Rioting and rioting?

Rioting??
Riots ain't what they used to be. In the good old days riots used to be for some political or other purpose involving public concern. Usually they took place because the people involved could not make themselves heard in any other more acceptable way. The current outbreak in the UK seems fundamentally to involve nasty criminals who lack any notion of discipline or of respect either for themselves or for others. This morning, I heard a couple of your women glorifying and justifying their stolen gains and planning to pop out again tonight for more.              
 I'm not basically against rioting, but I do feel that it ought to be to good purpose like getting rid of useless governments, complaining in the strongest terms about the way the poor are always penalised by the rich and the establishment, giving our opinion on the uselessness of Fitch's, Standard and Poor's, Moody's and the rest of the gang who caused the current problems in the first place by telling everyone how god the junk mortgages were. I'd be very happy to support rioting in such  good causes provided that the proceeds went to people in need and not to petty crooks.
The trouble is that  the petty crooks and others all know that the people who should be vilified and castigated are getting away with it and governments are penalising the poor as usual. What on earth are the politicians going to do in their reconvened parliament? Nothing, of course. They and their ilk are solely to blame for the loss of standards in UK as they don't understand the ne eds of ordinary people.  So let's not expect any change, it won't happen until things get a lot worse and the people wake up to their own weakness in the face of centuries of governmental incompetence. So how many riots make a revolution?

Norway and the right

The extreme rightist moron who killed so many people in Norway helps to alert us the the danger of rightist, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic morons in general. I find it difficult to imagine the depths of evil that give rise to such thinking, if one can call it thinking. In the UK, the gutter press helps feed paranoid delusion such as the notion that imigrants get more money than UK pensioners as a general rule, rather than as an occasional and aberrant exception. How does one convince the people who read these rags that they are just that - rags, and that they are written by exactly the same sort of self-seeking rogues who hacked into people's phones etc.

Unfortunately it is not just the rags any more, I heard the BBC World Service suggesting that the excellent Norwegian police had in some way made a hash of the action against the bomber/shooter. Even immediately after the major bombing in Oslo, wthin an hour they had the miscreant under arrest. When you consider that it took the UK police 24 hours to take-out the shooter in the north-east a year or so ago, I wonder by what standards the Norwegians are being judged. Then it struck me that, of course, they are operating that famous old British double standard of 'Blamestorming' in which instead of thinking how we can change things for the better in future we look for someone to blame and castigate. It is no wonder that UK continues to scream down the track to national disaster.

Who killed Dr Kelly?

The internationally known biological warfare expert and UN weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly was found dead on the 18 July 2003. Dr Kelly was 59 years old and was employed by the UK Ministry of Defence having worked in Iraq for the UN. The following is from a variety of sources:

In early July 2003, the BBC's Andrew Gilligan obtained an off-the-record interview with Dr Kelly. The interview was unauthorised but so was Gilligan's use of it in a public discussion of the UK Government's file on weapons of mass destruction which they used as the excuse for entry to Iraq. Worse still was Gilligan's admission that his source was Dr Kelly, which led to Dr Kelly's interview by the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee on July 15.

Dr Kelly was found dead three days later the assumption having been made and pot about that he had committed suicide on July 17. No suicide note was left, no fingerprints were found on the knife with which Dr Kelly was supposed to have cut his wrist and he had arranged to meet his daughter on the day of his disappearance. He left for his usual evening walk with a standard farewell to his wife. Importantly, paramedics who attended said that the amount of blood on the ground and on Dr Kelly was unlikely to have caused death.

No coroner’s inquest was held and it was left to the Hutton Inquiry to decide that he had committed suicide by swallowing painkiller (though a well less than fatal dose was found) and cutting his wrist with a blunt knife that he had owned since a child. The Hutton Inquiry also decided that evidence relating to the death would be classified for 70 years instead off the usual 50, but why in any case should it have been classified if it was nothing but a simple suicide?

Other things that need to be answered are:

Why were there no fingerprints on the knife, the pill packets, water bottle, mobile phone, glasses or watch. Dr Kelly wore no gloves and none of these facts were mentioned at the Inquiry?

Why did police, strip wallpaper from the lounge wall at the Kelly's house on the night of his disappearance, as Mrs Kelly told us?

The death certificate has no mention of the place of death and appeared during the Hutton Inquiry before the cause of death was decided; why?

Dr Kelly's friend, Mai Pederson, said that because of an earlier injury Dr Kelly could not cut meat let alone his wrist, and he also had a phobia about pills.

A tall communications mast was erected on 18 July outside the house; why?

Photographic evidence showed Dr Kelly to be propped against a tree, though the first paramedic to arrive said he was lying on his back; who moved him and why? Dr Kelly's GP saw him immediately after the body was found but this was not reported to the Inquiry; why?

The last person supposedly to see Dr Kelly alive, a detective constable who was one of the first at the scene, and a forensic biologist who was also at the scene, presumably important witnesses, were not called at the Inquiry; why?

DC Coe who guarded the body has admitted to concealing the identity of a mystery man at the site; why?

A helicopter landed at the scene quite soon after the discovery of the body, it flew away within about five minutes; why?

None of these is necessarily suspicious of itself, but together these facts tend to suggest that something went on which was not suicide, especially from a man who had been arranging to meet friends the following week only that day. We know that all governments especially the government of the day are strangers to the truth, but are they, in this case, also guilty of committing or arranging extra-judicial killing and cover up? What do you think? Can you add anything to the conundrum?

Good news or not?

What an interesting week or two! What with the Murdochs and insensitive, crooked journalism, the saving of the Euro zone perhaps, multiple instances of man's inhumanity to man, health innovations and the rest, we have been told of so many things to catch our attention and perhaps even our concern. We have also seen the continued efforts of many people to influence their governments, usually with little real effect. There are the cruellest examples like Syria, Somalia, Libya, northern Sudan, and the nearly successful like Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco. Then there are the wonderfully Indignant people who are walking towards Madrid to try to ensure that the Spanish politicians knows what is what when it comes to running a country. Why do I mention all of these items of interest? I suppose it is because I feel that the majority of people are just not interested or, at least, interested enough in these important problems and challenges.

The biggest problem is that people have shown themselves to be too easily diverted by garbage news and lowest common denominator activities. Look, for instance, at the majority of the press, and here I talk especially of the UK press as this is where my experience is greater. The UK media, the press and TV are largely occupied in political naval gazing in which nothing is achieved except for the aggrandisement of the so-called journalists or their politician victims, or the activities of completely talentless minor 'celebrities' whose only claim to celebrity is having been called a celebrity. Shows such as Big Brother, X-Factor, Britain Has Talent, which patently on the evidence of this show it has not, and all the rest of the tawdry panoply, demonstrate continuously the brainlessness and quiescence of a population that has allowed itself to be lulled into non-thought.

I knew that, like the United States, the UK is at the end of its influence as a civilised nation when such entertainments as lap-dancing clubs and bars are permitted; when cage fighting gets on to TV and gambling becomes so rife that it is seen as a normal behaviour and pathetic health warnings about betting responsibly are inserted into advertisements.

So what do we need to do about this slide into moral decrepitude? I'm not calling for moral rearmament or anything so high minded, I think that I'm calling for more Indignation, International Indignation, and for real evidence that the self-seeking idiots who purport to rule the nations of the world suddenly realise that they aren't brighter than most of the rest of us, that they have no mandate to rule unless given by us, and even that once elected they only retain that mandate by pleasing us by governing well. I have always said that there is a limited set of objectives that a government has to concern itself with: protection of the population from external strife, protection of the population from internal strife and crime and protection from the effects of poverty and sickness which includes education. Other services and activities are only worthwhile or legitimate to the extent that they serve these principal objectives.

Of course, it is imperative that each of the principal objectives is carefully monitored so that the mechanisms that protect the people do not become threats in themselves. We have all seen how the Egyptian Army has usurped the power of the post Mubaraak democracy movement. We have seen how over the past 60 years the US military and security machine and its industrial supporters have corrupted and manipulated the political system of that country and others in the pursuit of profit. Abuses of power should be quickly recognised and dealt with. We can no longer allow such examples as J Edgar Hoover's decades long reign of blackmail and malignity to prevail. We can no longer allow such crookedness as the arms dealing Savoy Group of Denis Thatcher and friends to ride rough shod over the sensitivities of the people. We must properly educate the populace rather than allowing crooked opinionated newspapers and television pundits to sell their own notions about such issues as the Euro, management of international finance, the value of financial institutions versus that of real productive industry. This will entail proper governance of finance institutions worldwide, it will entail proper control of the processes of government, it will entail the development of democratic systems based on individual representatives rather than party machines, it will entail proper control of military and civil guardianship so that the people are never disadvantaged. Maybe an elected UN might be the organisation to ensure this?

Of course none of this will ever happen as the powers that be wish to remain the powers that be as for some unknown reason they think they are fit to rule. We will continue starving millions of people so that more profits can be made in the 'developed' world. We will continue to ignore easy solutions that will help millions ot live better lives because we are not interested enough and because greater profits can be made by selling to the rich world than to the poor. People in nice suits will continue to rule the world because we, the people, cannot be bothered to control them adequately, or because we are so brain-washed that we think they know what they are doing. Sad really!

I'm back

I did say, many years ago, that I would be back. and here I am. I'm setting up a new website which I hope people will like - no names, no packdrill until it's running but I hope it will say something about the state of the world and, maybe, people will be kind enough to share their ideas for improving the mess that the politicos have made,

Apologies

I'm really sorry not to have carried my blog forward after the first flush. I've been really busy and have no excuses except that I needed some rest sometime. I'm recommencing now and will carry on with the clean language theme and then take it further into creativity and confidence building among other things.

It's good to be back, Derek

Clean Language

I've found this excellently informative site that gives the full info on Clean Language. If you are interested in learning more then I recommend you to visit cleanlanguage.co.uk

The next topic of this blog will be a look at learning theory and its implications for practice.

Getting to the Information 3

As I’ve said, Clean Language gets its name because it is ‘clean’ of the interviewer’s prejudices and mind-sets. Using Clean Language allows the ‘client’ to get closer to their thoughts and feelings and they soon become very descriptive in the way that they outline their emotions and ideas. Because Clean Language encourages interviewees to go deeper than we normally go in conversation or indeed thought, the language which they tend to use becomes very metaphorical and picturesque.

If we then use the nine basic questions to examine those metaphors and symbols more deeply we access even more information, often much to the surprise and benefit of the interviewee. Even though Clean Language was originally envisaged as a psychotherapeutic technique, it has shown itself very powerful in problem solving and decision making especially where change is at the core of the challenge.

Not your problem
Even more than in traditional interview methodology it is for the interviewee to work towards their own ‘salvation’. It is not for the interviewer to interpret what the ‘client’ is saying nor to try to understand it. It is merely the job of the interviewer to try to help the ‘client’ to work through their own metaphorical psychological landscape. Great insights can be made in this way and because the insight is owned by the ‘client’ and not by the interviewer, at least in part, the client can clearly realise that this is their content and nobody else’s. It’s not ‘client- centred’ though. If anything the interview is focussed on the information instead of either of the protagonists. In this way, there is a sort of neutrality to the information that allows the ‘client’ to think about it and use it in ways untrammelled with guilt or other unhelpful baggage. Instead they can work positively to use, change, process further or reject the metaphorical landscape or parts of it that they feel can longer help with their challenge.

Using these questions brings about a strong feeling that we (who undergo such an interview) have genuine contact with our sub-conscious and that this allows us to access our deepest thoughts and feelings with interest and wonder rather than with shame or frustration. Through an almost trancelike though wakeful state, we build our internal world in the external world so that we can address its lessons without fear or pain, helped though not led by the interviewer.

BBC - bbc.co.uk homepage - Home of the BBC on the Internet

BBC - bbc.co.uk homepage - Home of the BBC on the Internet
If you're not in the UK or just not aware of this website, can I recommend it most wholeheartedly. There is an excellent search engine not merely confined to BBC output, but with a no-nonsense display of generally decent quality links. It is a useful window on the world, both through the Search Engine and through the BBC's output. There is also an excellent system for rehearing the output of many programmes over many years. It has educational pages on languages and school subjects as well as gleanings from many top class higher educational topics. Do look if you haven't already - and I'm not on commission. Regards, FDerek

Getting through to the information 2

I promised to give some more information on Clean Language. I’m always surprised that so few people have even heard of this set of techniques as they have such profound results.

David Grove developed Clean Language as he recognised that when listening and responding to others we introduce much of ourselves into our understanding of the other person. This means that our psychological baggage can influence the way the other person reacts and that because of this we interfere with their understanding of their own thoughts and feelings.

Clean language, to simplify the idea, uses just nine questions to encourage others to talk about their thoughts feelings and emotions with as little interference from the personality, views, judgements and stereotypes of the listener as possible.

Here are the 9 basic questions:

And is there anything else about ......?
And what kind of ...... is that ......?
And where is ......?
And whereabouts?
And what happens next?
And then what happens?
And what happens just before ......?
And where does/could ...... come from?
And that's ...... like what?

In each case '......' is a repetition of (some of) the exact words of the client.

For instance if the client talks about ‘a black cloud over me’ the listener might ask (using question 8):

And where could ‘a black cloud over me’ come from?

I’ll leave you with the basic questions for now, but notice how the repetition uses 'me', not 'you'. This is of vital importance in Clean Language. See how well you understand the idea and you might even try out the questions in conversation with others. You might be surprised at how forthcoming they are almost immediately.