The Grand National – A Losing Game?

When it comes to horses, Brits seem to have quite a mixed opinion. The “mighty stallion” may be a creature worthy of respect and admiration, and a significant cut above the mere underlings which are intensively reared for the purpose of reaching the dinner plate as quickly as possible.

Horses are, apparently, meant for something more, and are most certainly not for human consumption; this was reflected in the recent scandal which bred the notion that horses may have gotten closer to the dinner plate than one would like to believe.

Yet while we condemn the atrocious notion of horses ending up in the British food chain, apparently it is a free-for-all when it comes to racing them for human profit; out the window with our respect and in with whatever it takes to push the horses far beyond their physical capability. Then they become mere vehicles on the path to human glory.

The Grand National 2013 is now underway. So far, no lives have been claimed, nor serious injuries sustained, by any horses – that is, in the official competition.

The “warm-up” races in Aintree claimed two equine victims – Battlefront, who was “withdrawn from the competition”, later to collapse and die, and Little Josh, who was “destroyed” after sustaining a serious injury. This is by no means a rare occurrence, indeed quite the contrary. Anyone taking a look at the Animal Aid Horse “Death Watch” campaign can see these horses drop away, one by one, with disturbing regularity.

These deaths occurred on a brand-new race-course which claimed to be far easier for horses to navigate safely, and kinder to them should they fall during the race. According to the Telegraph’s coverage of the new course design, this race was to be “the first competitive test of significant course changes and new fence frames designed to improve safety.”

When considering the way that horses are built, they were never meant to run at top speed and jump such great heights at the same time, and to try to make them will almost certainly result in serious injury or fatality. Essentially, the races force them to go against their physical nature; furthermore, their “herd mentality”, which causes them to run in the first place, is exploited for maximum gain.

Despite the horse fatalities at Aintree, the RSPCA – who have had inspectors monitoring the welfare of the horses more closely this year – seem to be pleased with the condition of the horses during the Grand National 2013. One spokesman said that “We are delighted that the changes seem to have contributed to a safe yet competitive race.”

Furthermore, with changes including “more forgiving” fencing, restrictions on whip use and “run-out areas”, which allow stray horses to escape the racecourse, it seems as if the safety of horses is being taken more seriously.

The real question is, however, if these changes will be enough, and if it is even right to continue to manipulate horses – allowing even moderate risks to their safety – just so that someone, somewhere, can have a “big win”.

With so many supporters continuing to back the Grand National, and with it being so much of a “British institution”, perhaps it will be difficult to convince everyone that it is something that should be consigned to history.

Perhaps all that can be done, at least for the foreseeable future, is to keep a close watch on the horses’ welfare, and never to deem the death or serious injury of any horse as acceptable, or simply “all part of the game”.

The Modern Girl

Appearances are everything, or are they?
I’m the girl that doesn’t care about what people think about me. If you don’t like me that’s your problem not mine. However, to a certain extent can anyone not care that much? I was putting on my make-up this morning when my other half says to me ‘we are only going to the farm shop and your dad’s.’ This makes me think… What if I see someone I know? I can’t be seen looking like I have just rolled out of bed hanging from the night before. Now I have really contradicted myself.
I don’t care what people think but I care about appearances. Does this even make sense? Probably not. It makes me wonder, is this me thinking? Or is it the way the world has taught me to think? After all, in today’s society it’s all about how you look and what you wear isn’t it? Does anyone have their own thoughts any more, or do we think things we are made to think because society tells us it’s right? Take the catwalk for instance; we see all these beautiful models and are left thinking we need to be as skinny as them to look good in clothes. This is when the eating disorders come into play and before we know it we are all playing a role within the same vicious circle. Gone are the days when someone got something on merit and not just because they are hot!
The problem is that it is everywhere now, it’s even in the gym when you go for a work out. Whilst I’m there sweating away my make-up, the girl next to me has caked it on so thick that it really won’t be going anywhere. I’m in my baggy trackies and t-shirt whilst she is in skin tight leggings and a sports bra. Now that is what I call OTT, but heaven forbid she get seen by a cute guy with make-up running down her face. Are we really this vain or is this still society telling us this is the way we should be?
The more I think about this the more I want to pick these girls up and shake some sense into them. It’s time to take a stand. Girls we are beautiful in the ways and shapes we come. You don’t need the next fad diet or extra make-up. People love you for who you are inside not what you look like. So next time you run for the mascara, stop! Take a look in the mirror and think about the things you like about your appearance and personality and help them shine through on a daily basis. After all, when you take away all the so-called important things, does anyone really care if your hair is out of place or if you’re not wearing the latest designs? I doubt it!

Book Review: Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn

Starting on the morning of their fifth wedding anniversary, Gone Girl tells the story of Nick Dunne and his wife Amy, who has mysteriously disappeared.  It looks suspicious and all the clues point to Nick, but it is not as straightforward as it seems.

I have a real concern that bookshops might unceremoniously shove Gone Girl into the genre of Chick Lit and that would be a real shame.  Chick Lit has a reputation for taking on the fluffy novels of the literary world; romcoms, light comedies, even sometimes just having a female author can relegate a book to this candyfloss world.  Not that there’s nothing wrong with chick lit – after all, who doesn’t like to sometimes be whisked away to a world where the girl marries the man of her dreams and there is always a happy ending?  Gone Girl, however, leaves the fluffy stuff well behind and delves into what happens when the ending is not quite as happy as you thought it would be.

Whilst Gone Girl tells the story of a relationship, it is certainly not a light romcom.  Through Nick’s first-hand accounts and from Amy’s diary entries we learn how they first met and how their seemingly idyllic life started to implode. You are never quite sure who you can trust while reading this book and the twists and turns leave you constantly trying to guess if Nick really is as innocent as he proclaims.  This is Gillian Flynn’s third novel and, having read this, I am definitely going to be seeking out her first two books, Sharp Objects and Dark Places, which both promise to be as dark and thought provoking as Gone Girl.

At its heart, this is a tale of relationships and how even with the best intentions they can implode.  Yes, the characters and the situation are extreme, but I think most people who have been in a failed relationship could find themselves asking the same questions that Nick asks: Who are you?  What have we done to each other?

Crime novel, thriller, chick lit, it is hard to categorise this book, but Flynn’s excellent writing and sharp observations take you down into the murky world of her characters and leave you wondering how well do we ever know the person we lie next to?

Margaret Thatcher is gone, but she’ll never be forgotten

I was going to write my weekly blog this week about the crisis in North Korea and what steps we could take in the West to actually stop some kind of nuclear madness in the Far East. However, when the news broke at lunchtime about the death of Baroness Thatcher it seems churlish not to add to the masses of views being expressed, but try and do so from a slightly different angle.

Let me start by stating the obvious, so as not to give the wrong impression. It is a sad occasion when any human being dies, whatever you think of them personally or in their political, professional or personal life. In this occasion two children have lost a mother. That does not, however, mean that we have to pretend that we liked everything about someone or agreed with everything that they did in political and public life. I also make a declaration that I was only born in 1986, and therefore have no recollection of anything Mrs Thatcher did while in office. I grew up in a household where she was referred to in glowing terms as the saviour of the nation by some, and simply as ‘milk-snatcher’ by others.

There are those who adore Thatcher, and will be affected by her passing in a real way. Those who got rich on the back of the deregulation of the banks in the 1980s and those who paid for the shares in many of the privatised companies she created from the old nationalised telecoms, water and gas companies, among others. There will be those who love her because she defeated socialism in Britain, changed the Labour Party into an essentially right-of-centre party and smashed the Trade Union movement beyond all recognition.

Then there those who will be far from mourning the passing today. These will be the people who may well take to the Internet behind their pretend identities and say some pretty nasty things and most other people will call them names. Some of these people will have (what they think are at least) valid reasons for their comments. Whether they were miners, public servants, trade unionists or believers in nationalised utilities. The sentiments will be shared by many, especially in the northern cities and the rural areas that formally relied on mining.

It’s hard to explain to someone who was either totally in love or totally hated Thatcher that she did some good things and some bad things. She will most likely be remembered for two key events which are seen very differently depending on how you see them. The first event is the Falklands War, with supporters believing it was Britain defending the Empire and coming to aid of those poor Islanders who had been overrun by the Argentines.  Those against point to the chronic waste of money and human life involved in retaking an ultimately pointless piece of land 8000 miles away, most of all the sinking of the Belgrano as it sailed away from the UK fleet.

Secondly there is a miners’ strike. It was either the crushing of the over-powerful unions and the enforcement of the law in the place of an illegal strike or the once and for all blow against the working class, to exert the authority of the state over the working man. It was all about showing them who was in charge. It is hard to find anyone who would hold an opinion which falls somewhere between this two positions.

What is not in doubt, however, is that she continues to cast a shadow over both the country and the political system. Liberal economics and the rampant deregulation of the UK economy laid the foundations for the economic crash which occurred in 2008, with the consequences we live in now. She also instilled a small state ideology in the Tory party which is partly leading to the wild slashing of the state we see today. Most importantly for the political system, her election views in 1983 and 1987 changed the Labour Party into one which is now almost indistinguishable from the people in her own party who Thatcher called ‘wets’. Ed Miliband is even trying to rebrand his party as ‘One Nation’.

But now that she is dead, why have we gone so loopy for the afternoon? Complete suspension of usual TV and radio programmes. No other news stories for the entire afternoon. These may be expected given the stature of the woman and the fact that there isn’t anything else massively dominating the news agenda today. But is it really necessary for David Cameron to return back from his European tour? What exactly is he going to do when he arrives back in the UK?

Then there is the Labour Party, who haven’t helped their critics who say they have become too much like the Tories in recent years. No one would expect them to say anything other than that they are sad; it should be possible that they don’t say anything at all. The fact that they have also decided not to continue to campaign for the local elections in May will do nothing to appeal to the people who they seek to represent, especially as much of this campaigning would have been in the communities that still bare many of the scars of the Thatcher years.

I’ll end with the words of Tony Benn, one of Thatcher’s fiercest critics during the 1980s and unafraid to speak his mind on all occasions. Refusing to jump on the bandwagon of the love-in this afternoon, Benn said that he “couldn’t think of one thing she did which he agreed with.” He did mention, in as close to a tribute as he would ever be likely to get, that “she did what she said she would do given the chance, always said what she meant and meant what she said” and perhaps that is the best way that she could be remembered. She might not be the last conviction politicians, but most of those who have followed appear to be following her own convictions.

Vintage Book Review: “The Haunting of Hill House” by Shirley Jackson (1959)

Hallowe’en may be months away (unless you’re still revelling from the previous one) and the days are getting longer, well, by the day, but that shouldn’t get in the way of appreciating a classic supernatural horror story which has been acclaimed by Stephen King as the blueprint for the modern “spooky story”.

The tale begins with the rational-minded Dr Montague, who is sufficiently taken with the legend surrounding Hill House, to invite a few other people to stay with him in the house to “test his theory” that the unexplained goings-on can all be explained with science and reason.

There is Eleanor, a quiet, shy, reserved woman who becomes increasingly reluctant to participate in the stay before she even gets there; encounters with hostile local people on the journey makes her certain that there is a sinister secret surrounding the place. Soon she meets Theodora, her “cousin”, who is more outgoing but the two women stick closely together upon their meeting. Then there is Luke Sanderson, the heir to the property, but somehow among the least receptive – or cut off even – when it comes to the story behind Hill House.

Initially, everyone there is sufficiently spooked by the house itself – being a most imposing and unwelcoming place to spend any time in – only to have Dr Montague add to this by telling them the rather grisly story of the unfortunate family who first lived there. Madness, bad fortunes and suicide are recurring in the family history, and understandably no-one can bear to stay in the place for very long, but the new residents (perhaps excepting Eleanor, who anticipates the worst already) decide to give the house a chance.

However the opinion that the house is, essentially, a malignant and living thing, with a will of its own to drive out anyone who dares to live there, begins to ring all the more true. It is not long before frightening events begin to unfold – loud banging in the night, writing on the wall and destruction of property – which seem to happen to, or close to, Eleanor more than anyone else. Eventually this will result in a tragic ending, as Eleanor is killed while attempting to leave the house.

What makes this story so unsettling is that events are described in the narrative clearly enough to induce fear and unease in the reader, but also vaguely enough that a rational explanation can’t be ruled out entirely.

A subtle build-up of apprehension, combined with a disturbing back-story to overshadow the present narrative, serve to make this a story which has clearly influenced later supernatural writers, and continues to spook readers today.

Vintage Book Review: “Fahreheit 451” by Ray Bradbury (1953)

Fahrenheit 451 has become something of a classic, not only for “hard-core” fans of Ray Bradbury, but among many others who see the world going down the path of doing away with the written word, lest it offend anyone. Sixty years on, what Bradbury saw the future as being – in spirit if not in the literal sense – does not seem too far-fetched in the age of Dumbing Down.

The action begins with Guy Montag, a “fireman” on the job, which is basically to hunt down, and burn, any books that may still be in existence. The very first line is “It was a pleasure to burn”, and Bradbury evokes a strong image, saying that he “strode in a swarm of fireflies”, and when he meets an unusual, and highly inquisitive, teenage girl on the walk home (walking home, in itself, is considered a suspicious activity), Montag furthers the anti-hero image by saying ““Kerosene is nothing but perfume to me.”

But it is not long before, through the girl’s persistence, he is given pause for thought and begins to wonder just why his job is of such vital importance. The first major indication of something gone amiss is when he has to take his wife home from the hospital, after she apparently attempted suicide, but is given drugs so that she has no memory of doing so. Realising that he and his wife may be less than content in their (allegedly) idyllic book-free existence, he begins to question everything more outwardly. But it seems that Montag is the odd man out in this case, from the robot Hound that blindly follows orders (“It doesn’t think anything we don’t want it to think”) to his colleagues, who are adamant that they are performing a public service (“Don’t give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy.”).

When his wife, and the mysterious young girl (also allegedly) disappear without a trace, and after a traumatic job assignment in which a woman is burned along with the books she tries desperately to hold onto, Montag decides enough is enough, and goes on the run in a quest for any literary knowledge, any “texture of information”, that may remain.

Bradbury, wryly and shrewdly, depicts a not-too-unrealistic world, in which books are seen as the enemy, rather than the ally, of the moral progress of human civilisation. Written not too long since a time when much book-burning was in fact taking place, Bradbury effectively draws attention to the notion that a totalitarian approach to the censorship of knowledge may lie in wait in the not-too-distant future.