Now here's a rant - brushing against politics so I'll warn anyone to look away who is certain in their faith in any political party.  I present my opinions, based on experience.  I'm happy to debate or be proved otherwise.

The big subject is ... money.

The government, especially that smug and incredibly insulated git PM David Cameron, is always saying that < the Government is pulling the country out of recession by stimulating growth, encouraging investment and forcing the market towards financial movement - the results of which benefit all! >

<The past phrase is, in fact, paraphrasing all the trite nonsense which has been generated by Civil Servants (Job Secure) to be used as speech material by politicians of any stripe who wants to generate their own personal income while pretending they give a toss for the so-called common man, or "prole".  It must be remembered that a majority of politicians are, in fact, career politicians and since leaving University with a mediocre degree, have only wanted to become a politician as a career, regardless of philosophy.  They have no concept of "working for a living", "earning by hard work" or even "you mean I can't work for this firm, even though my father owns it?">

I am not anti-politician.  I am not anti-money.  I am what-is-it-that-makes-the-great-British-public-so-dim-and-easily-led-that-they'll-believe-absolutely-anything?

The Government declares in the press (which, lest anyone forgets, is privately owned and has it's own motives) that it's "giving" several billion to the "banking industry" to "encourage" lending and small business growth.
Let's look at this ...

The Government is giving public money, generated by many more ways other than taxes, to several private financial institutions.
"The Banking Industry" isn't actually a club which can be donated to.  Exactly.  The banking industry looks at a big pot of money - some might call it a publically-subscribed bribe - and dives in for their share, biggest bastard gets first dibs!  How many of the ... er ... benefited banks actually pay a wage to ... er ... politicians? Isn't this good business sense?  Get a politician (or their family) on your payroll and you needn't worry about legislation or even oversight on your actions.

So what happens?

The Government gives money to the banking industry and tells them "lend it to small business, to keep the economy going".

The financial industries take the money ("Thank you very much, Tarquin, see you at bridge next Thursday") then sit on it.
"Please invest in small business!" say the politicians, in the hearing of the press.
"Sod off," says the banks, "our Computer says 'No'!  Our staff may see an excellent chance of profit with investment but our computers - which, of course, are our God - says no.  Tell you what, Government; we'll invest in the companies that have you on the Board of Directors.  Now, go away.  You've pretended to the plebs you actually care - they're dim enough to fall for it.  We'll take the public money you've given us.  If shit happens, it's you that takes it, not us.  Ta ta and ... see you at bridge next Thursday?"

Meanwhile the Government shouts about encouraging growth by investment.  Where is the money being invested?  Into multinational firms which individual politicians have interests in.
Once upon a time, politicians represented their constituents.  They had a vested interest in the area.  They'd actually worked for a living rather than inherited places on company Boards and firms.

Next time a politician asks you for your vote, perhaps you should ask not what Party they belong to or what they've been told they should say but ... "what have you done for a living wage and why should I think you represent my interests?"

Just finished "The Secret Of Prisoner 1167:  Was This Man Jack The Ripper?" by James Tully.

The subtitle is rhetorical - Tully is convinced.  On my own part, I've some misgivings but parts of his theory raises suggestive points in the case as a whole if not of the circumstantial guilt of James Kelly.  Tully admits that after years of interest in the Ripper murders, even his awareness of Kelly's nomination as Jack was only raised by an article by John Morrison.

James Kelly was convicted of the murder of his wife, stabbing her in the neck with a pocket-knife, in 1883.  Found insane, his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in Broadmoor hospital.  In 1888, he escaped the "secure" hospital and, in an astounding story of chance, incompetant authority and sheer determination, he remained on the loose for almost forty years!  He'd given himself up twice, after travels in Britain, France, America and Canada and, finally, returned to Broadmoor to knock on their gates for re-admission!

Tully's first assumption - suitably fitting his nomination of Kelly in the role of Jack - is that the first Ripper killing was that of Martha Tabram.  Her naming as a Ripper victim always causes contention but, it can't be denied, the M.O. is fitting - unknown killer, East End location, throat slit then post mortem mutilation of the trunk and sexual organs.  However, Ripperologists argue against her inclusion in the "known" victims.
Second (to me) surprising inclusion is that of Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles as Ripper victims ... years after the "canon" barbarity in Miller's Court of Mary Kelly.  These, I'd suggest, are only accepted since the duration between Mary's and Alice's killings was spent by the suspect abroad!  It might be also said that while the classic Ripper deaths increased in mutilation and excess, Alice and Frances suffered relatively little abuse - their abdomen had been cut - true - but ... um ... nothing had been "done" to their internal organs.
Thirdly, Tully implicitly links the authorship of the Dear Boss letter and postcard to Kelly's reappearance in England - the author sees a similarity between existing letters of the Broadmoor escapee and Saucy Jack!

While an interesting nomination for the Ripper, I'm afraid Kelly isn't convincing to me.  A man who is mentally disturbed and kills his wife in a jealous, disturbed rage doesn't automatically "up the scale" by rampage around, killing and mutilating prostitutes!  His relation between classic Offender Profiling of a serial sex killer and James Kelly's reported condition fits ... as many others!  In effect Tully puts Kelly in the frame because he was a mental patient, convicted of stabbing his wife, and free.  What about the undetected psychotic killer?

However, the points that I find worth closer examination are these:

1)  Tully raises the possibility of the canon Ripper Double-Death of "Long" Liz Stride and Kate Eddowes as pure coincidence!  Where everyone has considered the short period between the two as the almost supernatural ability of Jack to spirit himself from one location to another invisibly, Tully posits a suspect for Liz Stride's murderer.  A slight yet strong point is that nearly all sexual frenzy serial killers cannot be "interrupted" or distracted in their attention.  If Jack was interrupted in his "attentions" to Lizzie, it would take quite a few policemen on the scene to make him flee!

2)  There was a long-lasting cover-up concerning the escape of James Kelly from Broadmoor and his possible links to the Ripper killings.  Frankly, his escape and subsequent long freedom was an utter balls-up on the part of the police, the Home Office and Broadmoor!  With all the flak the police took over the Ripper, the last thing they needed was publicity over a murderous psychotic trotting around England so any authoritarian sweeping under the rug is perfectly understandable.  Tully was very illuminating (and convincing) in this area.

3)  His tidy explanations of classically troubling factors in the Ripper cases - the Double Killing and the mysterious Removed Chalked Message - are well imagined and not unreasonable.

All in all, an interesting addition to any Ripperologist's library.  Contentious for the most part, I wouldn't say it was groundbreaking or "the last word".  However, it certainly raises interesting points.

Hey ho ...

I'm currently starting Tacitus' Histories.  Can't say my literary diet isn't varied.

A review - I've not done any for a while and I've started to get withdrawal.

“The Sins of The Father:  A Mediaeval Mystery” by C. B. Hanley is set during the turmoil after the death of King John, the occupation by forces of the French prince Louis (later King Louis VIII) and the start of rebellion by Barons, to enthrone Johns son Henry III.  So far, so good.  The location is the impressive castle of Conisbrough in Yorkshire.  Its lord the Earl of Surrey William de Warrenne, has been called to arms, to muster a force as well as act as a central meeting of other lords retinues – they gather to march upon Lincoln, occupied by French forces, and relieve it’s castle’s garrison of English royalists.

In this gathering of armies and nobility, Edwin Weaver, the young son of the castle’s bailiff, has to keep order among its civilian population.  Intelligent and kindly, he’s taken unawares when summoned by the Earl and his castellan Sir Geoffrey.  One of the visiting nobles is brutally murdered – a favourite of the old King and known to be willing to seek favour by exposing (or implying) treachery against the young King.  Since Earl Surrey’s past is somewhat chequered, does he have motive for the killing?  Edwin is ordered to uncover the killer, before the host marches onto Lincoln in two days!

What follows is a great novel, combining an intriguing mystery with period detail and intelligent characterisation.  The plot is intelligent, with clues scant yet present and the actual solution shocking.  The reader understands the basic motive but red herrings lead us away from the true killer.  The location detail is wonderful, giving a intriguing insight into the workings of the lower echelons of castle inhabitants as well as it’s lesser nobility.  I can highly recommend this novel to both mystery readers as well as those interested in medieval life.

Published by The Mystery Press, 2012, ISBN:  0-7524-8091-6

 

Education.
Whew!  What a subject!
I'll open with a statement that all I say relates to the current UK status but, at a stretch, could guide others in other lands.
Now then ...

Our current system expects early teens (say 11 to 14 year olds) to know what they want to do in their future life.  Some talented, possibly gifted, early teens might've decided what they want to do and train their attention in the required direction.  Good for them!  But most early teens - boys as well as girls - have other, more urgent considerations such as who is talking to who, who is "going around" with who and, possibly incredibly important at the time - who fancies me?

Can you see a problem?

A system is devised by adults with decades of retrospection.  It has nothing to do with the immediate which, like all youths during the years, every teen generation lives in.  But, with the best of intentions, the system has been put into place to provide the NOW with suitable talent.
The current education system is explicit in it's uselessness, for it is "designed" to create an educated person to fit an employee "model", a model that is currently - and possibly always - out of date and, therefore redundant!

The education system is designed by adults who've forgotten what it's like to be teens!  They'd say they were qualified to judge by experience but, and isn't this something that is missed, it's an experience that everyone has had?  What makes them more experienced than any other teen?  What says they are are more qualified to pronounce what is suitable to learn?

What is wrong? 

1)  The exam - and learning system - still persists in it's history!  With all respect to tradition, isn't it only right that if tradition is found wanting you change or lose it?  The years - and timing of exams - is ONLY held for traditional reasons!  The educational year is still a reflection of the medieval legal terms.  And this is only held as sacred by The Bar.  Because of this, terms of schooling are unbalanced and idiotic.  I mean - Who but an idiot would say it's a good thing to hold exams during a season which has proved to be high in the suffering of hay fever?

2)  A teen, defined flexibly as a young human from the age of 13 to 17, is expected to say what they want to do in life, how they contribute to society, what they want to achieve.  How stupid is that?  I mean, you are asking a young human - concerned with personal habits and relationships - to define his academic course.

Why Not ...

1)  Have all final exams conducted in midwinter.  These, then, would be a finality of their school year and act as a closure.  New Year, New Opportunity for the next.
2)  Planning Years. From Age 11 to 16, the pupils get a general grounding in most subjects.  At age 15, pupils are consulted as what they want to do.  Given all information - and, let's face it, they can find it on the internet - they are asked what they want to do  as a job.  They can then be advised what qualifications they might need, what experienced and so on.
3)  Exam Years.  From age 15 to 17, the pupil - given a chance to think on what they want to do, they must attain the relevant qualifications.
4)  Further education.  This is an option, not a goal!  If at the conclusion of the basic education the pupil has a suitable collection of proven, certificated skills then this must be a primary employment avenue!  If a pupil has demonstrated a skill or talent further than they can be placed at, then they qualify for discounted Further Education.

So Why Not?

When you're a teen, you know bugger all.  The sap's rising, the world is the mollusc of your choice!

And it's big, old reactionary gits like me that harp on about "it was harder in my day!" and so on.

But can't we adults take a step back, look at what is then look at alternatives for our future generations?

It's a sad, sad time for me.
I've finally decided to put my website Criminal-History.Co.Uk on hold until further notice.


I've been working and writing on this labour of love for seven years.  I've enjoyed it immensely, having an excuse (should I need one) to read my favourite genre of books - historical crime fiction.


But times have changed in my life.  I'm now self-employed, working as a business partner with my wife - mainly on administrating our firms web site (www.biccybones.co.uk) and doing the accounts.  Thus I have less time to spend on my own "hobby".  I'll still be reading - of course - and active in the world of crime fiction and, perhaps, one day I might re-launch the site.


I suppose it's a good thing; it shows our main bill paying occupation is increasing.  In fact, we're soon launching our over-the-counter sales in our new business unit.  But I can't help feeling at a loss.  Still, there's plenty of places like www.goodreads.com to inflict my hapless opinions.

There's a trouble with language.  Especially with historical crime fiction.

When a story is set in a historical period, there are two things that authors have been given the "warning" about. 
Firstly it's anachronisms.  These are easy to make and the first thing that critics select to criticise.  You don't want the errors - obvious when pointed out - that come from bad research.  To put it bluntly, you don't want a Roman to receive a telegram!  Anachronisms like this are a bummer and, when you spot 'em, they're difficult to get past.  Then again, a good author - who's done their research - shouldn't fall at this hurdle.  Let's face it, if you want to write a novel set in a historical period then you should know, at least in part, the setting in which you write.

The second "warning" given to authors is about "voice" and this is where I must nail my colours to the mast.

We look at history.  We - hopefully - know (roughly) what went on.  We are - I assume - intelligent folk.  Thus do we honestly expect an Elisabethan character NOT to swear, using a ... ahem ... base phrase such as "He couldn't give a fuck!"?  Now, I don't want to get into the derivatives of swearing but the use of such in writing a believable work of fiction is important.
We, as readers, are made to enter a past time - a past life, if you prefer.  We swear (as much as we'd like to think we don't) and so we must assume that our ancestors did too.

People are people.  Around the world and, I think, obviously throughout the years.  We use phrases, expressions, idioms that (from the outside) sound nonsensical.  But, in the context of the world they live in, some phrases are perfectly understandable.

LUPUS IN FABULA

Literally, in Latin, this means "The wolf of the story".  The idea is that two people are gossiping and the subject of their gossip walks in, restricting further tales.  One says "Ah, here is The Wolf of The Story!"  The language and setting is "foreign" - Latin - but the phrase and the concept is easy.
So why is it so hard for "purists" to not baulk against slang or "less than classical"?  Do they want writing to be set in Roman times and the characters sound like Shakespeare on his most priggish?  Our playwrights - while clever - were writing plays.  They were not writing verbatim what was said.  If, say, the hero Leander turned around and said "I've got to go to the privvy!" it's not what would've been recorded.  This was not real - this was manufactured.
So where does this leave us with our modern interpretation?  Should authors only use phrases or idiom only "found" for that period or can it be assumed - in my own interpretation - that "native" phrases can replace that which is read?

   Where an author writes (a quote):  "How  else would  you describe something that waits for the perfect psychological moment and then pisses all over your living-room floor?  Jupiter, even a Gallic wolfhound wouldn't do this much damage.  For a parallel you'd need to go the length of a fucking elephant."

Firstly - just because we're not with the idea that a Roman ( of Tiberius' reign) would use the phrase "psychological", doesn't mean they couldn't have the concept.
Secondly - Using phrases such as "pissing" and "fucking" were perhaps not polite but used.
Thirdly - There is a lot of evidence to show that the Romans used Gallic Wolfhounds, now known as Irish Wolfhounds.  As an owner of one, I can attest that they can - in play - cause a lot of damage to furniture and so on.

Thus, the above quote - while sounding too modern - is, actually, perfectly acceptable.  Apart from those who  think all Romans should talk like great orators.  Who need to get out more.

Ho hum!  In the midst of drought, the Nottingham desert is blessed with several inches of rain ... each day.  Here in my secret lair I can hear it gently drumming on the roof; a sound I find quite calming and cosy.
Trouble is, the business of dog treats is going so well we're having to move to larger premises - while continuing sales, markets and so on.  My "speciality" is fitting out the new business unit and arranging everything - we should be able to even do over-the-counter sales!  This, of course, will restrict my Facebook presence ... er ... writing and reading time.  But I shall soldier on!