20-11-29 Sunday Covid-19 Day 260 - Sex Education (TV Series)

I thought it worth noting that, now that we've finished watching the second series of Sex Education (available on Netflix), it is a brilliant series. We really enjoyed it. When it first started, I couldn't quite work out where it was supposed to be set, as although the actors were English there were weird Americanisms, e.g. the kids at school were wearing varsity jackets and one of the characters was shipped off to military school - I don't think that's something that we really have here in the UK. That was a bit jarring, but we got over that. There were also some echoes of 70s (or possibly 50s?) Britain which jarred with the ultra-modern storylines.  

Once we got into it though, each character was really interesting. Each had their individual foibles, but the underlying message was quite sweet, we thought. Yes there were some pretty frank bits and pieces, and I wouldn't want to sit and watch it with my kids or my parents, but the message was that talking about things was the best solution. 

The individual actors were great; Gillian Anderson as Otis's mother was brillian and a great draw into the show. I was really impressed by Jim Howick as the science teacher though; every scene from him drew a smile - especially in the Romeo and Juliet finale at the end of series two. And while the Headteacher and his wife weren't initially a likeable couple, they managed to engage us with their story. 

The teens themselves were brilliant, and carried the show. Asa Butterfield as Otis and Emma Mackey as Maeve really carried the show. And the more we learned of them, the more we liked them. And the other teens all brought something to the party. It was a great ensemble show.

We were sorry to have finished the second series, and we can't wait for more when the third series comes around. For me, that's fairly high praise. 

TTFN.

20-11-21 Saturday Covid-19 Day 252 - Priti Patel and Bullying

Well, well, well. The first news wasn't good, was it? Patel was found to have breached the ministerial code, possibly unintentionally. It would be strange if she didn't know the ministerial code, since she's already been sacked for breaching it. But there you go, strange things do happen, that'll be why the word "strange"exists. 

Then her claim, or someone's claim, that she was "unaware of her behaviour" was contradicted by Sir Philip Rutnam. He came forward to state that she had been told previously that she shouldn't shout and swear at staff. 

Then she apologised in a way that seemed non-apologetic. She claimed she was doing a challenging job, and she didn't set out to upset anyone. The claim is that she shouted and swore at staff; I'm not sure that (in general) one does that, if one doesn't want to upset the people one is addressing. But then, I'm not Priti Patel. 

At the same time, our PM and No. 10 continued to claim that Patel *hadn't* breached the ministerial code. 

The independent advisor to the PM on ministerial standards, Sir Alex Allan, resigned. I can understand that; if your primary function is to report on ministerial standards, and your report on ministerial standards is ignored, then what would be the point in reporting on ministerial standards?

Then it became apparent that Johnson tried to water down the report, adding further levels of intrigue and complexity to the whole farrago. 

It is clear that if you support Johnson, he is loyal to you; Cummings managed his whole Barnard Castle episode without getting the sack. Now Patel has broken the ministerial code and hasn't got the sack. She broke the code on the issue of bullying, which the PM has said he won't tolerate - yet Patel remains in post. 

It's almost like Johnson's words and actions don't agree. And maybe that is why watching this government gives me a headache; because the contradiction between what they say they are going to do and what they actually do is so obvious, but it gets called out so rarely. 

This also marks a fall in standards in public office; if Patel was sacked three years ago for breaking the ministerial code, but she isn't sacked in 2020 for the same offence, then things have materially changed. Is the ministerial code worth anything at all these days, if the PM can judge that it doesn't apply? 

It's a tiring affair, that's for sure.

TTFN. 

20-11-15 Monday Covid-19 Day 247 - ex-President Trump and ex-SpAd Cummings

Has it been that long? I was intending to add an entry sooner, but life gets in the way sometimes; I'm sure you know how it is. 

So, Biden won the Presidential election. That's some good news I guess. There are a couple of things which I think are interesting which have come out of that.

The first is that suddenly the media are picking up on Trump's inability to accept objective reality, i.e., defeat. On a couple of occasions TV networks cut away from live Trump speeches on the basis that they weren't factual. It might be a worthwhile exercise to revisit some of his previous speeches that they *didn't* cut away from, and check that they were more truthful than his current speeches; my expectation is that they will be riddled with as many factual inaccuracies as his current batch of waffle. Then it might be worth looking at what they can do to ensure that if in future other presidents try to get away with lying, they call that out immediately / while the speaker is speaking. I do think there needs to be more truth in politics, and it is unacceptable that politicians can't be held to account in law for claims they make during election campaigns.

The other thing to note is that although Biden has won the election, over 70 million U.S. citizens voted for Trump. A lot of that might be due to the "rosette effect", i.e., some people will always vote Republican no matter who the candidate is, but when you consider Trump's character and the things he's been accused of, that is a worry.

On this side of the Atlantic, it seems as though our PM Boris Johnson has sacked his Special Advisor, Dominic Cummings. I think the media are making more of this than they need to, but Cummings has been a bogeyman for some time, not just for those on the left or anti-govt. groups, but even backbench Tories who aren't part of the inner circle of government. Cummings was seen as the brains behind Vote Leave, and -more recently- managed to break the lockdown restrictions and get away with it, by offering some elaborately concocted excuse which sounded to many like a lie. There is footage of him leaving by the front door on Friday evening (13th Nov) with a box full of his belongings, which has unfortunate echoes of the time he was filmed running from No. 10, an event which later became part of his lockdown excuse narrative. 

If anything, it means that he won't be held responsible for any adverse events which occur after 1st Jan 2021, when the Brexit transition period ends. This is the man, remember, who was held in contempt of Parliament because he refused to attend an enquiry. I can't see him changing his attitude any time soon. 

Anyway, I don't see that a change in personnel advising the PM at this stage helps. Certain MPs and media heads have talked about the possibility of a "reset" and a change in approach to government, but I think they are being overly-optimistic about the ability of those currently in government. You've got to remember that all current ministers were appointed on the basis that they are rabidly pro-Brexit, and they might not be very capable or aware of other issues. 

We've got less than a month and a half until the transition period ends, and still we don't know if there is going to be a deal or not. My expectation is that there won't be a deal, although several people more knowledgeable in these things think there will be. If I could bet on "No Deal", I certainly would, but I can't see any bookies offering odds on it. 

I'm not sure that these developments are going to make anything better in the long run. And I'm pretty pessimistic about 2021. You thought 2020 was bad? Next year could be worse. Hopefully, though, we'll have a vaccine for this coronavirus. That'll be something. 

TTFN.