Both readers of this blog will have noticed that posting has slowed in recent months. Only three additions in all of 2022! A decade ago I would easily post that many in a week.
The reason for this has been a major distraction: I’ve been studying for a Bar Practice LLM. This year I conceived of myself as living in a movie study montage, with a singular focus on the work required for upcoming seminars. Resisting the urge to distract myself with a 2,000 word blog-rant about free speech or the Bill of Rights (et cetera) has been difficult but necessary. And I haven’t read a novel in months.
But the sacrifice paid off. I was called to the Bar at Middle Temple in July. Here’s the proof:
Of course, the demands on my time have not been alleviated. I’m now doing advocacy work and seeking pupillage, so logging my thoughts on current affairs is still a lower priority, and the paucity of posts will be prolonged.
The Free Word Centre has a couple of big bookcases at one end of its central space. Last week, I was surprised to discover on the shelves a copy of the The Blog Digest 2007, which was edited by Justin Mckeating and features a couple of contributions by me. It naturally drags to the surface those old thoughts about the nature of blogging and why someone does it. Back in 2006, when we put together that book, ‘meta-blogging’ (i.e. philosophising about the nature of this new activity) was all the rage. Nowadays? Not-so-much. Back then, it felt as of blogging was its own thing, a distinct community with its own round-up. Now, it is simply another way to take part in a global conversation. Long-form Twitter. Before, bloggers and journalists were considered different creatures. Now, blogging is how journalists do their thing, and it’s never clear whether any given piece you might read online has also made its way into the printed edition of the paper or magazine. I know why I started blogging: catharsis. I was spending far too much of 2005 writing angry letters to newspapers, and submitting contributions to the BBC Have Your Say website. The comments I made were on pretty much the same topics as the things I discuss on this blog even now: free expression, human rights, belief, foreign policy, the nature of democracy, gay rights, and the evolving internet technology. It was a natural wish to be able publish without waiting for some editorial intern to deem my contribution as relevant! I think my motivation for maintaining the blog has subtly changed since I began, seven years ago this month. There is much less anger and frustration, less need to blurt out a rebuttal of some hideous, shoddy political argument. There are two reasons for this change. The first is that politics has moved on: the insidious, divisive ideology pushed by President George W. Bush (and shockingly enabled by Tony Blair) has thankfully waned. The second is that now I actually work in human rights campaigning, well within the London political ‘mix’ and with a tangible route to make a difference on the issues I care about. The personal blog is no longer the only way I participate in the political process. As a result, it becomes less urgent. I am grateful that anyone stops by to read these pages, as I know many of my friends and a few strangers sometimes do. But I know I have no right to expect anyone to continue reading. With that in mind, I perceive a tendency to write as if I am taking notes, diarising (weblogging in other words) as a personal project. I write as much for the future me as for the present you, the present them. I often see the writing as a sort of insurance for the future, a partial brain-backup or a resource that an aged, dementia-addled version of myself can use to pass the time when I no longer go outside. That, and a record for the progeny. For the past few years, as I’ve mellowed, I have often thought of myself as writing for hypothetical children! I am grateful to those among my own ancestors who wrote something for me, and it is not unreasonable to expect my descendants to read through the blog! I hope they get a feel for this point in human history, and a sense of my ideals. And if I seek to persuade anyone with my writing, it is them. In a certain sense, therefore, this blog can be seen as shaped by two events, which took place exactly a decade apart. The first is the infamous terror attack of September 11th 2001, which was the spark that ignited two wars and provoked the policies that so angered me. The second event was the birth of my daughter on 11th September 2011 – one year ago today. She cannot read yet, but now, at last, I know who I am writing for.
I am delighted to announce that Crossroads has today been published, and is available to purchase for the Kindle in the Amazon store. Crossroads, you will recall, is a short anthology of new short stories, including a contribution from myself, entitled ‘(0,0)’. The plot involves a chance encounter, a missed opportunity, and some maths. The other stories are ‘Prignitz Was An Innocent’ by Christian Fox, a dark, dark retelling of the Pied Piper færy tale; ‘Georgia’ by Jenni Hill, about a demon having a frustrating time at work (which made me smile); and ‘The Golds’ by Ian Whates, a tight fable about music and sacrifice. The noir cover illustration of Robert Johnson is by Vincent Sammy. ‘Tis an impressive group and I’m proud to make my literary debut on those (electronic) pages. The publishers are Jurassic London, who are making a habit of publishing fantastic collections of genre fiction. Their recent Stories of the Smoke collection was timed to co-incide with the Dickens bicentenary and included a royalty donation to English PEN (which is how I came to meet them). Crossroads is actually a companion volume to the limited edition Lost Souls, a collection of ‘lost’ stories from writers such as Arthur Conan Doyle, Benjamin Disraeli, John Galsworthy and Amelia Edwards. Buy BuyBuy! And/or: Come to the launch event tonight.
While I was there I posted a tweet complaining about the boarded up shops. I attributed the boards to the fact that there have been disturbances and vandalism in previous years. However, one source who grew up in the area tells me that there have always been boarded up shops, mainly to stop people relieving themselves in shop doorways, rather than for fear of broken windows.
I had meant to write a post about the Olympics opening ceremony, and what it says about Britain. That was two weeks ago. During which time, we have had pretty much the entire Olympics, and seen some fantastic performances from British athletes. There has been a predictable debate all over the media, blogs, and Twitter, about the nature of Britishness and multiculturalism. Although such subjects are a staple of this blog, I do rather feel as if most of the things I believe have been said by others elsewhere! I consider this to be a good thing – it means there is a growing consensus in favour of the kind of diversity I believe in. There is still work to be done however. In particular, I am not sure how in-depth the conversation about to Multiculturalism has been. On super Saturday, when Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah all won gold medals, there was a lot of *literally* skin-deep chat. “Ennis is mixed race. Rutherford is ginger. Farah is black. Look at our diversity! Up yours, BNP!” This feels shallow. What I did not see much of, was a discussion of how their diverse backgrounds had contributed to the success of the athletes. At its best, celebrating multiculturalism is not just about identifying difference. It is about showing how those different traits, faiths, and cultural practices, all contribute to ‘make the man’ (or woman). It is not enough to simply point out that Farah is a Muslim; one has to ask whether his faith has contributed to his astonishing success. And if it has – how? Likewise with Greg Rutherford’s upbringing, or Jessica Ennis experience. Continue reading “Thoughts on the Olympics I: Diversity and Multiculturalism”