Cabinda has no bearing on South Africa

The reaction of the British media to the recent attack on the Togolese national football team highlights the outmoded attitude that many in the West still hold towards the continent of Africa. The attack, which came as the team travelled to the African Nations Cup, was a tragedy. What's more, it was one which could probably have been avoided. With the continent hosting it's first ever World Cup this summer, what effect does this incident have on South Africa 2010?

According to the football community here in Britain, the impact will be massive. Broadsheets and tabloids, the radio, TV and web: it seems hard to escape some journalist, manager or pundit's ill-informed speculation as to how the World Cup will suffer. Some have called for tighter security, while others have questioned the continent's ability to host the competition at all. Throughout this hysteria, Africa's reputation was unfairly slandered, and only a few tiny voices of sanity have been heard.

The loudest and perhaps most articulate objections have come from Danny Jordaan, the chief organiser of this summer's World Cup. Today he launched an attack on Hull manager Phil Brown, who had previously suggested that the attack "throws a question mark against next summer's World Cup." Jordaan pointed out the absurdity of suggesting that attacks that happened such a long distance away should have a significant effect on South Africa's ability to host the tournament:

"If there is a war in Kosovo and a World Cup in Germany, no-one asks if the World Cup can go on in Germany, everyone understands the war in Kosovo is a war in Kosovo. The world must be balanced and must not apply different standards when it comes to the African continent."

This illustrates the point entirely (although to be pedantic, France '98 would have been a more historically accurate example in relation to Kosovo). To a Western commentator, the idea that a war in the Balkans might prevent a modernised Central European state from hosting a major international sporting tournament is absurd. However, the Western view of Africa is different. In Africa, you see, the idea that an insurgency in a northern Angolan exclave might mean trouble fifteen-hundred miles away in South Africa is not absurd in the slightest. It seems that to Phil Brown and the British press Africa does not have varied political situations like exist between European states. No, the entire African continent is, in fact, one huge continuum of spontaneous danger.

The truth is, the unfortunate circumstances which lead to the tragic incident cannot be generalised to this summer's World Cup. The political situation that exists in Cabinda does not exist in South Africa. The tournament's security will be much more thorough, with many teams bringing private security teams to bolster Fifa's already tight control. In Phil Brown's defence, he is just one of countless commentators who have aired similar views. These primitive attitudes towards Africa have been displayed right across the British media.

---

This interesting article from Time Magazine puts it far better than I ever could.

My letter to the library

Dear library,

This is just a small note to suggest a way to improve my experience of the John Rylands University Library. I personally do not appreciate being referred to on tannoy announcements as a "customer" of the library. This adds further weight to the impression that my education is a commodity and I am merely a consumer.

I am not sure why the library has decided to start calling us "customers". I would prefer to be called a "library user". Even being called a "guest" would be more palatable. But what I am not, and never will be, is a customer of this library.

Yours faithfully,

Eric Frobisher

Blue Monday

On my last visit to my doctor, almost two years ago, I got fed a familiar line: here is a prescription, we'll put you on the waiting list, read this pamphlet full of handy tips on how to not top yourself. The first time I went to the doctor with depression I must have been about 13. My GP was reluctant to prescribe anti-depressants, as we both knew there was more wrong than just a chemical imbalance, but with a 4 month waiting list for an NHS counsellor there was little other choice. In the end I refused the drugs and got put on the list. Four months down the line I heard nothing, but I didn't care: my depression had lifted and I got on with my life.

For nearly a decade now I've had these occasional bouts of depression. Some are mild but prolonged. Others are short but intense. Each time I've been proactive enough to speak to my doctor, and each time has been the same: I've refused drugs and been put on a seemingly endless waiting list. I've never actually been seen by an NHS mental health team. The one time they did get in touch with me, a mix-up at their end meant I missed my appointment. When they asked if I wanted to rearrange, I declined: it'd been six months since I'd been to see my doctor and, by then, I was feeling much better.

The reason I've always declined drugs is two-fold. First of all, the prescription of anti-depressants is not an exact science, and I've seen enough cases of the negative side-effects outweighing the benefits. None of the various GPs who have tried to prescribe me anti-depressants has ever filled me with enough confidence to make that leap of faith. Secondly, I've always resisted the idea that my depression is simply down to medical issues which can be solved by drugs. The medical community is all too eager to try and cure the symptoms, leaving the cause untouched.

This time round, though, I am open to taking anti-depressants. For a start, I can't carry on denying that my depression is, in part at least, chemically caused. It's no coincidence that my visits to the GP fall almost exclusively in the first three months of the year. Secondly, with the NHS counselling services seeming like a distant prospect, I have to do as much as I can now. Third of all, I self-medicate anyway: my consumption of alcohol and other substances is certainly not helping. Finally, this depression marks a new low for me. All I can do is try and be proactive, do as much as I can to fight off this affliction. If that means dropping my resistance to anti-depressants, then I will just have to swallow that pill*.

(*Okay, so I'm not too depressed to make crap puns)

Iris Robinson: cold and calculating

I must admit, there's something fairly entertaining about watching sanctimonious bigot Iris Robinson collapse in on herself. In 2008 the born again Christian claimed that all homosexual people should receive psychiatric treatment to overcome their ungodly desires. If this statement wasn't ludicrous enough, it came in the wake of a particularly nasty homophobic attack.

I have no problems with people having religious beliefs. What you do in your own home is no business of mine. In fact, I don't even mind it that much when people in positions of power come out and say incredibly bigoted things based on their religion - it makes it a lot easier to work out who the morons are if they publicly announce themselves. What I do have an issue with is when people are blatant hypocrites. And, according to some, that's exactly what Iris Robinson is.

However, it's easy to let righteous anger override our fairness. Granted, she came out and used Old Testament language to condemn homosexuals, before breaking the Good Book's rather explicit rules against adultery and fraud. Yet, she does practice what she preachers. When condemning homosexuals she suggested they seek psychological help. Now, thanks to her brush with death, it is Iris on the shrink's couch describing her sins.

What really gets me about this whole story is not that a person in a privileged position had an affair. It's not that she comitted fraud. Even the homophobia doesn't bother me too much (when I see a backlash like this one, my frozen heart melts just a tiny little bit). No, what really upsets me is that Iris Robinson tried to bury the bad news of her infidelity under the headline of "MP attempts suicide". To me, unless she's successful in her attempt, that's not really the story. The story is that Iris Robinson is not to be bloody trusted. To try and sneak that through under a wave of sympathy is disingenuous beyond belief.

Whether she actually tried to top herself or not isn't the point. Frankly, I'm willing to believe that she did. The point is: she put the suicide story out to soften the blow of unpleasant news; to limit the damage to the careers of herself and her husband. To try and score PR points from a suicide attempt is an insult to all of us who have suffered from non-politically expedient mental illnesses. And, frankly, the 'sin' of homosexuality pales in comparison to such cold calculating spin.

My correspondence with Richard Leese

I decided to write to Richard Leese. He was quite quick to respond:

Dear Sir Richard,

I must register my utter dismay at your comments regarding closure of
schools during this cold snap.

I entirely agree with you that the school closures are "unnecessary".
The way it seems to me is, if Manchester City Council had made proper
provision for the winter weather, most schools would not have needed
to shut this week at all. But unfortunately no effort has been made to
grit many of the side roads and pavements across the city, side roads
and pavements that are used by parents, teachers and children to get
to school every day.

Not all schools are just off the M60. Indeed, not everybody drives to
school. Many take public transport and others, believe it or not, must
walk. When I was a secondary school student, I had to walk two miles
to school. I didn't have a parent who could drive me and there was no
bus route. Indeed, I was one of probably hundreds who had a couple of
miles to walk every day. That's not much of a distance on a sunny day.
But when you have to walk over thick snow, thick snow that has been
compacted and hardened by -12 overnight temperatures in to an
inch-and-a-half of solid ice, the picture is different. When you have
that ice as your pavement the entire way to school, because no effort
has been made to grit it, the welfare situation looks rather perilous
indeed.

You say that schools shouldn't shut unless there are "exceptional
circumstances". Well, the exceptional circumstance is this: the City
Council has failed to ensure the safety of staff and students on their
journey to school. It seems wise for you to remember that it is the
headteacher, and not the local authority, who decides whether a school
is open or closed. With the headteacher's duty of care in mind, I find
it impossible to fault their reasoning. It is not safe to go to
school.

Kind regards,

Eric Frobisher

---

In his response Sir Richard said that, as libraries, leisure centres and council offices were open, there is no reason for schools in the same areas to be shut. He also pointed out that, as some schools are closed "a few hundred yards" away from an open school, there is no reason why they shouldn't both be open.

---

Dear Sir Richard,

The opening of libraries and leisure centres only obliges the staff to
be there. When a school opens, they must take in to account the
travelling arrangements of hundreds - often thousands - of children
who may have all sorts of difficulties getting from one place to
another.

I can assure you that, where I am, a few hundred yards makes a massive
amount of difference. A school next to a bus stop on a busy main road
is easily accessible. However, a school a hundred yards down an
ungritted street with no public transport access is a hazard to get
to. I know, I live right by a primary school that is down a busy yet
ungritted street and it is obvious to see why it is closed. You are
more than welcome to come join me at Heald Place Primary school and
assess the situation yourself.

Yours,



Eric Frobisher

---

I think this makes the point quite clearly. I'm expect that the first reply was a stock response, and I'm not expecting anything more.

The best policy

I often wonder why politicians feel so compelled to lie. Okay, I'm not suggesting they tell the truth all the time - it'd cause havoc if the public realised the cabinet consists entirely of Pod People. But when there seems no benefit to telling a lie, doesn't it make sense to be honest?

Yesterday, as the spectacular coup in Westminster failed to gain any momentum, Patricia Hewitt popped up uninvited on my radio to explain why she and Geoff 'Nuke the Iraqis' Hoon had taken the odd measure of emailing every Labour MP to ask them if they fancied overthrowing their leader. Hewitt was asked directly if she wanted to see Brown go. I knew the answer, you knew the answer, the whole country knew the bloody answer. As they say, actions speak louder than words, and her clumsy and myopic plan told us one thing loud and clear: she wanted Brown's head to roll.

If she'd have come out an admitted it, she'd have lost no face. She, her colleagues, her opponents, the media, the public, Inuit tribes who've had no contact with the outside world. We all knew what she was trying to do. Being honest would have, maybe, salvaged a slight scrap of respect: "this politician's doing something dodgy, but at least she's telling us she's doing something dodgy." As it was, she got stuck in default 'bending the truth' mode, and everybody knew it.

A truly honest politician wouldn't last long, there's no disguising that. But it seems like a beneficial skill, to be able to work out the moments when being truthful doesn't hurt. The public likes it when you're honest; what they don't like is when you score a massive political own-goal and then lie about it. It's weak, it's embarrassing and, worst of all, it's boring. Stop being boring.