Saturday Lunch yesterday courtesy of a very generous sister, with mum dad and maytrees' max at the Foliage restuarant within the Mandarin Oriental Hotel Hyde Park, was a real treat.
Whilst walking through Hyde Park to the Hotel, on a sunny Saturday afternoon I began to appreciate how popular a destination London has become for young tourists from all over the world. There were throngs of people enjoying this grand public open space in the middle of London. Childhood memories of the Hyde Park walks are largely of far fewer people, though the memories of swimming in the freezing cold water of the Serpentine, probably also indicate that such visits were made in the winter or Spring when even today there are fewer people around than in July.
Maytrees max and I missed finding the Mandarin Oriental at first. A new development (by the Candy bros. according to maytrees max) had resulted in the Knightsbridge side gates to Hyde Park being closed and the landscape there being altered temporarily. However the Hotel and its Foliage restuarant did not elude us for long. Inside we found that generous sister had secured the best table right next to the window ovelooking the Park at ground level and adjacent to the said Candy bros building in progress. Had we but known it at the time we could have waved in from our walk in the Park.
The food was delicious - nouvelle cousine type - with wine to match. The several hours length of time taken for this family meal was itself a testament to one of the great benefits of family life spanning the generations. Towards the end when the time came for as the French might say, for "l'addition", mum and dad discovered that the young waitress was German from Dresden. The exchanges of banter in German then reminded me of childhood days when the parents would speak German to avoid our comprending what was being said.
More somberly, the exchanges in German arising as they did from parents residing in Germany after WWII coupled with war time darknesses associated with the name Dresden, the ongoing deaths in Afganistan and the death yesterday of Harry Patch the last UK soldier surviving from WWI, made me appreciate the importance of not forgetting the horrors of war and our maintaining the 'Lest we Forget' tributes paid on Remembrance Sunday.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
To Engage or is Discretion the Better Part of Valour?
Bleery eyed one early morning at Vauxhall tube/train/bus interchange this week,
I walked by two young men conversing loudly on the open concourse one of whom was yelling expletives at the top of his voice. I glanced briefly at them whereupon
the loud mouthed fellow directed his invective towards me shouting that he was the same as me an had much the same right as I to be there. Interestingly his
insults were then put expletive-less, in a rather childish fashion, for example yelling "baldy" and commenting that he at least had all his hair. He seemed very keen to engage in conversation but I hurried on.
I wondered later on reflection whether there might have been some racial aspect - they were black and I am white but the attempt at insult was age related so it was more likely to have been a generational thing.
His moan that he is the same as me, is of course in some sense true - we are both equally human - but in another sense it is not - I prefer not to use expletives at all and not to inflict them and conversations I am having with friends, on total strangers. Would engaging with him have been the better part of valour?
Later that day I happened to speak with a curate of the parish back in Wimbledon. He said that his brother had been likewise bemused a couple of years back whilst in a Brixton park with his two small children. The swings which his chldren wanted to play on, were being (mis)used by hugely over age youths. The brother felt that if he tried to reason with the youths there would be a risk of violence so walked away - discretion therefore for him being the better part of valour.
However I recalled having a similar experience to the curates brother's, years previously when out with our then tiny children in Wimbledon Park. I did engage the youths on the swings and suggested that they could be better occupied by doing something more in line with their age and let my toddlers use the toddlers' swings. When they asked me to name a few examples, I replied ' go to a pop concert or something'. Their reaction was to exclaim that that would involve more money than they had. A good cross generational debate then ensued and the maytrees' infants eventually got to enjoy their swings.
Reverting to the curate's conversation; his wise observation then was to the effect that if the protagonists in these situations have a drug addiction, reasoned debate with them may be impossible.
Given that reasoning is very much part of being homo sapiens, drug taking alas, must be de-humanising.
I walked by two young men conversing loudly on the open concourse one of whom was yelling expletives at the top of his voice. I glanced briefly at them whereupon
the loud mouthed fellow directed his invective towards me shouting that he was the same as me an had much the same right as I to be there. Interestingly his
insults were then put expletive-less, in a rather childish fashion, for example yelling "baldy" and commenting that he at least had all his hair. He seemed very keen to engage in conversation but I hurried on.
I wondered later on reflection whether there might have been some racial aspect - they were black and I am white but the attempt at insult was age related so it was more likely to have been a generational thing.
His moan that he is the same as me, is of course in some sense true - we are both equally human - but in another sense it is not - I prefer not to use expletives at all and not to inflict them and conversations I am having with friends, on total strangers. Would engaging with him have been the better part of valour?
Later that day I happened to speak with a curate of the parish back in Wimbledon. He said that his brother had been likewise bemused a couple of years back whilst in a Brixton park with his two small children. The swings which his chldren wanted to play on, were being (mis)used by hugely over age youths. The brother felt that if he tried to reason with the youths there would be a risk of violence so walked away - discretion therefore for him being the better part of valour.
However I recalled having a similar experience to the curates brother's, years previously when out with our then tiny children in Wimbledon Park. I did engage the youths on the swings and suggested that they could be better occupied by doing something more in line with their age and let my toddlers use the toddlers' swings. When they asked me to name a few examples, I replied ' go to a pop concert or something'. Their reaction was to exclaim that that would involve more money than they had. A good cross generational debate then ensued and the maytrees' infants eventually got to enjoy their swings.
Reverting to the curate's conversation; his wise observation then was to the effect that if the protagonists in these situations have a drug addiction, reasoned debate with them may be impossible.
Given that reasoning is very much part of being homo sapiens, drug taking alas, must be de-humanising.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Statistics More Stats and Real Life
It often strikes me how if statistics and some of our national newspapers are to believed, the UK's stats show this nation ranking far below other comparible western countries in its quality of living.
Divorce rates,taxation,housing shortages, number of babies aborted, unmarried parents, binge drinking, health provision, knife crime, gun crime, road and rail infra structure academic standards, literacy and numeracy and so on, are all shown as being well below the average of our near neighbours, so much so that if those stats are all accurately pointing to a socially decaying society, one wonders why so many people are clamouring to gain entry to this supoosedly ungreen and unpleasant land, at all?
One answer might be that the stats are wrong; possibly but a better answer I feel is that what is not being measured and nicely wrapped up as reliable statistics,
are the national characteristcs that make life here so positive despite the series of negative statistics outlined above. The toleration of eccentrics for example, the live and let live attitude that still largely prevails, the cosmopolitan nature of the population, odd national sports like cricket (though not my cup of tea) the English language,the arts, one of the greatest capital cities on earth and the way in which the particularly British interpretation of the Catholic religion is respected by Rome.
The latter for me was illustrated during the visit in 1982 to Britain of His Holiness the late Pope John Paul II, when he was asked about the Vatican's position on contraception.
His reponse as I recall was to challenge what he called the contraceptive mentality rather than to enter into the silly debate at the time about the mechanics of artificial contraception compared with say the 'Billings' natural method. This response entirely comprehended the British questioning of Catholic orthdoxy on the point yet sensitively showed the British faithful the deeper questions which needed to be pondered over.
Back to the less profound, jogging over Wimbledon Common on a Saturday at will in the British still temperate climate, is a simple reminder of the ability to enjoy life and personal freedoms without cost - long may that continue.
It is fitting then that the phrase "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is attributed to a British Prime Minister. I agree.
Divorce rates,taxation,housing shortages, number of babies aborted, unmarried parents, binge drinking, health provision, knife crime, gun crime, road and rail infra structure academic standards, literacy and numeracy and so on, are all shown as being well below the average of our near neighbours, so much so that if those stats are all accurately pointing to a socially decaying society, one wonders why so many people are clamouring to gain entry to this supoosedly ungreen and unpleasant land, at all?
One answer might be that the stats are wrong; possibly but a better answer I feel is that what is not being measured and nicely wrapped up as reliable statistics,
are the national characteristcs that make life here so positive despite the series of negative statistics outlined above. The toleration of eccentrics for example, the live and let live attitude that still largely prevails, the cosmopolitan nature of the population, odd national sports like cricket (though not my cup of tea) the English language,the arts, one of the greatest capital cities on earth and the way in which the particularly British interpretation of the Catholic religion is respected by Rome.
The latter for me was illustrated during the visit in 1982 to Britain of His Holiness the late Pope John Paul II, when he was asked about the Vatican's position on contraception.
His reponse as I recall was to challenge what he called the contraceptive mentality rather than to enter into the silly debate at the time about the mechanics of artificial contraception compared with say the 'Billings' natural method. This response entirely comprehended the British questioning of Catholic orthdoxy on the point yet sensitively showed the British faithful the deeper questions which needed to be pondered over.
Back to the less profound, jogging over Wimbledon Common on a Saturday at will in the British still temperate climate, is a simple reminder of the ability to enjoy life and personal freedoms without cost - long may that continue.
It is fitting then that the phrase "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is attributed to a British Prime Minister. I agree.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Afghanistan
The BBC news report:
"Col Rupert Thorneloe, commanding officer of the Welsh Guards, died alongside Trooper Joshua Hammond when their Viking armoured vehicle hit an improvised explosive device",
Again made me reflect on the issue of whether or not a country like the UK 'should' be involved in a war in another country thousands of miles away. That word 'should' is I think the key as it raises further questions about the criteria for doing battle within another nation, by whom are such criteria determined, after what consultation and with whom?
The imprisonment of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the arrest of British Embassy staff in Iran following the regime's theft of the people's votes, the ongoing brutality in Darfur and the firing of missiles by North Korea, all seem to strike against the human spririt to such an extent that feelings of human solidarity with the victims are evoked in many (myself included) irrespective of how close or far we are from the epicentre. That this solidarity is a huge hallmark of being human is evidenced by the world's reactions to such natural disasters like the Tsumani a couple of years back, the more recent Italian earthquakes and famine in Africa. The profound difficulty lies not in the generosity of others but in the inability of getting the fruits of that genoristy to the oppressed.
However in the same way as no one human being is important or good enough alone to determine the life choices of the rest of us, it seems to me that no one nation is important or good enough alone to rid other nations of those within who aim at the heart of their citizens' human spirit. It must also be true that however deep the feelings of solidarity and sympathy there is for the victims of despotic regimes, there will always be physical and financial constraints on attempts to go to their aid.
Having tried to crstallise above some previously rather vague personal thoughts about these profound issues a difference that occurs to me, between the situation in Afghanistan and the other tragic situations outlined above is that the repression in the other countries is largely targeted at the whole population or ethnic group within that population. Hideous though the effects must be on the population, maybe by and large they can all be said to be in the same boat. Ultimatly those in the boat will have to determine the means with God's help, of changing its captain or course in due time. In Afganistan however half of population seems to be at risk of being subjugated in a far worse way than the other half simply because they are female - girls and women. Historically as well as biologically, saving the lives of women and children first has been the instinctive reaction. This is because they were considered and indeed usually are phsically weaker than men.
In Afghanistan women and children first can only apply if men and women from other countries go to their aid. In that war at least the UK is in my humble opinion properly involved and with chilvalry; the USA of course also.
"Col Rupert Thorneloe, commanding officer of the Welsh Guards, died alongside Trooper Joshua Hammond when their Viking armoured vehicle hit an improvised explosive device",
Again made me reflect on the issue of whether or not a country like the UK 'should' be involved in a war in another country thousands of miles away. That word 'should' is I think the key as it raises further questions about the criteria for doing battle within another nation, by whom are such criteria determined, after what consultation and with whom?
The imprisonment of Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the arrest of British Embassy staff in Iran following the regime's theft of the people's votes, the ongoing brutality in Darfur and the firing of missiles by North Korea, all seem to strike against the human spririt to such an extent that feelings of human solidarity with the victims are evoked in many (myself included) irrespective of how close or far we are from the epicentre. That this solidarity is a huge hallmark of being human is evidenced by the world's reactions to such natural disasters like the Tsumani a couple of years back, the more recent Italian earthquakes and famine in Africa. The profound difficulty lies not in the generosity of others but in the inability of getting the fruits of that genoristy to the oppressed.
However in the same way as no one human being is important or good enough alone to determine the life choices of the rest of us, it seems to me that no one nation is important or good enough alone to rid other nations of those within who aim at the heart of their citizens' human spirit. It must also be true that however deep the feelings of solidarity and sympathy there is for the victims of despotic regimes, there will always be physical and financial constraints on attempts to go to their aid.
Having tried to crstallise above some previously rather vague personal thoughts about these profound issues a difference that occurs to me, between the situation in Afghanistan and the other tragic situations outlined above is that the repression in the other countries is largely targeted at the whole population or ethnic group within that population. Hideous though the effects must be on the population, maybe by and large they can all be said to be in the same boat. Ultimatly those in the boat will have to determine the means with God's help, of changing its captain or course in due time. In Afganistan however half of population seems to be at risk of being subjugated in a far worse way than the other half simply because they are female - girls and women. Historically as well as biologically, saving the lives of women and children first has been the instinctive reaction. This is because they were considered and indeed usually are phsically weaker than men.
In Afghanistan women and children first can only apply if men and women from other countries go to their aid. In that war at least the UK is in my humble opinion properly involved and with chilvalry; the USA of course also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)