would require a mouse. It happened twice more. As far as I can make out my Facebook account is un-hacked – it’s hard to imagine any change to my details that would be funnier than the truth anyway. A long discussion develops between Parasoc Bruce and Stephen, with myself making passing comments – the film sadly bears almost no resemblance to the book, and I had by this time lost interest. I was talking to Becky about how disappointed i was by text message.Everyone agreed it must be something to do with my phone…

And it was. When Becky Smith goes quiet one knows the world has ended or the phone is not working. Furthermore this morning I was due to see Postman Ben, the man with the bleakest attitude I have ever encountered, someone who makes Marvin the Android look like an exponent of the power of positive thinking. He had asked me over for breakfast today, but when he failed to text or call to confirm I suspected something must be wrong…

The insomnia did not become apparent until 3am. Try as I could, I could not sleep. I have a few tiny revisions left to make on a manuscript I’m working on, and email to reply to, and an event I’m organising to finish arrangements for. Somehow, I could not concentrate. I was too tired to work, too awake to sleep. I watched TV till 6am – still no calls, no texts.  At 7am I decided I may as well just give up on sleep and try to work – and I then wake at half ten, confused to find I still had no calls, and no texts. What was going on? Clearly my phone reception had failed? A few ‘phone calls to Becky confirmed all calls to me where going straight to answerphone. Oh well, I was already late for my breakfast time discussion of misery with Postman Ben, so I threw some clothes on, and in that state of mild anxiety being left incommunicado usually provokes in me  hurried to catch the college bus.

I’m not sure exactly when my trousers gave up the ghost…

Now of course anyone who knows me knows that “builders bum” is a curse I inherited from my father, a very talented and clever man who for many years had a small firm of builders. I assume it’s genetic – why else would my arse so steadfastly refuse to remain properly ensconced in fabric. It is something of a joke among my friends, and a source of constant horror and shame to my girlfriends, that my trousers sometimes slip a bit, revealing not the whole of the moon but more than is generally considered fashionable if you are not an 18 year old girl prowling a nightclub like a wolf on the pull. (I like that actually – “The Assyrians came down like a wolf on the pull”). Anyhows…

SO I enjoyed my breakfast with Ben, who seemed in someways positively chirpy – misery is still his favourite word, and when I asked why he was off work he assured me it was through anal warts contracted cottaging – the truth was a chest infection, but it gives you a good idea of his general demeanour and personality. I stepped outside his house, directly opposite the uni campus, to make a call – no reception in there even if my phone was working, and I noticed a white van driver who came in giving me really funny looks. Sure I’m unshaven and scruffy – but this seemed rather direct even for that. Then I realised. My jeans had torn from almost waist to knee, and were flapping open, revealing my underwear, buttocks, and shapely legs. Now I’m not Kylie Minogue I admit – I don’t think my arse is that horrific though. Sadly the world disagrees with me.

So I panicked, ran back in, showed Ben who fell about laughing – his misery lifted as my acute embarrassment and discomfort became obvious – and in the best traditions of tabloid journalism I made my excuses and left. Now Ben’s flat is directly opposite the Park Campus, which seems to be filled with plump identikit 18 years olds with the same peroxide blonde hairdo.  I’m sure they are all lovely, and have very distinct personalities, but they are far too young and impressionable to be faced with my bare buttock – and here I was facing the Hiroshima of trouser malfunctions. Luckily I was wearing my coat…

So hurrying off my bus home, which happens to be the Uni campus bus as well, I wrapped my coat round my waist as a sort of makeshift skirt. Now I’m unshaven, unkempt and feeling rough – and after I asked some students where the bus stop was these days, I am horrified to notice there reaction. Yes I look like a stereotypical flasher! At any moment people probably assumed I was going to throw open my caot/skirt, revealing my shortcomings to the world… Luckily in a few seconds a bus arrived, and clutching desperately at my coat I jumped on, showed my ticket and sat down. Students were now joined by a young mother with children who eyed me warily, and a host of little old ladies all of whom appeared to be looking at me oddly and giggling. Still, the bus stops just a minutes walk from home – almost safe!

Except…

I had caught the number 10, which dropped me straight in the middle of town, a town it seemed populated entirely by pretty female office workers enjoying their lunch who looked at my strange shambling figure desperately clutching a coat around me with obvious suspicion. I made it down a couple of streets, and then thought “I know! I’ll call someone on my mobile, and seem to be  normal and unconcerened!” So I phoned Becky, who seemed thoroughly unimpressed as I had phoned her not long before. So I remembered Lisa was on lunch-break, and called her, but she was having a bad day, 15 minutes late for lunch and in a foul mood – I ended that call just as quickly.

I have rarely been so relieved to pass through the arch in to Normal Terrace. I bumped in to Chris as I came in, and I think she is still recovering from laughing at me after I showed her why I was holding my coat like that.

Oh well, at least my other phone works now I have transferred the sim. I have had better days though.

cj x

The Myth of the Common Cold

I have a slight cold today; meanwhile poor Becky who should basking in the Balearic’s has a horrendous one. Of course her holiday is marred by constant rain anyway — but even so, sounds like she is pretty miserable. All around me people are catching dreadful colds, as the t -shirts of summer give way to the pullovers of autumnal England. The weather turns cold, and in the word of Bowie “you’ll sneeze and catch a  cold; cos you left your coat behind”, sentiments echoed by folk wisdom for centuries. Dress up warm in the cold, or you’ll catch cold. Yet intelligent sceptics know this is all rot – the common cold is caused by a virus, and nothing to do with weather. It’s all been debunked for years. But has it really? Or is this actually a myth?

Actually, I think it isa myth. I did a quick  search on evidence based medicine and statistical research, and found this

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0954611108003429

So colds are associated with colder weather.

We need to think it through though – correlation is not necessarily evidence of causation (though it very often is!)

So–

1. The cold virus is likely to be dormant or less active in winter at sub-zero temperatures?
2. Yet people still get colds in winter, and cold weather does appear at the anecdotal level to be related to the common cold.

So why?

Well, what if we are constantly exposed to cold viruses in the environment? Then we might expect that given equal exposure, we would all be ill equally across the seasonal weather and temperature changes throughout the year.

Except: our immune systems might vary? We might be equally exposed, but more susceptible if the immune system was depressed. So could cold weather somehow depress our immune systems?

Cold virus from http://viraldiseases.wikispaces.com/

So does immune resistance vary with body temperature? Makes no sense, as our internal body temperature remains relatively static, and homeostasis is designed to allow an organism to adapt to prevailing conditions? However, what if variation in exposure to external temperature conditions leads to physiological shifts in the immune system? If so, going from a war environment to a very cold one or vice versa MIGHT actually depress our immune system resistance, even for only a few minutes — allowing a window for the cold virus to take effect in the host.  So it’s not the cold that causes us to catch colds, but sudden changes in temperature.

Logically then in an English winter going from a hot room to a freezing cold night could lead to an increase in cold infections by temporary immune system suppression, and as the virus despite the cold conditions that are less than optimum for replication is still present in the environment, colds increase. It would be exposure to rapidly varying temperatures rather than the cold itself which would lead to the illness.

An obvious objection: then we would expect to see more of all viruses in times when people pass from very warm environments so to very cold ones — but we may well do so, it is just that the highly infectious and environmentally prevalent common cold would appear more than say measles, allowing for the folk belief to arise from actual observations.

Of course this is probably rot — I know nothing worth knowing bout the subject, just speculating.  But if there was some actual enzyme or other change associated with the nose and eyes that might cause brief immune suppression during rapid temperature change as the body adjusts, that might well be the way that the common cold normally enters the body, and that might be worth investigating?

Anyway hope Becky is recovering and enjoying her holiday, and best wishes to everyone else cursed with a cold this week!

cj x