Today marks the day.
The day I finally gave up on something.
Something that took a lot of hard work.
I was hoping a lot.
I enjoyed it and disliked it.
Sometimes, maybe, horoscopes are true ...
Sunday, 19 August 2012
Kickboxing
Being a beginner kickboxer feels like a person dancing with two left feet. A good sport to sweat though. I am already dripping puddles after 30minutes o kickboxing :) Whats even better is that I can sweat it out at home, thanks to Youtube ...;)
Saturday, 18 August 2012
The best break-up advice
If i ever consider breaking up, I know who to watch to make me feel better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttJWWUvXPw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
And then his hillarious video about 'why u do not need a boyfriend to make you feel happy'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMFpZRDYha4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttJWWUvXPw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
And then his hillarious video about 'why u do not need a boyfriend to make you feel happy'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMFpZRDYha4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Friday, 17 August 2012
Love
 |
| Love at Fashion Island |
My trip to that other homeland of mine, California, was an impulsive and enlightening adventure. With ten days' notice I traipsed off to the airport with sponsored tickets in my paws and all the romantic hopes of a starry-eyed teen. I was treated to every graciousness, yet the same thing that kept my host and I apart when we actually were teens, all those decades ago, floated like a third party there between us. Logic wants to write that maturity and reason dictated our decisions, but it was simpler than that: the nature of some relationships just never changes, whether that nature is filled with hope and faith and everlasting love, or burdened with secrets and fear.
It had been six years since I'd left the Lava Rock to visit the land of my birth, and I'll always be grateful for the chance I got to go out this summer and fall in love with that land all over again. I didn't take many pictures; I suppose I was mostly too absorbed in the whole experience to stop and whip out my camera.
I did, though, feel compelled to take a photo of the couple pictured above. I was spacing out at the Newport Beach Fashion Island on a lovely warm day when I saw them. They were so glowing and serene, with smiles so warm and loving. I sat at a bench a distance from them and took some shots. When I realized that the man had noticed me, I strolled over and told them that they looked so happy that I just had to take a picture. They smiled at me and actually giggled a bit. Then the man said, "We are happy. We're still in love like it's our honeymoon, and we've been together for 56 years!" My immediate reaction was to place my palms together at heart center and bow to them, and thank them for being so beautiful, and so eternally in love.
 |
| Lunch in Malibu |
California, I Love You!
Assange Cultism
Forgive me for blogging twice in as many days, but the reaction to my blog of last night is, to me, much more interesting than the actual subject matter.
I'm not "pro" or "anti" Assange, nor to be honest do I have strong feelings on Wikileaks. I attempted yesterday evening to write a blog clarifying the situation without too much by the way of commentary. I'd seen lots of information being banded about that I knew to be wrong and wanted to set out my understanding of the facts.
Conspiracy Theories
As a result I've come face to face with what many describe as the "cultism" around Julian Assange. I have been told for example:
Above is a nice example. He has "talked to [sic] much.. and now has to pay the bill". There then follows the glib dismissal of allegations of a rape by shoving the term in inverted commas. Time and time again people downgrade the seriousness of sexual offences in a similar way. Owen Jones' excellent, balanced article on Assange today in the Independent had the alleged victims described as "two easy lays" and "hairy lipped feminists". Welcome to "Misogyny R Us".
There is little point trying to argue against these wild assertions. Why would the CIA set up the rape allegations to get Assange to Sweden, then ask for his extradition? Why choose rape, which is notoriously hard to prove (his word against hers, etc) if this is a CIA "set up"? Why didn't the US try to extradite him from the UK? Why demand an assurance from Sweden not to extradite, believing it to be a corrupt US poodle, when such assurance could then be broken? Why convene a secret jury to sentence him to death? Why not just "take him out" (in a car crash for example whilst he was hiding in isolated rural Suffolk) - isn't that more fitting to the Bond movies that clearly inform these minds? You can ask questions, there's an answer for all of it.
One woman told me the rape allegations had been dropped by the complainants. When I asked for a link on this she said she had "heard it a while ago on Twitter". Yep, that means it MUST be true, just like Prince Philip's recent death. Even people as reputable as Stephanie Flanders get things wrong, such as that completely misleading BMW Olympics sexism story which I also blogged on recently. My dog Oscar "tweets". Guess what, you shouldn't believe everything he says either. I *do* feed him enough biscuits.
If you're going to say "the truth is.." back it up with some facts, please.
The Personal Stuff
Then there are the personal attacks. I wrote what I hoped was a balanced, neutral, informative piece. I was accused of lying about being a lawyer. I was told it was an incredibly biased piece and complete rubbish. I'm a "moron to the highest degree", "I am a gullible idiot" etc.
[Update]: I particularly liked this one, which actually came in in relation to this post. For having pointed out that reactions can be a bit extreme I am labelled "an enemy of humanity":
[Update 2]: This rather special one received 24/8/12 rather proves the thesis in Tweet A by the response in Tweet B:
Most of the tweets I have received have come from accounts without the people's actual faces on them. Most seem to have few followers and can't spell properly or use proper grammar. The language is fantastical and dramatic: "the US Empire", "enemies", "conspiracy", "in secret", "witch hunt", "war", "shining a light into the dark world of" etc. They represent the little man, just as Assange does. They hold the truth and use that word, and the word "actually", to back up their assertions. These people have read their books, seen their movies and they know there are state agents lurking round every corner to deal with them. This presumably is why they don't reveal their identity on Twitter. It's just not safe! Their timelines are full of the same repetitive subject: #Assange, #Assange, #Assange
They have researched the details of the Swedish criminal allegations in depth: they know better than any police or judicial investigator, jury or judge what happened. We, of course, have experience in this closer to home from the way Twitter weighs in to any high profile investigation (Jo Yeates/ Chris Jeffries, Tia Sharpe etc) and people set themselves up as experts and arbitrators. I keep out of any trial by media or Twitter: how the hell can I judge (and why would I want to?) without the proper full range of evidence before me and the correct rules of court to govern their use. I personally really don't have much interest in sharing unsubstantiated tittle-tattle.
The full extent of how bat-shit crazy some of these people are can be seen by allegations made towards Owen Jones. He was accused of being a "racist idiot" (huh?), was told his position on Assange had left a huge question mark over his integrity, and was accused of being a state agent (anyone who knows Owen is no doubt rolling on the floor at this suggestion). I know David Allen Green has been the subject of this kind of thing for months and apparently Louise Mensch has been treated to similar today. Left, Centre and Right unite in being subject to this idiocy.
Radiator Fluid
Where does all this leave us? Well, I genuinely had no knowledge and no expectation of any of this. I'd heard of Assange Cultism, but this was my first experience of it. What I was trying to do was set out some facts, neutrally. There seem to be a few people who just attract this level of blind, fanatical devotion: Michael Jackson, Justin Bieber, Julian Assange. I did tweet a question as to whether Beliebers would grow up to become Assangists. A follower suggested it might be the other way round. Hmm!
I have nothing against Bieber, but I do find the hero worship unbalanced and at times frightening. Similarly, I really am not in position to say whether Assange is a knob or a saint. I've never met him and don't know him personally. What I can judge is the way many of his supporters appear unwilling to engage in any form of rational thought and spout every piece of utter nonsense they can in his defence. The world, the state, the CIA, the USA are all conspiring against him and them. Their behaviour changes nothing about what I think of Assange, but it has definitely opened my eyes about them.
Okay, I'm being a tad flippant now (permit me, I've been trolled quite a lot of late), but I do wonder if he told them to drink radiator fluid there would be a lot of fresh corpses dotted round the world.
I'm not "pro" or "anti" Assange, nor to be honest do I have strong feelings on Wikileaks. I attempted yesterday evening to write a blog clarifying the situation without too much by the way of commentary. I'd seen lots of information being banded about that I knew to be wrong and wanted to set out my understanding of the facts.
Conspiracy Theories
As a result I've come face to face with what many describe as the "cultism" around Julian Assange. I have been told for example:
- that the "rape" is all a CIA set up
- that the "feminist dialectic is really a smoke screen. The truth of the matter is: xxxx [the alleged rape victim] is a CIA collaborator"
- that Sweden is a vassal state of the USA and that it collaborates in illegal activities for the US Empire
- that a secret grand jury has already been convened to sentence Assange to death
- that there have been repeated calls from the US government for Assange's death. This was backed up by an interview with his Mum as "evidence"
Above is a nice example. He has "talked to [sic] much.. and now has to pay the bill". There then follows the glib dismissal of allegations of a rape by shoving the term in inverted commas. Time and time again people downgrade the seriousness of sexual offences in a similar way. Owen Jones' excellent, balanced article on Assange today in the Independent had the alleged victims described as "two easy lays" and "hairy lipped feminists". Welcome to "Misogyny R Us".
There is little point trying to argue against these wild assertions. Why would the CIA set up the rape allegations to get Assange to Sweden, then ask for his extradition? Why choose rape, which is notoriously hard to prove (his word against hers, etc) if this is a CIA "set up"? Why didn't the US try to extradite him from the UK? Why demand an assurance from Sweden not to extradite, believing it to be a corrupt US poodle, when such assurance could then be broken? Why convene a secret jury to sentence him to death? Why not just "take him out" (in a car crash for example whilst he was hiding in isolated rural Suffolk) - isn't that more fitting to the Bond movies that clearly inform these minds? You can ask questions, there's an answer for all of it.
One woman told me the rape allegations had been dropped by the complainants. When I asked for a link on this she said she had "heard it a while ago on Twitter". Yep, that means it MUST be true, just like Prince Philip's recent death. Even people as reputable as Stephanie Flanders get things wrong, such as that completely misleading BMW Olympics sexism story which I also blogged on recently. My dog Oscar "tweets". Guess what, you shouldn't believe everything he says either. I *do* feed him enough biscuits.
If you're going to say "the truth is.." back it up with some facts, please.
The Personal Stuff
Then there are the personal attacks. I wrote what I hoped was a balanced, neutral, informative piece. I was accused of lying about being a lawyer. I was told it was an incredibly biased piece and complete rubbish. I'm a "moron to the highest degree", "I am a gullible idiot" etc.
[Update]: I particularly liked this one, which actually came in in relation to this post. For having pointed out that reactions can be a bit extreme I am labelled "an enemy of humanity":
[Update 2]: This rather special one received 24/8/12 rather proves the thesis in Tweet A by the response in Tweet B:
Most of the tweets I have received have come from accounts without the people's actual faces on them. Most seem to have few followers and can't spell properly or use proper grammar. The language is fantastical and dramatic: "the US Empire", "enemies", "conspiracy", "in secret", "witch hunt", "war", "shining a light into the dark world of" etc. They represent the little man, just as Assange does. They hold the truth and use that word, and the word "actually", to back up their assertions. These people have read their books, seen their movies and they know there are state agents lurking round every corner to deal with them. This presumably is why they don't reveal their identity on Twitter. It's just not safe! Their timelines are full of the same repetitive subject: #Assange, #Assange, #Assange
They have researched the details of the Swedish criminal allegations in depth: they know better than any police or judicial investigator, jury or judge what happened. We, of course, have experience in this closer to home from the way Twitter weighs in to any high profile investigation (Jo Yeates/ Chris Jeffries, Tia Sharpe etc) and people set themselves up as experts and arbitrators. I keep out of any trial by media or Twitter: how the hell can I judge (and why would I want to?) without the proper full range of evidence before me and the correct rules of court to govern their use. I personally really don't have much interest in sharing unsubstantiated tittle-tattle.
The full extent of how bat-shit crazy some of these people are can be seen by allegations made towards Owen Jones. He was accused of being a "racist idiot" (huh?), was told his position on Assange had left a huge question mark over his integrity, and was accused of being a state agent (anyone who knows Owen is no doubt rolling on the floor at this suggestion). I know David Allen Green has been the subject of this kind of thing for months and apparently Louise Mensch has been treated to similar today. Left, Centre and Right unite in being subject to this idiocy.
Radiator Fluid
Where does all this leave us? Well, I genuinely had no knowledge and no expectation of any of this. I'd heard of Assange Cultism, but this was my first experience of it. What I was trying to do was set out some facts, neutrally. There seem to be a few people who just attract this level of blind, fanatical devotion: Michael Jackson, Justin Bieber, Julian Assange. I did tweet a question as to whether Beliebers would grow up to become Assangists. A follower suggested it might be the other way round. Hmm!
I have nothing against Bieber, but I do find the hero worship unbalanced and at times frightening. Similarly, I really am not in position to say whether Assange is a knob or a saint. I've never met him and don't know him personally. What I can judge is the way many of his supporters appear unwilling to engage in any form of rational thought and spout every piece of utter nonsense they can in his defence. The world, the state, the CIA, the USA are all conspiring against him and them. Their behaviour changes nothing about what I think of Assange, but it has definitely opened my eyes about them.
Okay, I'm being a tad flippant now (permit me, I've been trolled quite a lot of late), but I do wonder if he told them to drink radiator fluid there would be a lot of fresh corpses dotted round the world.
 |
| Oh my. |
Thursday, 16 August 2012
Assange
There seems to be a lot of confusion and continued misinformation about Julian Assange going around on Twitter. I'm not an expert, but here are eight points that I think are worth making:
1) He is Wanted in Connection with a Rape Investigation
People are still saying that he is wanted for "sex without a condom" which is an offence only in Sweden. Wrong. The European Arrest Warrant issued in respect of him clearly gives four offences that he is suspected of (but not yet charged for). They are one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one of rape.
The issue of whether these were offences under English law was considered by the High Court (click for judgment). Look at paragraphs 3, 78-91 (91 in particular). It is very clear that the alleged offence is rape under English criminal law. This very clear post by David Allen Green also sets out the situation: "English courts have held – twice – that the relevant allegation would also be an allegation of the offence of rape in English law"
Some people are saying "but he hasn't been charged". The High Court considered since and noted differences in procedure between England and Sweden. It determined he is clearly being "prosecuted". Whereas a suspect is charged early on in England, it is a final step in Sweden before trial. There is a prima facie case against him with sufficient evidence. Therefore extradition is possible, whereas in a case where someone is simply wanted for questioning it would not be.
2) This is the Personal Vendetta of one Swedish Prosecutor
Wrong. The Stockholm District Court made an arrest order against Mr Assange, which he then challenged in the Swedish Svea Court of Appeal. They examined the case in detail and determined there was probable cause and his arrest was justified. His appeal was dismissed.
3) He has not had Full Recourse to the Courts of this Country
Wrong. He has had a full hearing before the Senior District Judge and Chief Magistrate at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court on his extradition. It ordered his extradition to Sweden to face investigation (note, he is only the subject of an arrest warrant there and has not yet been charged). Mr Assange appealed this order to the High Court. It found against him. He appealed to the UK Supreme Court. It held against him.
4) He is a Fugitive from Justice
Indeed he is. After the Supreme Court ruling went against him, he skipped bail and sought refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador before his deportation was scheduled to take place (commencing 28 June 2012). He has therefore committed a separate criminal offence in this country for which he is wanted.
5) Britain has Threatened to Storm the Ecuador Embassy
It is debatable whether Britain has made an "open threat" to Ecuador as its foreign minister claims. The text of the letter delivered by a British diplomat is said to be a reminder of the law by the Foreign Office, and a threat by others. Judge for yourself. I believe it can most definitely be seen as clumsy and may well have pushed Ecuador into its decision to grant political asylum. As a small country it was keen to point out it was "not a British colony" and did not want to be seen to be bowing to pressure.
What the letter did not do was suggest Britain would break national or international law, which of course might well spark a serious international incident. There is a power under English law to withdraw diplomatic recognition from a premises, which was introduced after the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher. However, as Carl Gardner points out here very clearly any such decision must be in accordance with international law. To do so would set a very difficult precedent and more than anything this looks to me like very clumsy saber rattling (that had of course, the opposite of the desired effect).
As for the SAS being about to storm the Embassy? You've been watching too many movies. A dull court case argued by public international lawyers is a lot more likely than that ever happening.
6) Assange Can Now Leave the Country
Wrong. He is stuck inside the Embassy of Ecuador in London and the moment he leaves the building, he is liable to be arrested. Beginning in August 1989 and in the run up to November 1989, up to 20,000 East German citizens sought asylum in the West German Embassy in Prague. This presented a massive problem: they had to be housed and fed in the grounds of the Lobkowicz Palace because they could not leave until a diplomatic solution was found.
The only feasible way of getting Assange from the Embassy and to a flight out of the country would be for him to be granted citizenship of Ecuador and then to be made a diplomat. This would give him diplomatic immunity from arrest. It's highly unlikely, but in with the Assange affair one never knows.
[Post script: it's been pointed out to me that the UK would have to accept his appointment as a diplomat. Even more unlikely, so we can discount this one. Thanks @AdrianShort and @PeterNew!]
7) He faces a Secret Trial and/or he will be Extradited to America where he faces Death Penalty
I prefer to try to deal with facts. There is nothing to suggest either case. Sweden is far from being a tin-pot democracy. It is a fellow EU member and ranks amongst the very highest countries in the world for lack of corruption (Sweden is currently 4th in the Corruption Perception Index; the UK is 16th). If I personally had to go on trial anywhere, knowing I was innocent, I'd be quite happy to trust judicial process in any Scandinavian country.
The UK is interested in fulfilling its legal duty to extradite him to Sweden to face a criminal investigation. There has not, to the best of my knowledge, been any request to extradite him to the US made to either the UK or to Sweden. Arguably it would be less likely for this to take place from Sweden than from the UK in any case (see the many criticisms of our lenient US extradition policy).
Finally, both the United Kingdom and Sweden are prohibited from extraditing anyone who faces the death penalty under the European Convention of Human Rights.
8) The Man and the Movement
It is perfectly possible to support Wikileaks and the principles it stands for, whilst seeing Julian Assange as an individual to be judged on his own merits. Why is that so controversial or difficult to grasp?
Mr Assange is innocent until proven guilty of all the offences which he faces. He has not yet been charged. However, it seems fair to say that he has skipped bail in this country and that he is a fugitive from justice, who is wanted for questioning regarding very serious criminal sexual offences.
This issue is not like choosing sides in a soccer match. You can be pro-Wikileaks and keen to see the rule of law operate. This does not make you anti-Assange, an Assange Hater or anything else. I, like you, have no idea whether he is guilty of the alleged crimes back in August 2010. I do feel that the alleged victims deserve to be taken seriously, having taken the step of reporting the alleged offences to the Police, and that they should have some form of closure.
It is frankly irrelevant who the man is who is wanted for questioning, and what other great things he may (or may not) have done. If you believe in judicial process and the rule of law, it is hard to argue he should not return to Sweden for questioning (after, of course, dealing with the consequences of his behaviour here in jumping bail).
1) He is Wanted in Connection with a Rape Investigation
People are still saying that he is wanted for "sex without a condom" which is an offence only in Sweden. Wrong. The European Arrest Warrant issued in respect of him clearly gives four offences that he is suspected of (but not yet charged for). They are one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one of rape.
The issue of whether these were offences under English law was considered by the High Court (click for judgment). Look at paragraphs 3, 78-91 (91 in particular). It is very clear that the alleged offence is rape under English criminal law. This very clear post by David Allen Green also sets out the situation: "English courts have held – twice – that the relevant allegation would also be an allegation of the offence of rape in English law"
Some people are saying "but he hasn't been charged". The High Court considered since and noted differences in procedure between England and Sweden. It determined he is clearly being "prosecuted". Whereas a suspect is charged early on in England, it is a final step in Sweden before trial. There is a prima facie case against him with sufficient evidence. Therefore extradition is possible, whereas in a case where someone is simply wanted for questioning it would not be.
2) This is the Personal Vendetta of one Swedish Prosecutor
Wrong. The Stockholm District Court made an arrest order against Mr Assange, which he then challenged in the Swedish Svea Court of Appeal. They examined the case in detail and determined there was probable cause and his arrest was justified. His appeal was dismissed.
3) He has not had Full Recourse to the Courts of this Country
Wrong. He has had a full hearing before the Senior District Judge and Chief Magistrate at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court on his extradition. It ordered his extradition to Sweden to face investigation (note, he is only the subject of an arrest warrant there and has not yet been charged). Mr Assange appealed this order to the High Court. It found against him. He appealed to the UK Supreme Court. It held against him.
4) He is a Fugitive from Justice
Indeed he is. After the Supreme Court ruling went against him, he skipped bail and sought refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador before his deportation was scheduled to take place (commencing 28 June 2012). He has therefore committed a separate criminal offence in this country for which he is wanted.
5) Britain has Threatened to Storm the Ecuador Embassy
It is debatable whether Britain has made an "open threat" to Ecuador as its foreign minister claims. The text of the letter delivered by a British diplomat is said to be a reminder of the law by the Foreign Office, and a threat by others. Judge for yourself. I believe it can most definitely be seen as clumsy and may well have pushed Ecuador into its decision to grant political asylum. As a small country it was keen to point out it was "not a British colony" and did not want to be seen to be bowing to pressure.
What the letter did not do was suggest Britain would break national or international law, which of course might well spark a serious international incident. There is a power under English law to withdraw diplomatic recognition from a premises, which was introduced after the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher. However, as Carl Gardner points out here very clearly any such decision must be in accordance with international law. To do so would set a very difficult precedent and more than anything this looks to me like very clumsy saber rattling (that had of course, the opposite of the desired effect).
As for the SAS being about to storm the Embassy? You've been watching too many movies. A dull court case argued by public international lawyers is a lot more likely than that ever happening.
6) Assange Can Now Leave the Country
Wrong. He is stuck inside the Embassy of Ecuador in London and the moment he leaves the building, he is liable to be arrested. Beginning in August 1989 and in the run up to November 1989, up to 20,000 East German citizens sought asylum in the West German Embassy in Prague. This presented a massive problem: they had to be housed and fed in the grounds of the Lobkowicz Palace because they could not leave until a diplomatic solution was found.
The only feasible way of getting Assange from the Embassy and to a flight out of the country would be for him to be granted citizenship of Ecuador and then to be made a diplomat. This would give him diplomatic immunity from arrest. It's highly unlikely, but in with the Assange affair one never knows.
[Post script: it's been pointed out to me that the UK would have to accept his appointment as a diplomat. Even more unlikely, so we can discount this one. Thanks @AdrianShort and @PeterNew!]
7) He faces a Secret Trial and/or he will be Extradited to America where he faces Death Penalty
I prefer to try to deal with facts. There is nothing to suggest either case. Sweden is far from being a tin-pot democracy. It is a fellow EU member and ranks amongst the very highest countries in the world for lack of corruption (Sweden is currently 4th in the Corruption Perception Index; the UK is 16th). If I personally had to go on trial anywhere, knowing I was innocent, I'd be quite happy to trust judicial process in any Scandinavian country.
The UK is interested in fulfilling its legal duty to extradite him to Sweden to face a criminal investigation. There has not, to the best of my knowledge, been any request to extradite him to the US made to either the UK or to Sweden. Arguably it would be less likely for this to take place from Sweden than from the UK in any case (see the many criticisms of our lenient US extradition policy).
Finally, both the United Kingdom and Sweden are prohibited from extraditing anyone who faces the death penalty under the European Convention of Human Rights.
8) The Man and the Movement
It is perfectly possible to support Wikileaks and the principles it stands for, whilst seeing Julian Assange as an individual to be judged on his own merits. Why is that so controversial or difficult to grasp?
Mr Assange is innocent until proven guilty of all the offences which he faces. He has not yet been charged. However, it seems fair to say that he has skipped bail in this country and that he is a fugitive from justice, who is wanted for questioning regarding very serious criminal sexual offences.
This issue is not like choosing sides in a soccer match. You can be pro-Wikileaks and keen to see the rule of law operate. This does not make you anti-Assange, an Assange Hater or anything else. I, like you, have no idea whether he is guilty of the alleged crimes back in August 2010. I do feel that the alleged victims deserve to be taken seriously, having taken the step of reporting the alleged offences to the Police, and that they should have some form of closure.
It is frankly irrelevant who the man is who is wanted for questioning, and what other great things he may (or may not) have done. If you believe in judicial process and the rule of law, it is hard to argue he should not return to Sweden for questioning (after, of course, dealing with the consequences of his behaviour here in jumping bail).
Wednesday, 15 August 2012
Unconventional Relationships
When my Mutti arrived in England in 1963, it was 18 years after the end of the Second World War. 18 years isn't a long time, I guess. 18 years ago Nelson Mandela became president in South Africa after the first multi-racial elections in the country. John Smith died. Tom Daley was born. The Ford Mondeo had been launched a year before. Whigfield was in the charts with "Saturday Night".
In any case, Mutti is German. My Dad was English. 18 years after the War, they got some shit for this. My German family had refused to meet Dad, particularly as he was a soldier and they had lost everything during the War. Mutti eventually came up with the cunning ruse of calling to my Omi from the flat stairs ("Mutti, komm schnell!") and doing the same thing to my Dad ("Doug, Doug, come!). They met face to face, shocked, and she introduced them to one another. After a time the English could do no wrong: only other foreigners were to blame for everything. That said, years later one Great Uncle continued to accuse of my mother of having brought my brothers up to speak only English, so they couldn't communicate with the German family.
In England some of the family were just as unwelcoming for quite some time. She failed to make a great impression during a conversation about London during an initial meeting. Apparently, knowing that there were terrible issues with traffic on the streets of London, she reached for her dictionary. The German for traffic is "Verkehr".
Yup, if I'd been seating there she would have been my favourite person EVER for the clanger she committed in choosing the wrong meaning of the word: "I've heard there is terrible intercourse on the streets of London...."
In the early 90s, one of my uncles announced to me that the Germans were "arrogant, horrible people". Well duhhh: guess what, uncle? I'm half German. I'd spent 2/3 of my life in the country, am really rather fond of the place, and adore my German family, not to mention my Mutti. I think I've seen him roughly three times since then.
Dad and Mutti just got on with it, however. I'm very glad they did. They had an incredibly happy marriage for 36 years until Dad died unexpectedly.
"Don't worry, he's slept with black girls"
What relevance has any of this? Well, I'm gay and depending on where you are, I guess being two men in a relationship is still "unconventional", even today in 2012. It is true that I don't feel entirely comfortable always reaching across for a kiss or holding hands with another guy in public, which is sad. Many people wouldn't blink an eyelid. Some would stare. The odd one might be abusive. You just don't like risking that, so you tend not to do it.
I lived in Atlanta in 1995. I remember a friend telling me that he'd mentioned to a friend of his I was gay, but "not to worry as he'd slept with black girls, so he'd be cool with it." Yup: you whaaaaaat? Unconventional has different meanings and associations in some people's minds I guess.
A Big Age Gap
If you follow me on Twitter, you'll know I started dating Ste in May. You are probably also reaching for your sick buckets RIGHT NOW at the mere mention of this. I'm amazingly happy. I adore him. I drove up to Liverpool and back yesterday, 9.5 hours and 510 miles, to cheer him up, surprise him by taking him out to lunch, and because I missed him. There has been one other guy in the last 10 years I'd have done that for.
Previously I was in a relationship with a man five years older than me, for five years. I've dated guys of my age, or a bit younger. This relationship feels *exactly* the same to me as they did (well, better, because he's amazing). However, there's over a 20 year age gap between us. Ste will be 20 in November and is at university. I didn't really give too much thought to this when we first met. I don't even mention it in a blog I wrote last month about Twitter being a great place to meet someone.
Ste is not some pretty, vacuous teenage thing who thinks only about sex, and can only talk about Beyoncé. I talk to him exactly as I do any of my other friends. I'm very clear we have no problem at all between ourselves about the age gap. He doesn't just "go for older guys" and he's the first younger guy I've gone out with seriously. We just click; the age is irrelevant. Christopher Isherwood was 48 when he started seeing Don Bachardy (18). They were together until Christopher's death over 30 years later. Sometimes love just happens in "unconventional" ways.
I'm not so naive as to think that others might not have a problem, however. People can of course be quietly incredibly judgmental, nasty without thinking of the effects of their throw-away comments, and sometimes deliberately mean. I'd expected some stick at some point: it's easy to imagine people would say that I'd just be after him for getting into his trousers and would ask what we could possibly have in common etc. I have to say I've had none, which is amazing. I'm sure some will come and I'll just ignore it, but it won't be "nice".
Hey ho: the fact is I'm not going to not date someone I'm crazy about, because of what people think. Thank you Dad and Mutti for your excellent example. I know it was different (2 year age difference, heterosexual), but the same concept applies. We all need/ want validation of our relationships. You took some serious stick from your families and those around you... but you just got on with it regardless.
Twitter Love
Last night I tweeted last night about the wonderful day we'd had, and it was like a tidal wave of kindness hit me. My followers know Ste is 19. It's on his bio. I thanked people for not being judgmental (without saying about what) and received even more affirmation and love. People said we were so cute, they were were happy for us, it was clearly a natural click etc. Some mentioned all sorts of people they knew with big age gaps in their relationships. One person spoke of a woman who had married a guy 20 years younger etc, etc.
Perhaps the sweetest, funniest one was this from my pal Lisa in the US. I know it's joking, but she kinda hits the nail on the head. Ste isn't as mature as I am: I'm in many respects more immature than he is:
I really want to thank ALL of you for being so supportive. I know it's "only Twitter" but it matters. In real life too we've met quite a few people from Twitter, as a couple, and never felt awkward for a moment. Much is spoken about nastiness, trolling and abuse on Twitter. It can and does also show a very different face at times - even to those of us in "unconventional relationships".
Thank you x
 |
| Mutti looking fabulous, fresh off the boat! |
In any case, Mutti is German. My Dad was English. 18 years after the War, they got some shit for this. My German family had refused to meet Dad, particularly as he was a soldier and they had lost everything during the War. Mutti eventually came up with the cunning ruse of calling to my Omi from the flat stairs ("Mutti, komm schnell!") and doing the same thing to my Dad ("Doug, Doug, come!). They met face to face, shocked, and she introduced them to one another. After a time the English could do no wrong: only other foreigners were to blame for everything. That said, years later one Great Uncle continued to accuse of my mother of having brought my brothers up to speak only English, so they couldn't communicate with the German family.
In England some of the family were just as unwelcoming for quite some time. She failed to make a great impression during a conversation about London during an initial meeting. Apparently, knowing that there were terrible issues with traffic on the streets of London, she reached for her dictionary. The German for traffic is "Verkehr".
Yup, if I'd been seating there she would have been my favourite person EVER for the clanger she committed in choosing the wrong meaning of the word: "I've heard there is terrible intercourse on the streets of London...."
In the early 90s, one of my uncles announced to me that the Germans were "arrogant, horrible people". Well duhhh: guess what, uncle? I'm half German. I'd spent 2/3 of my life in the country, am really rather fond of the place, and adore my German family, not to mention my Mutti. I think I've seen him roughly three times since then.
Dad and Mutti just got on with it, however. I'm very glad they did. They had an incredibly happy marriage for 36 years until Dad died unexpectedly.
"Don't worry, he's slept with black girls"
What relevance has any of this? Well, I'm gay and depending on where you are, I guess being two men in a relationship is still "unconventional", even today in 2012. It is true that I don't feel entirely comfortable always reaching across for a kiss or holding hands with another guy in public, which is sad. Many people wouldn't blink an eyelid. Some would stare. The odd one might be abusive. You just don't like risking that, so you tend not to do it.
I lived in Atlanta in 1995. I remember a friend telling me that he'd mentioned to a friend of his I was gay, but "not to worry as he'd slept with black girls, so he'd be cool with it." Yup: you whaaaaaat? Unconventional has different meanings and associations in some people's minds I guess.
A Big Age Gap
If you follow me on Twitter, you'll know I started dating Ste in May. You are probably also reaching for your sick buckets RIGHT NOW at the mere mention of this. I'm amazingly happy. I adore him. I drove up to Liverpool and back yesterday, 9.5 hours and 510 miles, to cheer him up, surprise him by taking him out to lunch, and because I missed him. There has been one other guy in the last 10 years I'd have done that for.
 |
| Ste <3 (it's bubbles: he's not Santa) |
Previously I was in a relationship with a man five years older than me, for five years. I've dated guys of my age, or a bit younger. This relationship feels *exactly* the same to me as they did (well, better, because he's amazing). However, there's over a 20 year age gap between us. Ste will be 20 in November and is at university. I didn't really give too much thought to this when we first met. I don't even mention it in a blog I wrote last month about Twitter being a great place to meet someone.
Ste is not some pretty, vacuous teenage thing who thinks only about sex, and can only talk about Beyoncé. I talk to him exactly as I do any of my other friends. I'm very clear we have no problem at all between ourselves about the age gap. He doesn't just "go for older guys" and he's the first younger guy I've gone out with seriously. We just click; the age is irrelevant. Christopher Isherwood was 48 when he started seeing Don Bachardy (18). They were together until Christopher's death over 30 years later. Sometimes love just happens in "unconventional" ways.
 |
| Isherwood and Bachardy in later years |
I'm not so naive as to think that others might not have a problem, however. People can of course be quietly incredibly judgmental, nasty without thinking of the effects of their throw-away comments, and sometimes deliberately mean. I'd expected some stick at some point: it's easy to imagine people would say that I'd just be after him for getting into his trousers and would ask what we could possibly have in common etc. I have to say I've had none, which is amazing. I'm sure some will come and I'll just ignore it, but it won't be "nice".
Hey ho: the fact is I'm not going to not date someone I'm crazy about, because of what people think. Thank you Dad and Mutti for your excellent example. I know it was different (2 year age difference, heterosexual), but the same concept applies. We all need/ want validation of our relationships. You took some serious stick from your families and those around you... but you just got on with it regardless.
Twitter Love
Last night I tweeted last night about the wonderful day we'd had, and it was like a tidal wave of kindness hit me. My followers know Ste is 19. It's on his bio. I thanked people for not being judgmental (without saying about what) and received even more affirmation and love. People said we were so cute, they were were happy for us, it was clearly a natural click etc. Some mentioned all sorts of people they knew with big age gaps in their relationships. One person spoke of a woman who had married a guy 20 years younger etc, etc.
Perhaps the sweetest, funniest one was this from my pal Lisa in the US. I know it's joking, but she kinda hits the nail on the head. Ste isn't as mature as I am: I'm in many respects more immature than he is:
I really want to thank ALL of you for being so supportive. I know it's "only Twitter" but it matters. In real life too we've met quite a few people from Twitter, as a couple, and never felt awkward for a moment. Much is spoken about nastiness, trolling and abuse on Twitter. It can and does also show a very different face at times - even to those of us in "unconventional relationships".
Thank you x
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)