About Me

My photo
Sauff Lundin Overspill, Kent, United Kingdom
I've been told it's like I keep my thoughts in a champagne bottle, then shake it up and POP THAT CORK! I agree...life is for living and havin fun - far too short to bottle up stuff. So POP!...You may think it... I will say it! (And that cork's been popped a few times... check out the blog archive as the base of the page for many more rants and observations!)

http://jaxobservesandrants.blogspot.com/'s Fan Box

Saturday 23 April 2011

BLOG 154: Platform Shoes





“One cannot and must not try to erase the past merely because it does not fit the present. “ Golda Meir

I’ve been aware for some time that Napoleon Bonaparte was right when he claimed that History is just a recording of someone’s version of events, that it may bare no relation to what actually occurred. And I am aware that William Shakespeare felt that the past is prologue... and without prologue there is no motivation or context for a story. So yes... it has been a long time issue of mine to ensure that any history I’ve had a front row seat to is documented as accurately as possible and that I do not subscribe to a popularised version of what the past was like.

The seventies are consistently portrayed as a bleak dark decade in Britain. A time when people in platform shoes with big collars and crazy hair talked of revolution, against a backdrop of strikes, rubbish , IRA bombs and blackouts. It has become almost a received memory of what the decade was like. And the trouble with received memories is that people start to replace true memories and real experience with images that have been packaged and given to them.

Obviously TV is to blame for some of it. Its shows are often guilty of popularising a myth of the past. The BBC’s Life on Mars presented us with a sepia tinged 1970’s where sexism, racism and violence along with poor health and terrible clothes are the order of the day.

Not that the 1970’s are a solo victim of this treatment the decade is having done to it what it only too happily did to it’s own recent past. The 1970’s TV show ’The Walton’s’ repackaged the great depression of the 1930’s into the heyday of personal kindness (at least it was on Walton’s Mountain). It transported the desperate poverty of the times into something more palatable. I n the shows terms meant that the impoverished Walton’s lived in a house bigger that most of the viewing audiences’ homes. It gave a seductive version of the 1930’s that whilst had one toe in the icy pond of reality was as only truly accurate in contributing to a nostalgia for a time that never really existed.

As the little French solider said History is just a recording of someone’s version of events and may bare no relation to what actually happened.

I have kind of made it my business to unpackage the past and present what actually occurred. (Going way back to blogs 45/46/47, I wrote a series blogs about the 1980’s pointing out it wasn’t all poodle perms, carphones ,yuppies, and miners strikes. ) And now a couple of years later I find myself forced to point out the decade that preceded the eighties was not lived in sepia tones ,polyester pants and at wife swapping parties. There is something so potent about that that period following the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and before the Thatcherite reforms of the 1980’s that it will be a pity to lose it. I can’t believe that the mass memory of the time has been wiped and re-tweaked to something totally impotent, and therefore unimportant. The seventies was anything but that.

As the scribbler from the Midlands said, History is prologue... and without prologue there is no motivation or context for a story.

So here is the prologue... I grew up in 1970s Britain and it really seemed a great time to be kids. Sure there was stuff going on that maybe as children we didn’t understand completely, but as far as these things impinged on our world...it was all good. Take the "three-day-week" of the beginning of the decade. As kids it was the most amazing drama watching the lights go out over different parts of the city, playing boards games by candlelight cause there was no TV, need I mention the joy of a 4 day weekend! I just can’t see the decade I was in as a brown toned misery fest! I’m not alone in this - most people who were there have fond memories of the decade. In fact the BBC ran a poll in which almost 25 thousand votes were cast. 69.84% registered the opinion that they had found their experience of actually living in the 1970’s either positive or very positive.

Fact is in Britain it was socially an amazing time. The fruits of the 70’s include the race relations act, and the sex discrimination act, even the green movement has its roots in this decade... it was a time when people were not just thinking about themselves but the future. There was a definite passing of the flame. The older generation had finally accepted the end of fifties authoritarianism. It was the last decade of kids being left to their own devices. The seventies were freedom.

Okay, so what’s so special about the 1970’s then. Well one thing... the currency of the land changed. In 1971 we went decimal and the old imperial money stopped being used. They phased out the old faithful shillings, tanners, bobs and half-crowns and brought the pence’s we know today. To the nations children it was a simple exercise of counting in units of ten instead of twelve’s– but to the older generation it was a symbol of the end of the world they knew and understood. The oldies arguments to keep the established imperial currency failed. To that generation it was like the past and everything that came from it was irrelevant and a new world was dawning where only the present and the future had importance. They were right in a way, school taught the children the new currency, then expected kids to go home to teach their parents and grandparents. It was like only the young were being equipped for a brave new world. And maybe that was true.

The other big thing was that the 1970’s where socially the world as anybody knew it was entirely upside down. The sexual revolution had happened. Up until this point the rules were clear... sex was all powerful. It was all about finding a way to have a regular supply of sex without the associated problems. Sex carried an unacceptably high risk of pregnancy and there were few social conventions that would allow for a child born outside of wedlock. Thus the social convention was to marry. This was the only safe way to have a regular sex life. The arrival of the contraceptive pill meant the threat of pregnancy was all but erased meaning that the structure of a young person’s life was no longer geared towards marriage. Thus youth could continue through into your twenties and taboo free SEX (it seemed)... was everywhere.

Advertisers cottoned onto this market and the role the sexual revolution had played in their economic freedom, thus highly charged sexualised images were freely used to encourage them to buy everything from Lambs Navy Rum to Harmony hairspray.Television got risque then out and out saucy... TV comedies in particular indulged themselves freely with sexual references and situations.

A phrase you heard every day was “The permissive society”.

The older people, who had missed the sexual freedoms granted by this tiny white pill, grew up in a world where the power of sex had to be damped down so that they contain themselves. They suddenly found themselves in a world where sex no longer had consequence as was actively being promoted as bone fide leisure activity unconnected to matrimony.

Younger people from teenagers upwards had never had a larger generational divide than the youths of 1970-79. They celebrated their sexual freedoms by messing with gender roles – boys growing their hair long, girls cropping all theirs off. Boys could play with glamour and girls could aspire to be more than just homemakers. The prospect of an extended youth, free from the burdens of marriage and raising a family meant that this generation could indulge themselves in pleasure and self centred activities like none before.

The generational divide, the feeling that the rule book had been torn up, the highly visible sexual images... this backdrop informed almost everything during the decade.

Therefore it was a time for big people. Adults were busy expressing themselves politically or artistically... or quite frankly just too busy to be focused on the small people in their lives. Children were not the centre of anyone’s existence. The indulging and worshipping of small people had not arrived on these shores yet. Children were not exactly seen and not heard... they were had and then they were distracted. Thus children were sent to their rooms or back garden to be distracted with TOYS. The 1970’s was they heyday of some really quite exceptionally toys.

There were some weird ones. In 1970 some nutter accidently invented the Stylophone which was a really naff musical toy. So naff that Rolf Harris was plugging them on TV (in his show NOT on an advert). Parents bought them in droves thinking their child could be a musical genius if only they practiced enough. We thought this fanciful in the extreme, educational toys were not much fun and Stylophones really didn’t offer much fun. BUT everything changed when David Bowie composed Space Oddity on one. Suddenly they electronic music was here to stay and the whining sounds of a Stylophone could be heard escaping from all the neighbourhood kid’s bedrooms.

But the next year was the best year for entirely useless toys. No one gave much thought to educational value... it was all about keeping the kids distracted and out of the way so adults could eat cheese on sticks in peace. In 1971 my dad came in with a big box with the words GONKY written on the side of it. We dashed out the garden to watch him unveil... A SPACE HOPPER!!!. Yes the most purposeless toy ever... you couldn’t go high, you couldn’t go fast, you couldn’t cover any distance. BUT thanks to this overinflated piece of rubber you could sit on it and bounce up and down till you fell off and grazed your knee. Genius!

But not as much genius yet another toy designed only to end in tears. I think the official name was Clackers but everyone (down south at least ) called them kerNackers. These were two plastic coated ball bearings each individually attached to a tab by string. The player holds the tab, allowing the balls to hang below. Through a gentle up-and-down hand motion, the two balls swing apart and together, making the clacking noise that give the toy its name. With practice, it is possible to get the marbles swinging so that they knock together above the hand as well as below and to have the clacking noise get faster and faster. The end result being that the child would lose control of the tab and the ball bearings would hit them... in some cases where the kerNackers were made of acrylic... they would just shatter causing puncture wounds. Despite the injuries we loved these dangerous toys. When they were withdrawn from sale in 1973 there was mass mourning by kids.

Roller skates, chopper and chipper bikes, and even stunt kites tried to make us outdoorsy... but nothing really got us excited till the arrival of ... THE SKATEBOARD. Early skateboards bore little relation to the fibreglass creations of today. They were basic in the extreme and the only break was your own body parts. They may have passed as just a fad if it was not for the Summer of 1976. I cannot tell you how hot that summer was. Pavements melted and we wore a lot of man made fibres. Then the Meanwhile Gardens Trust dug a massive hole and poured concrete into it ... suddenly it occurred to kids from all over London to take our wooden boards with roller skate wheels on them and roll back and forth on the cool cold concrete. Soon tricks and half pipes were being performed daily. Grazed knees, concussions and splintered bones were just part of the experience as what rapidly became known as Europe’s First Skate Park.

Of course it wasn’t all play... (though you will note how health and safety had little to do with fun for kids 1970 style!) A big activity was shopping – but not in a good way. A child’s play was often interrupted by a request for the child to ‘run errands’ to pick up items forgotten by adults incapable of making comprehensive lists. Children were often used to return unwanted items as parents felt a shopkeeper was less likely to confrontational with a child than an adult.

In the 1970’s shopping malls had yet to take over the way we shopped. You had two choices... your nearest high street parade of shops or your nearest city for an even bigger parade of shops. However shopping was beginning to change along generational lines. The over forties (who were classically old and beyond any reach of the era) insisted on shopping daily in local shops. They would buy only the resources they required to get through the next 24-48 hrs. The under forties (who were slightly more with it but still not quite in step with the decade of the day) would shop weekly at the newly created (and new fangled) supermarkets often located away from the immediate locale.

But the shopping that caused the biggest stress of all was for clothes. Children were not economically viable units and had to go shopping with a responsible adult. This normally meant your mother as retailing was still aimed specifically at women. Boutique shopping was still in its infancy and most clothes shopping was conducted in departmental stores, it was the job of any self respecting teenager to lure their mother away from the safe cardigans and A-line skirts towards the ‘boutique’ labels such as Halston or Laura Ashley.

Clothing was a huge indicator of the generational divide. For our parent’s generation as soon as they got big they dressed like their parents. Most of our parents had completely missed the invention of teenagers in the 1950’s as they were young adults by then. Thus your mother quite often thought you should dress like her (or your father if you were a boy) and of course you had your own agenda which did not accommodate such out moded thinking. Going shopping with your mother was a war played out in high streets the length and breadth of the land.

Much argued about items of clothing of the era included.... an afghan coat that stunk like a wet dog when it rained, a cheese cloth shirt that always looked unironed, a patch work gypsy skirt (“I didn’t move us out to a nice house in the suburbs with an apple tree in the garden for you to dress like a tinker!). Platform shoes, furry moon boots, flared trousers, oxford bags and anything made from stretch fabric also did not fare too well in their journey from the racks to my wardrobe. BUT nothing (I repeat NOTHING) suffered as much scorn as the yearning for a pair of designer jeans (Gloria Vanderbilt). After years of trousers so wide I could hide whole people in each leg, I saw an advert on TV which (again using the 1970’s promise of sex) assured me that if only I wore these jeans my life would be perfect. The jeans were the most figure hugging item of clothing imaginable and drew attention to the wearer bottom as they carried Vanderbilt's name embossed in script on the back pocket, as well as her swan logo. Given that our local supermarket had perfectly serviceable jeans of a more modest cut for a very reasonable £3.99, the war of the designer jeans (a shocking £30) was lost before I even tried them on... though given GV’s provocative shape...that probably would not have helped either!

Music influenced the way we dressed more than anything else. At the dawn of the decade it was all about The New Seekers. We used to sing ‘Beg Steal or Borrow’ in the playground so much we lost our voices. Then they released ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing’ and that was that... we were all dressed like hippies and were swinging our pants. Then 5 lads from Edinburgh started on about ‘Shang a lang’ and it was shrunken jumpers and tartan stitched down the side of your ‘trews’. Then we found out that members of the Glitter Band lived in Blackheath... so we used to hang round their house (oh the irony!) wearing glam rock gear that we copied from Sweet, David Bowie, T-Rex and Thin Lizzy. This was ultimately more wearable than our Bay City Roller outfits and we found the androgyny rather sexy! (Our parent’s not so much who used to complain that with all the long hair and nail varnish you can’t tell a boy from a girl). Then something really important happened.

Give us a
D
Give us a
I
Give us a
S
Give us a
C
Give us a
O

Disco came to note as a reaction by minority groups predominately Blacks, Latinos, Gays and Women against both the domination of rock music and the demonisation of dance music by the counterculture during the early 1970’s. But for most of us... it was uplifting music that we could dance to and be glamorous. For all the accolades laid at the door of early 70’s rock and pop none of it was particularly exciting. The disco sound had a soaring, often reverberated vocals over a steady beat of strings, horns, electric pianos, and even orchestral instruments . But the key point was ... we could dress sexy. We could dress like Donna Summer. (Hence the Gloria Vanderbilt jeans) Hence the war with my mother about my wardrobe.)

We had seen newspapers that showed us that the it girl of the time Brooke Shields went to Studio 54 in New York, and that million dollar models Margot Hemingway and Janice Dickenson also went there. We read how the doormen turned away huge stars (including Henry Winkler, Warren Beatty, Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, and Frank Sinatra) in order to let in ‘sexy nobodies’ to mix with celebrities in order to concoct a place for the beautiful people. We were shocked and impressed that Disco had the power to turn away THE FONZE! (Henry Winkler was god in the1970’s). Copy cat versions of the legendary Studio 54 were opening all over the globe. We needed to become sexy nobodies...

Of course sexiness was not something the average 1970’s child discussed with an adult. I had ‘the talk’ of course, a detailed no holds barred infomercial on the joys of MARITAL sex and how the ultimate fulfilment of MARTIAL sex would be grandchildren for my parents which they do not expect to see until they are VERY repeat VERY old. Thus the desire to look and be thought of as sexy was not something you chatted about much (at all) with your folks. There was no way that any of my friends parents would fund the kind of wardrobe our love affair with disco required. However the solution was simple. Get a Saturday job. Buy sexy clothes. Keep them in a bag. Get changed once away from the parental home. 1970’s parenting was not as hands-on as it is today as long as we appeared occupied and were neither about to produce life nor end our own, our parents did not entertain themselves with fretting about us.

In lieu of deeper instruction from our elders, we had magazines. There was nothing you couldn't learn from amagazine. Fab 208 was great for music stuff and stalking celebs but for real life instruction we had Jackie Magazine.... famous for the fact it discussed ‘below the waist issues’ on the Cathy and Claire Page. Cathy and Claire were like your trendy big sisters who’d tell you what your parents wouldn’t. Cathy and Claire told us how to practice kissing, how to deal with a friend who wants to steel your guy, and how far is too far if you want to keep your reputation when it comes to boys. Even when in 1974 when the pill became free through the NHS our big sisters at Jackie gave proper advice on a page called ‘Dear Doctor’. They also showed us how look great in halter tops, shiny satin tops, polyester pantsuits, hot pants, sequinned frocks, and platform shoes.

Then one evening (December I think it was) in 1976... we were watching the Today Show because queens of disco or not we still liked the rock band Queen and they were due to be on it. We tuned in and the presenter Bill Grundy was presenting a filler as Queen couldn’t make it- he said something like...

“These are punk rockers. Its the new craze, they tell me. They're a group called the Sex Pistols”

The camera opened its shot to show us the presenter was surrounded by some peculiarly dressed boys who were revelling in the spotlight and a girl from Bromley called Siouxsie Sioux who seemed to blatantly be offering the hapless presenter sexual intrigue.

What happened after that is well documented. The world literally tiled on its axis and NOTHING was ever the same again. (It is also the most requested piece of archive TV on YouTube). It doesn’t matter how many times I rewatch that particular sequence nothing will ever take me back to the emotions of that moment. It would be impossible to recreate the combination of intense shock and intense joy that finally almost thirty years after youth culture was defined the divide between young and old was made permanent.It has become a moment I have since come to lament. Respect for your elders be they an old drunk TV presenter or the institution of television itself is probably no bad thing. But hey...it happened. (Funny to think one of those foul mouthed lads now advertises a brand of butter while striding around the English countryside wearing plus fours).

But music changed from that day forward, even for us Disco queens. Our clothing changed again. (Although out in the suburbs punk was so diluted that my ‘safety-pin’ earrings came from Richard Shops in the high street and were clip-on’s). Even our new anti-heroes were less cutting edge than the fabled Sex Pistols... we liked everything from Sham 69 to the Boomtown Rats (but these days will only own up to liking The Clash). In fact we were so suburban that we really liked Elvis Costello thinking ‘Watching the Detectives ‘was the way forward. Our clothing changed yet again when Ska made a comeback and joined forces with punk influences and we were blasting The Specials (Too much to Young) out of our bedroom windows. (Our parents despairing of the lyrics referring to a girls contraceptive needs and wishing for songs where June rhymed with Moon). Never let it be under estimated how much anyone over the age of 25 felt completely cut adrift from the youth of the day - the Today programme broadcast of December 1976 had redefined everything.

Meanwhile technology moved on from the heady days of the digital watch in ’71, through to calculators in ’72, to a whole heap of fuss about computers and digital cameras in the middle of the decade. No one in the suburbs cared about most of that middle decade technology, computers were for boffins and we all used instamatic camera that took a cartridge (126 film that was really easy to load and unload) and you took it to the chemist when you wanted to see your pictures. If you wanted good gossip on your neighbours you’d go into the chemist... he knew EVERYTHING and sometimes he’s have made extra copies of the photos to illustrate the point.

The only photos that REALLY mattered to my friends were the ones we got out of the photo booths. A lot of our youth was spent balancing on each others knees in photo booths trying to capture the group bonhomie. We’d take a few strips a week and save the best shots of ourselves sellotaping the backs of them together so they’d form a long concertinaed strip. We’d keep them in our purses. I have no idea why as I have no recollection of ever showing the strip of photos to anyone, but I do recall diligently working on them. Real photos (ie those taken on my instamatic) were put into albums. The photos from 126 films always seemed to be developed with a white border framing them. It seems quaint now but it was the norm. Photos were always high gloss and the frame was to stop fingerprints on the picture. The new self adhesive albums had just become available, meaning you were now released from the chore of having to glue your photos in. These were primarily holiday albums.

Although the era of global travel began in 1970 when the first Pan Am Boeing 747 jet landed at Heathrow, no one we knew really went anywhere. The newspapers were always saying that air travel is now so cheap it is possible to take a holiday in almost any part of the world. I don't think theidea of jet travel was initially tempting to our parents generartion who were mcuch more excited about camper vans. It was a true status symbol to have a Knowsley Clubman parked in your drive. It told the world that you could at any moment freewheelto somewhere like Camber Sands, or Dorset. It was considered a little over the top to wish to take a family holiday 'Abroad'. We were thought of as exotic in our suburb,as we took our summer break in The Lake District and one year we even went to Wales. This did not mean we were immune from the overwhelming developments in air travel though. The fastest passenger aeroplane in the world (Concorde) came into service in 1976. It was built by Britain and France and it could fly at about 2,100 kilometres per hour...the speed of sound! It made an amazing whooshing noise when it went overhead. I know this because it did just that when I was in Wales. And I took a photo – and put in my self adhesive album.

The glue came out for scrapbooks. It was a regular activity for some unknown reason – like the concertina of photo booth photos. You’d cut out pictures of things you liked or keep souvenirs of places you’ve been and glue them in a book. I found one of mine the other day. It has magazine pictures of cars (Aston Martin, Triumph TR7, two door Capri and a MGB GT), pop stars (Michael Jackson, Phil Lynott and Stuart Woody Woods), entry tickets (to DreamLand Margate, and the roller disco under the arches at Charing Cross Station), local newspaper article (of the trees chopped down due to dutch elm disease), a Queen Elizabeth silver jubilee napkin and 2 celebrity photos- me with Leonard Rossiter (actor) and me with Jim Callaghan (prime minster) . All involved in the last items are wearing questionable outfits.

I’m glad I did those scrapbooks now. I’ve clearly forgotten much more of the decade than I lived. But you don’t forget your feelings, When I think of the 1970’s I don’t feel depressed or sad. I usually smile. I remember blackouts and strikes of course- I don’t whitewash my memories. But the decade suffers a bad press. It was a decade of change, ad with change comes some strife. But change only comes when people can see another way... sometimes a better way. I’m so glad i was there. I’m so glad I experienced it first hand and my memories are not received from the telly or told to me by some expert with an agenda. I smile at my memories because like the vast majority of people who were there... it was fun to have a front seat when history was being written by people with big collars, crazy hair.... and platform shoes.


The JaxWorld Blog can be followed on Twitter-http://twitter.com/#!/JaxWorldBlog


If you enjoyed this blog and you want to contact Jax or find out more about the JaxWorld blog, pls log onto :http://thejaxworldblog.vpweb.co.uk/

Thanks for continuing to vote for JaxWorld as the Best Blog about Stuff and for ALL your support that has made this blog such a huge success.

Wednesday 20 April 2011

BLOG 153: Man overboard!

“I have been made redundant before and it is a terrible blow; redundant is a rotten word because it makes you think you are useless.” Billy Connolly

Billy Connolly was a ship builder in the shipyards of the Clyde. The Scottish river gained a reputation for being the best location for shipbuilding in the British Empire, and grew to become the world's pre-eminent shipbuilding centre.Clydebuilt became an industry benchmark of quality, and the river's shipyards were given contracts for prestigious ocean-going liners as well as warships, including the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth 2 in later years. Today, although regeneration of the area into housing is underway - sadly the harbour itself is, to put it mildly, an eyesore filled with sunken wrecks.

Shipbuilding to me is the symbol of industrial decline in the UK. , the tattered remnants of these once major employers are a haunting reminder of how thins can simply rot away. This time last century the shipyards of the UK produced more tonnage in naval and merchant ships than the rest of the world put together. By the close of the century when British luxury cruise companies took delivery of some of the largest cruise ship in the world... not one was built in the UK. This century our navy needs two new aircraft carriers... and they will be built in France. In my lifetime i have see our nation unable to continue manufacturing goods in almost every one of the heavy industries. I have seen the docks of my city close, the mines of my county close, the steelworks where by first boyfriends father worked close, and the car plant where my uncle worked close. My heart went out to the shipbuilders, the miners, the steelworkers, the car makers... unfortunate victims of the changing tides... Britain doesn’t make things anymore... we’re not a blue collar economy any more.

The docks where I used to watch the huge banana boats come in has been redeveloped into a white collar trading area, the colliery locomotive that used to haul coal become a tourist attraction, the steel plant where my first boyfriends father added nickel to ore is now a recording studio, my uncles car plant is in the process of become a retail centre and a hotel. The real price of industrial decline is never paid by the landscape (even Clydeside is being redeveloped), it’s not really paid by a nation’s loss of prestige in an area they once dominated.

It’s paid in something much more poignant. In people branded as surplus to requirements, not what we need to go forward, of no use, redundant.

As Billy Connelly said... it makes you think you ARE useless.

Skilled men, with crafts honed over generations... suddenly of no use.

Well those days are behind us. A new generation fill the work place. And how the work place has changed. Less than a third of people in the UK work jobs involve making things (manufacturing). Almost three quarters of the workforce are involved in tertiary jobs (providing a service). Yet we are no more immune from being branded surplus to requirements, not what we need to go forward, of no use, redundant than our blue collared siblings.White collar redundancies are now the flavour of the day. Heavy job losses in the business services sectors are filling our Job Centres with jobless managers and professionals. Over 1 million white collar workers have found themselves subject to an unfavourable ‘consultancy processes’ designed to highlight which members of staff should be thrown overboard and which to keep for ballast. And found themselves to be jetsam.

Dictionaries are a wonderful source of getting over the point:

jetsam - the part of a ship's equipment or cargo that is thrown overboard to lighten the load in a storm. Unwanted material or goods that have been thrown overboard from a ship and washed ashore, esp. material that has been discarded to lighten the vessel.

And that nautical theme brings me back to that ex-shipbuilder Billy Connelly... “...redundant is a rotten word because it makes you think you are useless”.

Modern day redundancies are designed to do just that. Consultancy processes are designed to make it quite clear It’s not the way the country is trading that has cost you your employment (the whole place isn’t closing down) it’s YOU. They’ll be keeping the guy on the next desk. The most popular reasoning being that businesses can slash costs by getting rid of long-serving and, most significantly, more expensive staff. Loyalty and success have become liabilities in a world where senior management incompetency’s are being disguised behind a global economic crisis.Being made redundant when the industry has gone is one thing... but being made redundant when quite simply those your trust to represent the source of your income have messed up....is something else.

Yesterday I was advised of yet for redundancies at a former employer of mine who is still navigating the ship through stormy waters and casting double figures of jetsam as it sails. Good people most of them, loyal, successful and totally undeserving of the fate they suffered. I know they’ll put a brave face on it and do whatever they can to stay afloat while never ceasing to look out for a better ship. But I also know that no matter how they rationalise it and no matter how brave the face they put on it there will be horrors ahead. I know because I’ve been there. I know that because the whole industry didn’t disappear, it will feel like it is just you. I know that you will feel useless on so many different levels. I know that when something happens to you personally it is almost impossible to take it any other way but personally. I know that they will find that getting new employment will be an uphill struggle the magnitude of they had never invisaged. I also know that they will come through.

Being on a good ship sailed by an incompetent master of the vessel means that it was NEVER going to get to its destination no matter how well built the ship. It doesn’t matter how well you played your part if the officers can’t play theirs to the same ability. It’s actually a gift to be thrown overboard.

You’ve got better to come than being on board when THEIR ship finally sinks...

Over to Billy for a closing word on life after redundancy:

“The world's a wonderful place... I just think that some people are pretty badly represented...they viewed me as just a welder who knew a few jokes. Life for me now is great. I`m a very f***in` wealthy person, I`m married to a very beautiful woman and I get laid with monotonous regularity.”

The JaxWorld Blog can be followed on Twitter-http://twitter.com/#!/JaxWorldBlog



If you enjoyed this blog and you want to contact Jax or find out more about the JaxWorld blog, pls log onto :http://thejaxworldblog.vpweb.co.uk/

Thanks for continuing to vote for JaxWorld as the Best Blog about Stuff and for ALL your support that has made this blog such a huge success.

Friday 15 April 2011

BLOG 152: With Friends Like These?



"Watch me and you will overcome the anxieties I have just reminded you of." Michael Schudson

A constant source of trauma for my thirty something friends are the never ending re-runs of Friends on TV. It’s like the TV equivalent of the picture in the attic in reverse... like my friends become the picture and Dorian Gray is the TV show. Now I know that sounds strange, but a thirty something girl with a mouthful of Doritos waving a glass of wine at my TV while shouting abuse at an old sit-com is MUCH stranger.... believe me!

Oh where do I start?...
Oh yeah...the beginning....

Elisha was a fresh faced 18 year old who was ‘helping’ my next door neighbour, Mike, through his text-book midlife crisis. The neighbourhood I lived in at the time was certainly upwardly mobile...some would even say posh... but certainly not upwardly mobile enough to be in the bracket whereby a man could deal with the his diminishing youth by purchasing a supercar or a speedboat (thus Mike worked out his issues by enjoying Elisha’s youth). I’d sometimes bump into her as I disembarked my Thursday night train home from town. It seemed silly to shadow each other on the 10 minute walk from the station so over time, we’d walk up together and chat.

Elisha out grew Mike’s mid-life crisis, and I moved from that address years ago... but Elisha and I have remained friends. The thing we both always remember is that our friendship formed over a series of 10 minute walks from the station on Thursday nights. And yes... It is rather precise to remember which night of the week our paths use to cross.

But we both remember it so well as Thursday nights back in 1994 were the nights when everyone used to hurry home from town. As on Thursday nights in 1994, Channel Four were broadcasting a little American Sit-Com called Friends. It was the one night in the week when the fashionable place to be was at home. Mid Nineties - we ALL watched Friends.

Of course Friends stopped being made some years ago. When it stopped fresh faced Elisha was 28... which means that at time going to press she’s now a resolutely a thirty-something (and still younger than Mike was in 1994!) [Sorry Leish! Couldn’t resist].

However, the other night Elisha was round at my place, and I had E4 on in the back ground as we lay waste to a couple of bottles of red. And suddenly we became aware of The Rembrandts singing "I'll Be There for You". We looked up and there was a very young looking Monica trying to convince her older boyfriend Richard that their future couldn’t support his plan to have no further children.

“Jeez!” said Elisha “How long ago was this?... ninety five, ninety six?”

I shrugged. I kind of lost track of TV during the late 90’s due to juggling having a relationship, child, home and career to run. I stuffed more Doritos in my mouth in lieu of answering and hoped the question proved to be rhetorical.

“You know what I hate about this programme having never gone away even though they stopped making it eons ago?” Elisha (or more probably the wine) asked tetchily.

I realised she wasn’t being rhetorical after all so made some crunching noises that could be mistaken for me participating in the conversation.

“The fact they look sooooo YOUNG! I mean... look that’s Courtney Cox right?... and there she is playing a young girl dating an older man... Hell, when this episode was out I was thinking it was kind of cool she was doing with Richard what I was doing with Mike... Now she’s playing that bird in Cougar Town...suddenly now she’s the old person sniffing after young meat... when did THAT happen! Honestly... I hate these re-runs... they remind me I’m getting old.”

The wine was making her quite passionate about her little rant, so I flicked over to a music channel and refilled our glasses. The evening got back on track, despite the rather unattractive vision of Elisha shouting at Courtney Cox for reminding her that the 90’s (and therefore her youth) was a substantial chunk of time ago!

Being older than Elisha I had to subdue a little giggle... it’s a time worn passage that for each and every one of us some icon from your youth will pop up and remind you of one of two things. One... time passes seamlessly. Or. Two... time ravages ruthlessly. And the sight of someone from your youth will make you stop and take stock of where you are at now. Sometimes you do a little pointless comparison (which is always daft when it’s you the ordinary bod versus some ex-idol from the entertainment world!)but most of the time we hav to acknowledge that time stands still for none of us...getting older is what we do. Happens to us ALL.

However, something happened today that made me realise what Elisha was saying was actually a different point all together.

And it happened because I stumbled upon an even older example of ensemble cast TV.

A few years before Friends there was a drama series called ‘Thirtysomething’. It was pretty much ground breaking stuff, introducing intelligent scripts to US TV series and picked up a whole heap of awards during its half decade run. However, when it stopped being made it kind of vanished (along with all of its alumni)from the public conciousness.

Like almost everyone else, I’d forgotten completely about Thirtysomething. It was TV of it's time... although the ‘ground-breaking’ way it was shot was amazing at the time, it would look dated today as technology has moved on. Another problem is that the late 80’s and early 90’s really were the years that fashion forgot so adding that to the jerky camera angles practically guarantees that it wouldn't screen well on today’s high definition television. The fact that none of the ensemble cast went on to achieve anything of note after the series ended certainly meant that rerunning Thirtysomething would not a priority for any TV schedule here in the UK.

But... totally by accident while channel surfing at the wrong end of the dial(the Gold channels)... on flickered Thirtysomething. I wasn’t really paying much attention to what I was doing and probably would have surfed on by but a piece of dialogue made me stop. What made me look up was a conversation the three female characters were having in a kitchen about a character that was off screen. It was as intelligent and as beautifully written piece of dialogue that you would find anywhere... and it was as relevant to today’s women was it was for the ones it was written about/for. Thirtysoemthing was on my TV!...I looked up at the screen. And there they were... Hope, Melissa and Nancy discussing Suzanna. And what got me was not the stonewashed high waisted denim, the satellite dish earrings or the fact the state of the art kitchen they were talking in seemed to be constructed entirely from pine with little barley twists (though it was a bit of a distraction)... but the fact they all looked ... SO YOUNG! (Bizzare because when it was originally broadcast here, I recall thinking that they were all so OLD).

It was exactly what Elisha was trying to say about the re-runs of Friends. In real life she is way (and I mean WAY) younger than the actress playing Monica. However the episode she was almost watching at my house was probably 15 years old, making the older actress YOUNGER than her eternally. It kind of shifts your perspective watching something you originally watched thinking ‘these are older people’ when a significant period of time has passed from when you first viewed it– especially if you are now older than character you see on screen.

I rang Elisha with my light bulb moment and she laughed. (It took a while as she had little recollection of the entire evening as there really were far too many bottle of wine). However when she did finally get on the same page she did make me laugh when she said:

“At least the Thirtysomething cast had the decency to retire from public life and spare you the spectacle of watching them publically prune up, bulk up, wrinkle up, gray up - or in the case of the Friends-girls get ridiculously younger than when it all started – I tell you I can’t wait for Autumn this year when Friends finally stops being re-run over here”

I really didn’t have the heart to tell her that actually it’s just the end of the terrestrial contract. It seems come autumn Friends are just switching over to cable and that there is every chance that Elisha is just gonna keep getting older than Monica for a LONG while yet!

Makes it all just a tad sinister when you think of the portrait of Dorian Gray and suddenly hear the Rembrandts chirpy lyric:
“I'll be there for you
Like I've been there before”



The JaxWorld Blog can be followed on Twitter-http://twitter.com/#!/JaxWorldBlog
If you enjoyed this blog and you want to contact Jax or find out more about the JaxWorld blog, pls log onto :http://thejaxworldblog.vpweb.co.uk/
Thanks for continuing to vote for JaxWorld as the Best Blog about Stuff and for ALL your support that has made this blog such a huge success.

Thursday 7 April 2011

BLOG 151: RIGHT SIDE OF THE BED!




“People who say life is a bed of roses usually complain about sleeping in thorns” Anon Swedish Saying

There is just one thing that is a problem about being single.

“Just one?” I hear you cry... “Just how far in denial are you Jax?”. But hear me out. Most problems are just challenges in disguise and once you have that head on, it’s a case of problem what problem? Being released from coupledom is an opportunity to be self supporting, self aware... and a marvellous opportunity to be selfish for a while! After years of putting someone else first it is life enhancing to be selfish and self indulgent: You can eat what you want (no more offal based meals just cause he likes liver and bacon!), take liberties with beauty regimes (who needs to wax everything..all the time eh?), money doesn’t get directed onto to things you don’t care for (no more supporting a petrol-heads fixation on Lamborghinis), watch the movies you like (Oh no... how will Bruce Willis et al survive now you aren’t welded in a cinema seat every time an explosion fest is released). It’s pretty rewarding to be realise that you can stand on your own two feet... and it is great fun to indulge yourself. Problem what problem?

But there is just one problem.
A huge problem.
Actual measurements.... 108 x 102 inches.
Yep... the bed.

When I bought my bed, I had a whole different set of priorities. I was buying a place to in which I could gain cuddles, comfort, closeness, intimacy and human warmth. Oh yeah and somewhere big enough to spin like a top should the tantric moments allow. Once purchased my use of it was also dominated by my relationship. I had a side. I took the side farthest from the bedroom door. The occupant of the other side was almost a barrier between me and anything dangerous that may lurk the other side of the door whilst we snoozed. (Funny really as the only dangerous thing would be one of our angry cats and even wimpy old moi could have handled that!) I knew what side of the bed I was getting out in the morning.

It’s very important to get out of the right side of the bed in the morning.

Starting your days knowing that you are not compounding years of an unsatisfactory relationship with yet another 24hrs is a VERY positive thing. The slate is clean and the possibilities are endless. Until you try to fall asleep after another self supporting, self aware, self indulgent and slightly selfish day... and the big empty space on the other side of the bed reminds you that you are so alone. However there is an easy remedy... sleep in the middle.

Which is fine until you wake up the next morning with a graphic reminder that you are starting another day... alone. . Because the thing about sleeping in the middle is that you are always 51 inches from getting out of the right side of the bed. Now this isn’t a challenge... it’s a bonefide problem. The problem being that that waking up marooned in the middle means you ALWAYS seem to be getting out of the wrong side of the bed.

They don’t call being in a bad mood before noon getting out of the wrong side of the bed for nothing. Starting the day with the reminder of your unchosen status in the centre of a berth made for two is not a great place to begin the day. Having to double bounce before you can swing your legs over the side is guaranteed to make even the mildest person grouchy, irritable and wistful.

And before you say, well... get a single bed... stop. It’s a bizarre thing that as adults we just can’t revert back to single beds with ease. Its one thing admitting you are alone, it’s another to hang up your hard won adult trophy of a grown up bed and purchase the size of bed you once had a child.

It wasn’t so bad back in the far distant days of my childhood (when hardly anyone I knew was divorced). Married couples slept in double beds. These strange items were barely 15 inches wider than a single bed, giving couples of my parents’ generation just 27 inches each of personal space. The beds were also quite short by modern standards being a mere 75” in length. I should imagine one of the highlights of being divorced was being able to sleep diagonally and keep your toes warm!

Somewhere along the line (I’m guessing Sweden with their obsession with having a good nights sleep and a decent snuggle) the idea of a bed 6" wider and 5" longer than a double bed caught on. By the 70’s the smallest bed you could find in most homes across the continent of Europe was this size... it became known as the Queen.
With lower airfares (thank you Freddy Laker) we Brits began to realise that our cousins over the pond didn’t leave supersizing to just their food portions and gas-guzzling cars. The Americans introduced us to the super-size bed. With a set of logic that deserves a standing ovation for is transparent simplicity the yanks couldn’t understand why it was that a European double bed was not double the size of a European single. An American double bed was 80 inches in length and 76 inches in width – it was a proper double bed. However they loved the fact that Europeans called their new slightly bigger double bed a Queen... so decided to rebrand their version of the double bed as a King. After all what in an American’s mind is bigger than a Queen?

Well as we all know after the western world embraced the American Double... sorry... King Size Bed... it was game over for single beds. Single beds became the preserve of children and elderly people who don’t get on (though to be fair most of them were happily snoozing solo in a Queen.) In fact beds just kept on getting bigger and bigger... the recently bought flat sheet for my sleep pit says it measures 274 x 259 cms (DAMN YOU IKEA ...what the hell is that in inches???)... but even I can figure that’s a little bigger than a King. (For my American readers... what is bigger than a King?... an Emperor?!)

When couples set up home, the master bedroom is commonly arranged to accommodate a king size bed. When couples split up, out goes the personal effects of the recently departed, in comes a whole variety of personal taste in the boudoir. It becomes a room of wild self expression. (Especially for someone like me who went from sharing with siblings straight to sharing with partners, [Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200 ...], who had never had her own bedroom decorating was a blast!). And yet there is still some restraint(unless one is really reckless) you stick with the old bed - you’ve just lost 50% of the income into the household so throwing out the 2nd most expensive piece of furniture is a no go. So there you are with a huge bit of furniture and the challenge is to make it your own.

So you shop till you drop and now the pillows match and co-ordinate with your new 180 – 500 thread count sheets and duvet. You even do what no couple (apart from the whipped variety) would ever do... go crazy with cushions and a pointless foot throw. Challenge won! You have made the bed your own.

But the problem remains....

Just how the hell does a singleton get out of the right side of Emperor sized bed?



The JaxWorld Blog can be followed on Twitter-http://twitter.com/#!/JaxWorldBlog


If you enjoyed this blog and you want to contact Jax or find out more about the JaxWorld blog, pls log onto :http://thejaxworldblog.vpweb.co.uk/

Thanks for continuing to vote for JaxWorld as the Best Blog about Stuff and for ALL your support that has made this blog such a huge success.

Tuesday 5 April 2011

Blog 150: No-Phobes and Pooh Poohing



Edmund: I can assure you, sir, that the pooh-poohing was purely circumstantial” From Blackadder Part IV Episode V


My mum is a great reader of people. She worked in social care for most of her working life and developed the ability to be able to read what is not being said possibly faster than any one on earth. I used to ask her... “But HOW did you know they were lying?” she answered simply... “Because they could never explain why not quickly... it was always a multitude of excuses when simply one sound reason would do”.


I’ve never forgotten those words of wisdom. They have stood me in good stead through many of lifes adversities. When people really have a reason not to do something this is always communicated clearly and succinctly - anything else is just bluff and bluster.


My friend John was looking for a position in pediatric neurosurgery and showed me a sheaf of letters turning down his applications. They were all one page and to the point. They thanked him for his application and advised him that due to budget restrictions they were not looking at recruiting at this time. He never once received one that read: “Dear John, Thank you for your application for the position of Brain Surgeon, we really really really wanted to take you on but unfortunately we couldn’t because a) the is no room in the car park for your vehicle, b) you did mention you are vegetarian and the canteen can’t cope with that and c) we’re all Virgo’s here and I noticed on your application your date of birth indicates you are a Pisces and we're sure you are equally as wary of astrological hell. But if you are ever passing this way please do pop in for a coffee as we think you are a really really nice bloke” No. When a letter is sent declining an offer it usually offers just one clear reason - Just like the letters in Johns sheaf of No's. When people have a real reason not to do something they let you know directly and seldom fob you off.


Everyone accepts on some level that sometimes people (even people you love) will have to decline when you offer them something. It’s the way of things. We hear no all through our lives, in fact the no’s of our formative years is what gives us the moral compass of our latter ones. Actually when you think about it, it is so deep in our culture that we have gone so far as to enshrine the word NO in Law. It is our law that NO is a word we all have the right to use and a duty to communicate it clearly. It is incumbant upon the hearer of the word NO to graciously accept its finality. So of all peoples we chould be the most confident that when we punt an idea out there... one of the possible outcomes is a no. It is a right of someone to be able to decline an activity (providing doing so does not put another at risk). And to prevent a refusal for being long winded (and therefore protracted and open to confusion), NO is a very short word. Of course we dress it up with a thank you but (and even a sorry thrown in after) but as a nation we are pretty good with dealing with declining offers. It's a calculated risk on the part of the offeree and we all know how to handle it.


However there are people who just can’t manage one of the shortest words in the English language. If you have a bright idea and punt it out to the group...instead of saying no, they say YES!, then they fudge about commitment, then come the excuses. Not one. Not two. Always three (and upwards for the more inexperienced No-phobe). It’s curious how people who have no good reason to say no will instead pour a multitude of thin excuses over your bright idea.


It is when this occurs that one usually concludes that these people get some sort of pleasure from to pooh-pooh your bright ideas. However we are not correct according to the men in white coats. Scientists claim that these transparent multitudinous excuses are actually caused by a chemical imbalance in the brains of No-Phobes.


Current thinking is that these people suffer from a desperate desire to gain momentary approval from those they know. The easiest way to do this is to make firm future commitments with people whose approval they lust for. They never actually schedule time for these future commitments as the chemical imbalance in their brain makes them mistakenly think that the activities that compete for time today are irrelevant to those that will compete for time in the future. So when it comes to actually fulfilling the commitment, they discover they are too busy to do everything they’ve committed to. Rather than admit that they have neither the commitment nor desire to fulfil the obligation, they find reasons why the pledge could not have ever worked out for them, thus giving themselves the illusion of control. (Source: Journal of Experimental Psychology)


It’s a lot of words to say EXCUSES. (sorry J.E.P, I know you are a very learned journal but it is!) I’ll stick with what my Mum told me- excuses are not reasons. Reasons never put down the commitment because a reason is what you give not to take on a commitment in the first place!


I used to live on the route of the London Marathon. I used to stand on my balcony and watch the competitors go by. I have never had the slightest inclination to do a marathon on the grounds I just don’t want to. I’ve never given an excuse. My reason is simply “No, it’s not for me”. I have never given a list of faux medical conditions or lifestyle choices... I’m just not a compete in the London Marathon kind of gal.


But I've never minded watching those who do. One of the best bits of standing on my balcony watching the competitors was watching the elite race for disabled people whizz by. Now those were athletes. “I could have been a marathon runner, but I lost my leg in a car accident.” is not something you hear those guys and gals saying. It could be thought of as a supporting reason NOT to do it, but they hear it as it sounds…It is just an excuse. The only acceptable reason for not doing it is “No, London Marathon Elite Race for Disabled people?...it’s not for me”. As much as I applaud those who do take on something a amazing as a marathon (even with a disablement), I applaud those who decline without excuses. It may be our right to say NO, but still ... takes a lot of strength of character to be able to say "NO, it’s not for me" straight out of the gate.


No-Phobes say an emphatic YES every time they are asked to commit to anything because they fear the unpopularity associated with saying no. They are always the ones who are most looking forward to what ever it is and requesting the most updates. Then the time comes for them to deliver and they can’t. The fear of unpopularity is now a source of huge pressure on them so they scrape together a few supporting reasons that could help them feel that it is not their fault.


And that is the thing. What sounds in the head of a No-Phobe as a supporting reason (or three) – is nothing more than an excuse (or three)… and the recipient can tell (as my Mum’s careers of dealing with the liars of three boroughs is testament to). And the tell tale sign is they often blame the thing they have committed to. It's never the No-Phobes fault.


My friend Richielle works for a local charity. In September they advertised for a gratis venue to hold the old folks Xmas party and were kindly given the use of some elegant tearooms by a local lady-who- lunches. Four days before the event my friend received this message “I would have loved to lend the charity the venue … but it is, my son’s birthday, a few days away from Christmas and I have another party booked for the same date”. (Ahem… when you agreed to give the charity the venue did you not know the date your son was born, or that Christmas was coming or that the venue was already booked?) It was classic No-Phobe behaviour, the woman felt compelled to offer support (to win approval) but when it came down to it was unable to fulfill the obligation and came up with what she thought were three sound reasons why she was compelled to withdraw her support. And with three sound reasons given she felt she was in control by demonstrating it was the timing of the event that was at fault.


However all any No-Phobe does is show how NOT in control of the situation they are when they stage their retreat from commitment. People in control are truly committed to fulfill obligations, they never give up and they never give excuses. They never blame the obligation for they fact they can’t see it through because they never take on stuff they are not going to see through.


“You can make all the excuses you want, but don’t forget that when you make excuses, you’re not in control of the situation.”


Letting people down isn’t the route to being thought of as anything other than someone who deals in the opposite to honesty, integrity and confidence. How you react to external events is one of the things that will form people's impressions. If you are the person who always YES… then fails to deliver… it’s pretty clear what impression you are giving. You really don’t improve things much by offering a bunch of excuses made to make it seem that the commitment YOU took on is somehow out of line with you.


Coming to the situation with only a withdrawal to offer shows clearly that the commitment was never there. People who are committed come to a situation with solutions… not excuses.


Anyway, enuff said on No-Phobes - I think you get the point... they annoy me. SEE.... 1 good reason!!!!


As for those who who are mentioned in this blog...



  • My Mum is still a great reader of people. She still has no truck with No-Phobes!

  • John did gain a position in pediatric neurosurgery. He is working in Paris.

  • Richielle is still at the local charity. She hosted the Old Folks Xmas Party in a Grade III listed building donated free of charge.

  • I am still very much my mother's daughter. (On this matter at least).


The JaxWorld Blog can be followed on Twitter-http://twitter.com/#!/JaxWorldBlog

If you enjoyed this blog and you want to contact Jax or find out more about the JaxWorld blog, pls log onto :http://thejaxworldblog.vpweb.co.uk/

Thanks for continuing to vote for JaxWorld as the Best Blog about Stuff and for ALL your support that has made this blog such a huge success.