Wednesday 14 September 2011

Evening


Night begins to descend in earnest upon the northern latitudes after one more season of bright summer nights. We've recently had some amazing displays of aurora borealis here in Reykjavik due to recent intense sunspot activity and earthbound solar flare coronal mass ejections. It's also been just crispy enough late evenings to help out: it's usually agreed upon that the best auroras happen in colder weather.

We've actually had to (been able to!) delay digging our mittens and hats out of the backs of drawers, though, because of an unusually mild start to September, windless and with bright blue and sunny skies. I have a strange sense that our seasons have shifted somehow since this year's winter was a long, drawn-out and tired affair, spring barely noticeable at all and summer all too often grey and windy. And maybe they have: there are enough unusual natural events, weather and otherwise, happening across the globe these days to buy into the idea that our once-reliable seasonal, temporal and atmospheric indicators are not at all what they used to be. Things are changing, for sure. But until worlds fall apart we'll keep enjoying lovely autumn evening strolls through the streets of our pretty little city.

Have you tried Dynamic Viewing yet? Five new views in all. Use the blue tab at the top of the view page to check them all out : )

Tuesday 13 September 2011

Christians

This morning I attracted a new follower whose bio said "I am a follower of the Lord Jesus."  This actually mildly freaked me out and I made a joke of it by tweeting something like "What did I say?!"

However it has got me thinking.  I'm as guilty as the rest of us for something I've noticed a lot on Twitter, from plenty of left wingers, gay people, liberals and the like: the mocking of religion and its followers.  It's not unusual for this to overspill into quite militant and aggressive atheism.  It's worth a bit of reflection I feel.

The first thing to say is I am not in the slightest religious.  I was never brought up with it and had the usual British aversion therapy of religious school assemblies (surely these masterpieces of boredom are *designed* by anti-religionists?).  Although I have quite a strong set of personal moral beliefs, I am agnostic/ vaguely spiritual at very best.  I think that's reasonably typical in this country.

Aversion Therapy? Religious Assemblies at Schools

What I'm noticing, though, is a level of intolerance, mockery and sometimes outright hostility towards anyone who has a faith and is prepared to announce it.  I have seen an intelligent, thinking liberal whom I very much admire put the word God in inverted commas on Twitter.  Why does he feel the need to do that?  We all recognise what is meant by God and have our own views on whether such a thing exists or not.

I saw another Twitter buddy putting out there today in a series of tweets the proposition that Christ was probably gay.  When I asked about it, he said that "ridicule is sometimes the best way to challenge intolerance and bigotry."

Another wonderful friend (who teaches classes on prejudice in the States) said she would borrow parts from a really good blog I referred her to but (in my opinion) somewhat pointedly added that she would "miss out the religious bits".

I've also no doubt many gay people used the word "Christian" as a by-word for homophobic, bigoted and plain nasty.  Describe someone as "Christian" with the right tone and you hardly need say anything more.  I'm not proud to say I've done it myself.

Prejudice Cuts Both Ways

My personal definition of prejudice is that it is lumping people together in groups and prejudging them on that basis.  It's not rocket science to suggest that this cuts both ways.  The type of stereotyping and ascribing collective views to some 2.2 billion people is the type of thing my open-minded liberal lefty friends would scream to high heaven about if it were done of all gay people or of all Muslims.

Who actually says that all Christians are intolerant and bigoted and therefore it's okay to goad them (or that it would actually make them less intolerant or bigoted if you did)?  Who says that because a message is framed in a religious way makes it any less valuable or applicable?  Who says that "God" should be put in inverted commas to make the point that the writer is a non-believer?

Twitter to the Rescue!

One of the things I love about Twitter is the contact I have with people who wouldn't ordinarily be in my life.  Talking to them constantly challenges me and at least makes me realise when I'm falling into this type of trap.  I follow an Anglican bishop (the kindest, most tolerant man imaginable) and two Anglican priests.  I never go to Church and therefore these contacts are invaluable in breaking down my own tendency to prejudge.  One of the priests holds personal and political views that are at 180 degrees to many of my own, but he has always been polite, kind and respectful in his interactions with me.  The other priest is simply a honey and one of the sweetest, most thoughtful women imaginable.  She also happens to be an open-minded liberal type, demonstrating again the fallacy of assuming anything solely because of a person's faith.

I've also found out over time that many of the people I interact with on Twitter have some form of faith, often to my surprise.  Only this Sunday one mentioned in passing that he was off to Church.  I'd never heard anything to suggest any religious belief from him.  These people don't appear to hate me or prejudge me because I'm gay and agnostic - actually they're quite lovely and friendly to me - so why should I dislike or prejudge them for their faith?

God Botherers

"WELL" you might say - it would all be fine if these god-botherers kept their views to themselves.  Yes... except they generally do.  Has any one of the people I mentioned above ever tried to teach me about the word of Jesus?  No.  Their religious beliefs might angle their views on something like abortion, but then there are people of no faith who hold all sorts of different opinions on this too and Christian teaching is far from universal on such matters.

Try also to think back to the last time you actually had a Christian try to evangelise or "convert" you and whether this is a regular occurrence in your life.  In all my 40 years *puts on flat cap and slippers* it has been limited to a couple of knocks on the door by Jehovah's Witnesses (always dealt with by a polite "no thanks" and mutual smiles).  Oh and then there was the REALLY CUTE GUY at the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem, who I mistakenly thought was trying to pick me up when I was 18 (darn).

Given I live in a Christian country, collectively they seem to be pretty rubbish at going out at spreading the word - or perhaps this is just another negative stereotype we have about them?

Note the misuse of the apostrophe! :o

Yes, I've seen some Christians picketing events like Gay Pride.  I'm well aware of the views of the religious right in the USA and I've little doubt a bad religious upbringing has the capacity to entirely screw up kids.  I know in great detail the failings of the Church through history from the institutionalised teaching of anti-Semitism, through the Crusades, the Inquisition and on to the appalling way the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in particular has dealt with the issue of abuse by priests.

But does all this give me the justification today to prejudge, pillory and dislike each and every individual Christian I come into contact with or to mock their faith?  I really don't think it does.  Far from everyone who is a Christian ascribes to a fundamentalist interpretation of their faith - and even those who do can only be judged on their own actions and the impact they have on others.  Far from every priest is a kiddie fiddler.  Not every kid who was badly screwed up by his/her parents had a religious upbringing.  There aren't *that* many people around who still remember 1492 personally... etc etc.

In any case what are we proposing?  Guys, we share this planet with a lot of people who don't agree with us.  Is angry intolerance and hatred the way to make it a better place?  Like it or not, 2.2 billion is a lot of people.  Just as the homophobic right wishing that gays disappear will not make them vanish, so collectively hating or jeering Christians is, in my opinion, not going to have any effect other than to make you an unhappy person.  "Live and let live" is however a philosophy that can have a hugely positive effect on us all.

Fairy Tales?

When I hear the stories of the Bible, I really do think "fairy tales."  That is my personal subjective view.  I know there are many highly intelligent people who would disagree, however, and whilst I cannot personally see how they could rationally believe these stories, there's no doubt I wish to respect their freedom of belief.

I'd hope that few reading this blog would disagree that freedom of belief should be allowed... but I think it's important to note that "respecting" in this context cannot include mocking or offending - once again something I have done that I'm not proud of.  It has to mean allowing people to worship as they think fit, to accord them dignity in doing so, and the right to express their beliefs without intolerance and judgementalism.

Christians: great line in art & buildings btw
I do also sometimes envy people of religion and what it appears to offer them.  Friends of ours lost their 12 year old son when a car hit his bike outside their home.  Their Catholic faith helped them through that enormous period of trauma.  I was only 17 at the time but remember thinking "I don't care if this is fairy tales, if it's giving them help and comfort, that's an amazing thing".  Believing is not something I can personally do; but seeing its potential for good: that is not hard to do.

Moving on from the stories, the core Christian faith messages of tolerance, love, acceptance, forgiveness and kindness of spirit are ones which I wholeheartedly agree with.  I am increasingly seeing the need for non-believers (including myself) to exercise them towards Christians.

There *is* definitely a weight of history that stops us from acknowledging these characteristics when they are applied by ordinary people of little, some or much faith - but that is no excuse.  As I said, surely prejudice works from all angles, not just the liberal causes we believe deserve to be protected from it?

Saturday 10 September 2011

My Dog: Oscar

Oscar

My tweets fall into three distinctive categories: total vacuous nonsense; the odd comment on politics/ current affairs; and those relating to my dog.  Given I haven't been unfollowed by <all> my followers for talking about Oscar and posting about 17 pictures of him an hour, I'm assuming someone at least will be interested to read what I think about him.  So here goes.

I grew up in an army family.  Mutti somehow managed to move home 20 times in 19 years with three kids between Germany and England (repeatedly) and Hong Kong.  I went to 10 different schools (one was for just under three weeks).  In the days before 2001 when the EU introduced the Pet Passport scheme, there used to be a 6 month quarantine period for bringing a pet into the UK.  It was therefore absolutely impossible for us to have a dog.  We had a guinea pig, budgies, a hamster, a rabbit.  They were sometimes passed between service families as families moved on.

Davy: my "childhood" collie
A dog was a dream, but finally when we moved back to Hampshire, and when I was 15, we got a little rough collie puppy called Davy.  He was a highly intelligent dog who ruled the roost.  He was quite the brat and had odd habits like coming in and nipping anyone who sneezed.  Certain words were forbidden (like "water" or "bath").  I loved him enormously, did a full 2 years' dog training with him, and when he died I remember sitting at my desk at my law firm (aged 27) shaking and crying uncontrollably.  My poor colleague.  Davy was never my dog though - he was my parents' fourth boy, after we had all left home.  He would have been 25 years old last month on 24 August.

Oscar on the other hand is my dog.  I've had him since he was 11 months old.  He had been treated badly by a prospective owner as a puppy and returned to his breeder.  As a result he had no "puppyhood" but instead lived in a kennel and a run.  He was called Ozzy when I got him (yep, after Ozzy Osbourne - the name was changed by me within approx 0.24 seconds of purchase...).  He is by no means a "rescue dog" (he has a very good pedigree and his breeder's reputation if nothing else would mean she would never have mistreated him) - but he was completely prepared for life outside his run.  He screamed (almost like a death shriek) when he was carried out of the gates of her property and into my car.

A very frightened 10 month old Oscar
It took a good six months for him to calm down and to trust me.  Everything terrified him.  Collies are highly strung as it is - one treated badly as a pup is a total mess.  He eventually realised I wasn't here to hurt him but to look after him.  They say a rescue dog will go through fire for the person who saves it and gives it a new life.  My bond with Oscar is similar to that.  The loyalty is sometimes almost overwhelming.  He worships me (best friend Dominic calls it "an unhealthy co-dependent relationship".)  I don't give two stuffs, frankly - I love him as much as he loves me and we've found our equilibrium :)

If I'm not working abroad, I spend every day with Oscar.  He comes with me to work or sleeps in his basket if I'm working from home.  I've taken him all across Europe on holiday with me - we go camping together and he's been to a total of 16 countries with his little EU dog passport.  He's been up to Denmark and down to Croatia and across to Spain.  He's even been to Andorra and Liechtenstein.  He is the best travelling companion imaginable.  He sleeps in my tent next to me and is just happy to be with me.  To say he is non-demanding is an understatement.  Food, walk, cuddles - and he's in heaven.  I took him to London one evening recently just for the ride: not a squeak - he was happy as larry to snooze and have the drive there and back.

Anyone who has been close to an animal knows the emotional benefit they can bring.  Oscar is so utterly in tune with my moods.  When a snake came into my kitchen last weekend we were like a scene out of Scooby Doo - him up on the sofa, shaking, cuddling into me.  I don't think he even saw the thing: he just picked up on my fear - I *hate* snakes with a passion.  When I'm down he hops up next to me and just pushes into me with his snout.  Every morning he greets me with the most incredible joy at being alive.  No matter what my concerns, it lifts me up.  There hasn't been a morning in over 9 years I don't look forward to seeing him.  He is simply superb company: my home is full because he is about.

It's a snake, Shaggy!
A dog is so "in the moment".  They are full of appreciation for the now.  Oscar is so happy to be outside walking with me: everything is exciting.  There is the deepest almost primeval bond between an owner and his or her dog.  This is particularly the case where the pet is not a family animal, but a one on one dog.  I often think of the amount of time humans have spent with dogs over the tens of thousands of years when the first wolves were tamed.

Oscar is such a good dog: so calm, so affectionate - he's not as bright as Davy was, but he's so much more loving.  He always wants to be good: he gets scolded once about every six months and then is so upset, I have to cuddle him for an evening to get him over the upset.  He required virtually no training: he just likes to please and picks up exactly what he's supposed to do.  He's also suitably OCD that he hates rain, puddles, mud and getting dirty: *perfect* for me!  He drinks like a cat lapping - unlike his Spaniel best friend Brunswick who dribbles half his water all over the floor.  He eats delicately; he's never had a bath in his life; just a brushing every day.  His fur is sensational as a result.

I love Oscar.  His 9th birthday is on 23 September.  Rough collies usually live to about 12 or 13 and I'm aware he won't be around for ever.  Rupert Everett wrote something like: a puppy is like a child; then he becomes like a best friend; and as he gets older he becomes like a wise parent to you.  He looks at you knowingly: he's seen it all before.  Whatever the pain will be at losing Oscar, it can never mean that it was not worth it having owned him.  Every single day is a pleasure having him around me.  Having had a dog has changed my life and enriched it immensely.

Here are a few of my favourite pictures of Oscar I've posted from time to time including some from his travels:

Oscar and I together in Cornwall
Lion or Collie?

Love heart round his face
With his Squeaky Toy
Oscar's Sofa - ready for a belly rub

Yacht Spotting: Croatia






Oscar after a ride on the Schaffsbergbahn near Salzburg




With best mate, Brunswick


Braving Rapids in the New Forest
Office Co-Workers

Suffolk Spring Time Run
Atop the St Bernhard Pass, France


Snow Collie
Trained Squirrel Assassin
Not a fan of the rain or puddles
Sand Dunes, Sylt, Germany
Six Hour Hike, Swiss Alps

A life without dogs? For me, just unimaginable now

Tuesday 6 September 2011

At the Dentist

A lovely friend of mine on Twitter, @alanlaw, messaged me a little upset yesterday.  He had some justification.  He had been handed the following form of fill out at a dentist he's been visiting all his life:

"People who share needles, haemophiliacs and homosexuals endure a higher risk of contracting blood borne viruses such as AIDS and hepatitis.  Do you fall into such a category? Yes/ No"

Okay, let's look at this step by step:
  • AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is a disease not a virus.  It is caused by a virus, called HIV.  Even my dog knows this much and he doesn't even have any GCSEs.
  • "Homosexuals" also covers gay women (remember women? Oh yeah: 50% of the world's population).  There have in fact been remarakably few cases of lesbian HIV infections over the years.  They therefore cannot be said to "endure a higher risk" in this context.  Try "gay men"?
  • Over 50% of new HIV infections in the UK are however in fact in straight people.
  • New cases of haemophiliac infection have been minimal since effective blood screening measures were introduced in the 80s.
  • The questionnaire does not say why it seeks this information.  It may be valid (see below) or it may be, as many would reasonably suspect, that it is on the grounds of risk to the dentist.
  • If that is the case, the statement entirely ignores the fact that those on HIV medication, who have undetectable viral loads, almost certainly cannot transmit the virus (click on link)
  • The last point has been upheld by the Court of Appeal in Geneva in a reckless sexual transmission case; and I understand subsequently also in the Canadian courts.
  • I love the neutral use of the word "endure"
So, there are certain issues with the way the question is drafted... such as... you'd expect a sodding health care professional to get the medical term right.  Okay *draws breath*...  now onto the law.

The Law!

Under the Equality Act 2010, according to both the Terrence Higgins Trust and NAM (National Aids Map) charities, it is illegal for dentists to refuse to treat anyone with HIV: this covers both NHS and private dentists.  Apparently some dentists often ask an HIV+ person to take the last appointment of the day in order to sterilize instruments better.  Although this has not be challenged yet, the view of the THT legal team is that this too is probably illegal as indirect discrimination is covered by the Act.

If the question is being asked to exclude you from treatment that would therefore be illegal and should be reported both to the Police and to the British Dental Association.

NAM quite sensibly points out "Normal hygiene procedures in a dental surgery are enough to protect both you and the dentist/ dental nurse from the risk of any infections."


 Dental Profession

Well, what does the dental profession have to say?  The British Dental Association comments it is both "unethical and illegal to refuse to treat patients who are HIV positive."  The BDA in fact refers its practitioners to a resource pack prepared by the National Aids Trust which "raises awareness of discriminatory practices and provides advice and practical tools to help healthcare workers address and avoid stigmatising behaviour towards people living with HIV."  The pack has also been endorsed by the Royal College of General Practioneers and the Royal College of Nurses.

The sensible attitude of the dental profession as a whole would therefore seem to suggest this particular questionnaire would not be endorsed by them: far from it.  This might explain why my dentist does not ask this type of thing at all.

And it goes further: it seems Britain is one of the few Western countries still to keep a ban on HIV+ dentists themselves from practising.  Yep, surprise... Britain is behind the times on discriminatory practices and our Government is refusing to change them!

In October 2010 a leading indemnity provider for dentists (Dental Protection) demanded, on behalf of the profession, that the Department of Health stop its discriminatory rule that prevents HIV+ dentists from practising in the UK.  Dental Protection comments:

"It is 20 years since the draconian rules were introduced preventing dentists from providing treatment to patients.  Initially introduced as a precautionary measure after the mysterious case of Dr Acer, a dentist in the USA who was thought to have infected six patients with the AIDS virus, there has never been any recorded transmission of the disease in a dental setting [Peter's note: in the world, either from dentist to patient or vice versa]."

The situation is so clear cut it seems that the "Beijing Declaration" after the 6th World Workshop on Oral Health and Disease in AIDS in April 2009 specifically highlighted the outdated stance currently adopted by the UK Department of Health.  One might suppose that all it would take is one brave HIV+ dentist to go to court on this and it would seem the profession would pretty much be behind him or her.

The Mysterious Case of Dr Acer

Yes, let's deal quickly with Dr Acer.  He apparently infected six patients with HIV in the 80s.  He died in 1990.  It was the time of all the hysteria and the vicious stigmatisation of both HIV sufferers and gay people in general.  The CDC in Atlanta did tests which "established" that the strain of those patients were the same.  Legal cases since have since proven that it is incredibly difficult to prove an actual source of infection.  Several medical journals have discredited this early and, for HIV medicine, out of date finding.

Back to the Questionnaire

Well it's bloody offensive.  It offends me on its poor drafting, its unnecessary and illiberal probing into people's sexuality and private lives; it is offensive to HIV- gay men (by suggesting if you're gay you probably have HIV or will get it soon); it seems to run squarely in the face of BDA guidelines on avoiding stigmatising behaviour towards positive people; and it also manages to offend haemophiliacs whilst it is at it.  It is wholly unnecessary if the purpose is to warn the dentist s/he "might catch something" - which is the era that this type of question comes from.

There *may* be a justifiable need to answer the simple neutral question: "have you been diagnosed with HIV?" purely for the purpose of making dentists look out for oral related health problems which can crop up for positive people.  However, if they were doing their job properly (as I'm sure they do as a profession) they would presumably notice these in any case.  They're busy sticking sundry things in your gob with a bright light on above your head, for heaven's sake.

I would make a fuss about this at my surgery.  A big fuss.  Why should an 18 year old who is coming out be told by some shitty questionnaire that he "endures" a risk of blood borne diseases?  Why should my friend?  It is stigmatising, offensive and belongs back in the 80s with the absurd ban on HIV+ dentists practising.


*gets off soap box*

Sunday 4 September 2011

(Macro) Inspiration

Every writer knows those times when they feel that it's all been said before, or that someone is currently saying what they are inclined say in a well enough manner, so why be redundant? As far as our lovely Iceland is concerned, there are so many wonderful sources for current events and entertainment online (my facebook news feed alone is full-to-brim with amazing talent!) that it seems right to just let them do the talking in words and in pictures.

And after seven years and 596 posts, I sometimes wonder what compels me to keep on with this little hobby, which has become much more complex a package now that the social media tide has swept into our lives. I'm told by "experts" that to make anything of this site I'm to invite visitors to like/follow me in all sorts of different ways (see left, though I balked at creating an email list to spam you even more cleverly with, my dears.) And now the invisible pressure to do what the rest of the active universe is doing, i.e. tweeting, posting, emailing, G+-ing, and blogging has boggled this poor soul's mind.

I like to assume that you are all intelligent creatures, and that for you, like me, less is more. A few photos per post, succinct text with relevant links (though sometimes obscure if a site is really worth linking to) and a clean, uncluttered template is what I offer because it's what I look for in other websites. I've always tried to steer clear of repeating local/national news because I read most of it myself in an RSS reader or just Google 'Iceland news,' which I assume you all can/will do yourselves. Furthermore, I get that most of you won't even read this far because we live in the age of the Image. A pretty macro picture of 1cm long seashells on an Icelandic beach may make you pause for an appreciative instant before moving on to the next visual of our glorious existence here on post-millennial Earth, but you may not absorb more. I get that. It's what I often do.

So this writer is a pocket photographer with an uncanny, irrepressible urge to share with all of you. But maybe, because I'm from the pre-silicon solid-state-and-steel era, I become confounded by the myriad of mediums I am to use to communicate my simple photos and words.

Right now I am obsessed with macro shots of the delicate flora and fauna we pass by in our everyday lives, and I'm not sure that I would want to flood you with the incredibly small in every post. I do want to let you all know, though, that I have a few albums of life here in Reykjavik available for viewing via Picasa* and/or Google+, and that my soul is crafting slowly and with care my novel, which is a love letter to this island. I'll be sharing bits and vignettes in the near future. In addition, I will be posting to our facebook page though maybe sporadically for now.

 Thank you all for your patience and for your encouragement. It means a lot. Much love and grace to you all ~.~

*Here are three albums you might enjoy (please view them enlarged, starting with the first one : ) Secret Reykjavik, The Secret Life of Iceland, Ridiculously Beautiful Flowers, Iceland Poppy 

Have you tried Dynamic Viewing yet? Five new views in all. Use the blue tab at the top of the view page to check them all out : )

Friday 2 September 2011

Korczak


On Thursday night I watched an extraordinary musical at the Rose Theatre in Kingston-upon-Thames.  I'd like to share with you the story behind the musical, my impressions of it, and the work of Youth Music Theatre UK.

At 4.48am, 1 September, 72 years ago, the Germans opened fire on Westerplatte in Poland: the opening salvo in what was to become World War 2.  After two incredibly tense days, at 11am today (3 September 1939) Chamberlain took to the wireless with the news that the Government's ultimatum had expired and the British Empire was at war with Germany.  Over 60 million would die.

The Story

Warsaw is a city of tragedies. In 1939 it was an elegant city, the home to a flourishing community of over 350,000 Jews - around 30% of its population.  Warsaw was the jewel in the crown of European Jewry.  At the end of the war fewer than 10 buildings were still standing in the Old and New Towns combined.  85% of the whole Warsaw metropolitan area had been wiped off the map on Hitler's personal orders, whilst the Red Army had remained on the opposite side of the Vistula watching the smoke rise in late 1944.  By 1945, some 90% of Poland's 3 million strong Jewish population had been murdered by the Nazis.  A further 3 million non-Jewish Poles had also died.  Just pause for a moment and think about these numbers: almost 20% of the country's entire population had been killed.  What for us were painful, crushing losses were in fact 0.9% and 0.3% for the UK and the US respectively.

For a single story to stand out in that crushing narrative, it must be extraordinary.  One does: the tale of Janusz Korczak and his 192 orphans.  They were amongst the millions caught up in the terrifying German "Blitzkrieg" onslaught on Poland.  Their story is not too widely told and it deserves to be.

This is where Nick Stimson's work in writing "Korczak" and the YMT in putting on this musical theatre piece come in.




"Old Doctor" Korzack

Janusz Korzack (born Henryk Goldszmit) was a Polish Jewish doctor who was light years ahead of his time in terms of attitudes.  He had studied in Berlin and ran an orphanage in Warsaw in which he encouraged his children to govern themselves and take responsibility.  The kids had their own democratic parliament, court and newspaper.  By all accounts he treated them with great love and enlightenment, which obviously were not at all typical for the era.  He was 61 years old in September 1939 and was known as "Old Doctor" by his charges.

In October 1940 the 30% Jewish population of Warsaw was crammed into 2.4% of its area as the infamous Ghetto was created.  These were people many of whom had relatives and friends in Britain and in America, who nervously waited for news of what was happening to people they knew and loved.  Korzack's orphange was forced to move three times.  I was in Warsaw this summer with my own group of American high school students on a two week holocaust education tour.  I took them everywhere I could related to Korzack including the last location of his orphanage.  It is still a children's home today.  Its physical building somehow survived the annihilation that moved General Eisenhower to say of the Polish capital "“I have seen many towns destroyed, but nowhere have I been faced with such destruction.”

For almost 2 years Korczak did everything he could to feed his children in an environment where people were literally starving to their deaths on the streets of the Ghetto.  On 6 August 1942 Korzack and his children were rounded up at their orphanage.  This was as part of the "clearing" of the ghetto (just 100 or so SS soldiers were involved in the rounding up of almost 300,000 people in the course of two months in late 1942).




Liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto

Eyewitness Joshua Perle wrote of the scene:

A miracle occurred. Two hundred children did not cry. Two hundred pure souls, condemned to death, did not weep. Not one of them ran away. None tried to hide. Like stricken swallows they clung to their teacher and mentor, to their father and brother, Janusz Korczak, so that he might protect and preserve them. On all sides the children were surrounded by Germans, Ukrainians, and this time also Jewish policemen. They whipped and fired shots at them. The very stones of the street wept at the sight of the procession.




Umschlagplatz Memorial Warsaw

Korzack himself was given the opportunity (by some accounts twice) to escape the Ghetto immediately before the deportation and save his own life.  Instead he took the cattle train from the Warsaw "Umschlagplatz" with his orphans for the 100 km journey out to the (even today) incredibly remote camp known as Treblinka.

Treblinka was a very different camp even to Auschwitz, where there was the possibility of selection and survival for some time, at least for fit adult "prisoners".  It was a pure death camp: a killing factory.  Some Jews were kept back to the do the work of processing new arrivals: they themselves would then be killed a few weeks or months later.  The boast was that within 2 hours of arrival all new arrivals would be murdered.  Unlike the vast majority of other concentration camps it did not require an electric fence: it was designed to massacre people, not to house them.  It is tiny: the size of a couple of soccer fields in total.







Images from Treblinka this July

We do not know how many people were killed in Treblinka.  The standard estimate is a minimum of 800,000; if the figures of a villager who kept meticulous records of the numbers of train arrivals are believed - and accurately extrapolated - it could be as high as 1,200,000.  This is greater even than Auschwitz.  After an armed uprising in 1943, the camp was closed.  600 Jews had escaped: just 40 survived the War.  This is a major reason the place is not in our consciousness: hardly anyone survived. 40 out of 800,000 is a 0.005% survival rate.  99.995% died.

At the camp there are jagged stones of different sizes to represent the murdered communities of Poland (middle picture, above).  The names of the towns and villages appear on the stones.  Just one person is honoured with an individual mention.  His name is Janusz Korzack.

The Musical

This seems a highly difficult subject matter to put to the medium of a musical theatre.  I was quite apprehensive.  I attended with Eva Schloss, an 82 year old whose mother had married Otto Frank after the War.  As a Jewish refugee from Austria, she had lived opposite Anne Frank as a child in Amsterdam, and now travels the world devoting herself to Holocaust education.  She is genuinely an amazing, warm, funny, lovely soul.

At the drinks reception we attended beforehand an elderly Jewish man approached Eva and asked in a thick Central European accent "Were you Kindertransport?"... "No" she answered in her lovely Viennese sing-song accent.. "I was in Auschwitz."  At this point all I could do is just look on and apply some perspective in my life. 




Eva and I in Amsterdam this summer

The musical was performed by Youth Music Theatre UK.  The cast of 40 (with the exception of Korczak played by West End professional Peter Straker) were all aged 11 to 21 years old.  They had come from all over the UK and had worked 12 hour days for 2 weeks before hand.  The orchestra was also of the same age.

I can't describe their performance as anything other than breathtakingly good.  The energy, the quality of the singing and the music, the total complete passion that these kids put in was extraordinary.  The narrative of the actual story lost me somewhat, as did the sub-plots (such as a rather sweet love triangle) but it mattered not one bit.  The professionalism of the cast, the quality of the production and the stamina of these kids to sing and play for 2.5 hours were astounding.  The scenes were not as upsetting as might be imagined: the enduring image I have was of Korczak telling the children the story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin and that they would be entering a wonderful place: the Crystal Mountain.  They do not die at the end so much as burst into a celebration of hope, life and peace.

After the show Eva and I were able to go backstage to meet the cast.  She spoke to them of how she had been 15 herself when she was deported to Auschwitz and was lucky to have survived the intitial selection.  She had lost her father and brother in the camps.  She told them how important it was to her that they had been part of getting the story of Korczak out there, and that she hoped they would remember being part of this throughout their lives.  Several of them were in floods of tears listening to her.  She asked me to address them about my work with kids over the years visiting the camps and specifically my latest trip with students to Treblinka and Warsaw.  I wasn't expecting to do this and somewhat stumbled through it, but hey.

It is endlessly difficult to envisage the victims of the holocaust as individuals.  There is no holocaust: there are in fact six million different individual holocausts.  Seeing these children singing and acting at the Rose Theatre had such an effect on me.  It somehow made me realise far more properly that the 192 orphans were actual young people, like these kids we met: living beings with hopes, fears, aspirations.  The vulnerability of the young and the role of adults in protecting and inspiring them came through so strongly.  The performance is billed as the "The triumph of hope over death, ... music theatre at its best".  How to explain: it was just exactly that.

The performers have been brought together by a remarkable organisation.  YMT is the UK's leading national music theatre company for young people.  They work with hundreds of young people each year, and if this production is anything to go by, they do a sterling job of it.  I really do hope they will be able to put this piece on again in time.  The current show ends tonight, 3 September.  If you are free tonight and can get to Kingston, ring the box office and just go.  I so strongly recommend it.  If not, watch their other work.  I shall be.




Korczak Memorial, Warsaw

Janusz Korczak wrote: "What should we do when everyone acts less than human? We must act more than human."

Youth Music Theatre UK are on Twitter: @ymtuk





Wednesday 31 August 2011

How to Use Twitter

More and more people are joining Twitter, and plenty leave it soon enough too, failing to understand the attraction or how it works.  This is my attempt at a "definitive guide" that brings together what I've learned during my time on here.

(The real basics of how @mentions etc work are at the very bottom.  If you are brand new to Twitter it might make more sense to read them first.  If you're more than a complete novice begin here with these 17 items)

1. Getting Started: Follow People

When you first join Twitter you have a big empty box with a "What's Happening" question.  It doesn't exactly look enticing.  I've heard it compared to buying a new TV, unwrapping it, and there being no signal.

It's no fun if you're tweeting and no one will read what you say, or comment on it, and you have nothing to read yourself.  The key to the quality of your experience will therefore be getting interesting people to follow, to follow you, and above all to interact with.  This can seem like quite a daunting task: it took me a good year and quite a lot of effort to build up a group of people whose tweets amuse, entertain, cheer me up, inform, comfort or challenge me.  However, there are some short cuts.

It's important to remember that the whole basis of Twitter is getting to know people.  You don't have to know someone in real life to follow them.  Don't be shy: you just click follow and people will do the same to you.  It's all very informal and friendly in a way that going up to strangers in real life social situations just wouldn't be.

TIP: The quick, really practical way round this is as follows.  Find someone you know in real life, who introduced you to Twitter, or whose bio you like the sound of.  Often this person will have created a list or lists to follow specific people.  The lists have names like "People I talk to" / "Labour tweeps" / "Cricket Fans"  / "Twitterati" / "Business Class".

Whatever they call it, a list is their favourite people, perhaps sorted according to category relating to the type of people they are or what they tweet about.  Just subscribe to that list.  You'll instantly have access to someone else's work over a space of time in sorting people they like. The list will show all the tweets of that group of people.  Just follow those whose tweets you like and you'll build up a timeline very rapidly that will interest you.

ANOTHER TIP: When looking for interesting people to follow, it can be hard to glean from their timeline, particularly if they have been having lots of conversations with people and you can't therefore easily see the type of general thing they tweet that will appear in your timeline.  Have a quick look at their favourite tweets instead.  These can reveal a huge amount of the type of personality they are.  It's also a way of finding more great people who tweeted the thing that was favourited.

2. Your Bio

It sounds obvious, but make your bio vaguely interesting or funny.  People decide who to follow on a combination of their bio, their picture, the things they've tweeted or people they follow in common.

TIP: Very few people follow back an "Egg".  If you want to be anonymous: fine... but choose a more interesting avatar than the default one.  They're also often seen as belonging to someone who has set up a "troll" account (more later) and often won't even be responded to, let alone followed back.

3. Celebrities

Many people start off on Twitter following loads of celebrities, who tend to have a gazillion followers.  Twitter is, for me, about interacting with people.  Someone who has 3 million followers and only follows 58 of their celeb friends will never follow you back or talk to you.  They can often also tend to be *incredibly* dull.  Do you really want to know what Paris Hilton had for supper.. do you?

TIP: Obvs therefore don't start off by following loads of celebs.  They're frequently quite dull and just use Twitter as a platform.  You'll find interactions with ordinary people far more rewarding.  Follow a few and see what I mean.  Yawnski. The only exception to this is @chordoverstreet whom you MUST follow cos he's the hot blond boy from GLEE! and I don't care his tweets are as dull as dishwater.

It's Chord :o))
(By the way, "celebrities" are not the same as people tweeting information.  If you're interested in current affairs you'll find some of the politicians, reporters or commentators superb.  They don't tend to follow back, but who cares if they're putting out interesting, informative stuff.)

4. Interact

The quality of your Twitter experience will be directly determined by the level you interact.  If someone tweets something interesting or funny, engage with them on it.  You don't have to know the person - as I mentioned Twitter is far more informal than real life, and in most cases the person will reply and appreciate the fact someone has reacted to something they have said.  The whole beauty of Twitter is the easy interaction that is possible just by clicking on reply.

TIP: Be good at responding back yourself when someone talks to you.  It's polite and kind to acknowledge a compliment.  Even just a smile or a "thanks!" is enough.  Twitter can be a little shouting into a dark cave: you've no idea who is listening when you tweet something.  If someone has gone to the trouble of directing something back to you in response, take a second to respond.  If you don't you'll soon find that person gives up trying to talk to you.

5. Following and Unfollowing

It's actually really okay to follow and unfollow people.  We all get upset if we lose someone whom we spoke to and liked, but there can be all sorts of reasons for it.  You may not have spoken in a while; you may find you've actually not got that much in common over time.  It may (actually) be Twitter playing up.  It's not like de-friending someone on Facebook - it's a lot more relaxed on here.

I've sometimes unfollowed someone just because I was a bit a bored by them or annoyed by something they said, and then refollowed them some time later.  We ALL take things personally, but do try to toughen up on this front or you will get unnecessarily upset.  Not everyone will like everything you have to say or appreciate your humour.  It doesn't matter.

@LassieOscar just unfollowed me!
TIP: If someone unfollows you, don't do a shout out (e.g. "OMG @lassieoscar just unfollowed me!"  You'll look a tit, frankly.  Your other followers won't appreciate it and the person who did the unfollowing will be embarrassed. Send them an @message directly instead if you're that bothered and want to know the reason - it may not be as upsetting as you think.

ANOTHER TIP: If you're following someone and they don't follow you back: so what?  I've got people I've followed for a full year now who have not followed me back.  I find them interesting, can still interact with them and I'm happy.  Following on from this, if you were mutually following and the person unfollows you, think for a moment about whether to unfollow them back just for the sake of it.  Do you really want to lose them if they've got something to say you enjoy?  We're not 8 years old so don't be a big kid.

YET ANOTHER TIP: Don't stake your "Twitter Esteem" on how many people follow you.  I know of people with 5000 followers who frankly are no more interesting than those with 200 followers.  A real find is someone who has been on here ages, has 30 followers, but is just a delight to talk to.  Similarly don't follow someone back because they have loads of followers, but ignore someone who has been pleasant, kind or funny but who happens to have a low number of followers.  Everyone started off with 0 followers at some point.

6. Spam and Trolls

You'll soon come across the, erm, wonderful world of spam and trolls.

SPAMBOTS - tend to be women with improbable names and oversized cleavage, frequently based somewhere like North Dakota, who have silly bios about what they like doing and the fact they're a "genuine, kind person".  Look at their timeline and you'll see all they are doing is sending links to websites which will be selling things.  They may follow you, or may appear in your @ mentions.

TROLLS are real people who you don't know, whom you don't follow, who will respond to something you tweeted in a negative way.  This could be because they did a search for a word you mentioned, or because your tweet was retweeted by one of your followers and they came across it that way.  They will generally be obnoxious and up for an argument.  There are degrees of trolling: some people like to be keyboard warriors, others genuinely get off on being personally unpleasant to strangers.  That says everything about them and nothing about you.

TIP: The good Lord invented the "Block" and "Report Spam" settings for a reason!  Don't let either category disturb your enjoyment of Twitter.  If you want to argue with a troll you'll quickly find it pointless, draining and annoying.  Resist the temptation to engage, and either ignore or block.  When you block their messages will never appear in your @ mentions again.

7. Bullying

Twitter can be a superb place.  It has constantly shown me a far better, warmer, more optimistic side to humanity than the press would suggest exists about us.  It's a true democracy in many respects: in many cases it doesn't matter what you have or who you are, it matters what your personality is and what your thoughts are.  Huzzah!

However, there's a flip side.  Never forget that Twitter is only a medium: it's made up by people.  And what's more, it's people sitting at home mouthing off from the safety of the Internet.  They may be judgemental, forthright or even rude in a way they would not consider acceptable in real life.  It's too easy to overstep the mark: try not to forget that a real person will be receiving your tweet and reading it.  You may disagree about things - but is it really appropriate to be abusive or nasty?

Yes, she's a real person too
TIP: Imagine this.  You think Sally Bercow shouldn't have appeared on Big Brother and is a silly cow.  That's your opinion: I disagree, but you're entitled to think that.  If you want to communicate that by tweeting "God Sally Bercow came across as a dumb cow tonight" this is quite different to tweeting "God @SallyBercow came across as a dumb cow tonight".  In the second case you have @mentioned her and she will see that tweet.  Whatever you think of her a real person will be reading this.

Is it really nice, necessary and a good thing to let this woman (about whom all of us actually know very little) see this nasty comment?  Does it make you feel good?  Have you even thought about its effect? It's actually nothing short of bullying.  I'd like to think most people would not be so abusive to the recipient if they did meet them in real life.  Don't do it, please.  This counts both for Sally and someone "ordinary" you've just had an argument about politics with.

8. Reading everything

When you're following say 50 people, you will probably want to read everything everyone has said in your timeline.  It becomes impossible as you hit say 200 people that you follow.  With 500, forget it entirely - you can be away from your phone or computer for an afternoon and return to 1000 new tweets to read.  This will do your head in if you try to keep up with everything.

TIP: Treat Twitter like a virtual pub.  You pop in, you chat to your mates, or just listen to what they have been up to and have to say without saying too much yourself.  You then leave.  You cannot possibly know everything that everyone has said when you weren't there.  This is perfectly okay.  (If someone really interests you, you can go to their timeline and catch up on their specific tweets for the last couple of days of course.)

9. Butting in on conversations

It's easy to forget that your conversation is public.  If someone follows you and the other party to the conversation this third person will see the whole thing.  Sometimes people will chip in and this can be great and good fun.

TIP: Unless you have something interesting to add (or know the other two really well), and you are the "third party" be just a bit sensitive about butting in.  In many circumstances it's absolutely fine, and it's the nature of the forum.  However in others, it can be a bit rude and might not be appreciated.

10. Trust and Anonymity

Social media depends on trust.  I've had three quite yuk instances of people building up entirely false personae on here - I've blogged on two of them.  It's shitty behaviour and yes it does matter.  It makes people distrust Twitter, it discredits the vast majority of people who are simply themselves, and as media lawyer @JackofKent blogged "just because it's Twitter" is no excuse.  Any legal offences on here are just as real as those "in real life".  If you've weaseled your way into people's lives and then defraud them, that offence is just as real.  If you pretend to be a teacher or doctor on Twitter, people may ask you for advice.  If you're neither of those things this could actually cause real damage.

What's more, people will catch you out. If you say you've been to Malaysia recently, someone on here will actually have been and ask you about things they know about.  What's the point, frankly?  You think that lying or exaggerating will make you more interesting?  Honestly it won't.

There is of course a world of difference between lying about being someone you're not, and choosing to be anonymous, but being yourself.  Oddly, I have actually never once thought the sensational @RedEaredRabbit is actually a rabbit with red ears.  He is someone who chooses to remain private about his identity; people do this for any number of reasons and it is absolutely fine.  He is funny, warm, intelligent and wonderful - that's reason enough for me to follow him.  He is not claiming to be something he is not.

TIP: Don't be a wanker and pretend you're Cameron's personal advisor.  People will (eventually) catch you out on your lies.


11. Retweets

Retweets can be great: it's a way of sharing interesting things on Twitter and a key strength of the medium.  You see people who have interesting things to say and may end up following them as a result.  However, endless retweets by people can be BLOODY boring.  Just because you agree with something, do you need to flood other people's timelines with retweets?  There's a temptation to do this if you're a bit unsure of yourself or feel you need to contribute something - but stop and think whether it really adds something to everyone who is following you before hitting "retweet" every 2 minutes.  It's a balancing act: look at the ratio of your tweets versus RTs you're doing.  I never follow anyone whose timeline is just full of RTs. 

TIP: You can switch off people's RTs on Twitter on the Internet (select the person's profile and then the drop down menu next to the little head symbol).  I've done this for people who RT too much, but whom I like.  I want to know what they have to say, not what someone else does.  I know you can pick up interesting people to follow through RTs, but with 900 odd people I follow already, that's enough for me at this stage.  It makes my timeline much calmer and more manageable to have switched off selected people's RTs.

12. Fridays

The natural pattern of the Twitter week is people being depressed it's Monday, building up to near Class A drug induced joy at the arrival of a Friday.  Watch people's moods changing: it's amazing as Friday afternoon hits!  Saturdays are equally fab and then towards Sunday evenings it all comes crashing back down again.

On Fridays many engage in something called "Follow Fridays" - though it is happening less than it used to.  If you happen to join Twitter on a Friday you'll think we're all Moonies.  Actually what is going on is people are recommending to their followers to follow someone they like, for example "#FF @HyperbolicGoat he's amazing."  If you're new and someone you like has done an #FF like this, by all means take up the recommendation.  However, most people seem to use this simply as a way of saying "I really like @Hyperbolicgoat and want him to know that."

TIPS: You don't need to do #FFs.  It can become really tricky to do, as you don't want to inadvertently miss out people you like who might be offended.  I gave up ages ago.  If someone does #FF you, thank them for it - it's just good manners and actually how lovely they like you so much as to mention you like this.

ANOTHER TIP:  How about #FFing just one person a week that you have a special reason to do this for?  Actually explain it in the tweet - compare the simple "#FF @Peterl_77" (which says very little, if anything) and "#FF @PeterL_77 He's warm, funny, flies the flag for Labour, consistently tweets thought-provoking stuff and was so kind to me this week" (which gives people a much better idea of the person you're recommending/ and acknowledges him personally.)

13. Abbreviations, Hashtags, Asterisks

There is a whole set of abbreviations which again may make you feel like you have to learn a new language.  They're actually really simple.  We've dealt with "#FF".  Here are some more:

  • RT: a manual way of doing a retweet.  You copy and paste someone's tweet and can add your own comment to supplement it
  • MT: modified tweet.  That's an RT that you've changed in some way and you want to make it clear you are not misrepresenting the original statement because you've amended it
  • "HT" is "heard through" or "hat tip".  It's a way of acknowledging that someone else put you on to a news story or a piece of information.  It's good etiquette to do this: people get upset if you're ripping off material and passing it off as if you discovered it 
  • "IRL" is not a country with Dublin as its capital, but "in real life"
  •  "<THIS!" doesn't stand for anything - it actually literally means "this".  The tweeter is generally saying s/he agrees strongly with something that they have put in an RT.  
On top of this there are the usual text speak abbreviations like "lol" / "rofl" / "lmao" / "omg" / "zomg" etc.  If you don't know them ask a 13 year old for a full run down.
Hashtags are a way of flagging up a particular subject so that anyone can see all the tweets on a particular subject by doing a search.  "#XFactor" and "#BBCQT" are popular ones.  You tweet something like: "Did he REALLY just make that comment?! #BBCQT" and everyone knows you're referring to something that just happened on Question Time.

Hashtags can be really silly - and therefore superb fun - eg. #imnotreallyatotalpervhonest.  This is hard to explain, you'll just get the knack of it.  No one is ever going to do a search for that hashtag.

If you're using a 3rd party app such as Echofon you can mute certain hashtags, so tweets about, for example Question Time do not appear on your timeline.

Asterisks are normally used to EMPHASISE - eg "this is *superb* fun"... or to show an action about yourself in the 3rd person- eg "*goes off sobbing*  You can also capitalise for emphasis but that comes across as shouting.  This can of course be used ironically or for self-parody.

TIP: The ultimate #FAIL in Twitterquette is to steal someone's tweet and pretend you wrote it yourself (This is called Twagerism.) Always acknowledge the author of a tweet by either RTing it with their name, or saying HT (heard through) with their name.  This is a consistent, wonderful self-imposed rule on Twitter adhered to by at least 99% of people.  It's theft of ideas and you risk being tweleminated for breaching this rule! (not really, but people won't like you very much, so there.)

Asterix. *Never* to be confused with Asterisks.
14. Twitter Breaks

A really Twitter good friend told me he'd had enough with Twitter and was leaving.  I asked him to reconsider.  He'd built up a really great following and if he hit delete all that would be gone.  I suggested he take a couple of weeks' break instead and come back to it if he wanted.  His followers wouldn't have gone anywhere.  I'm glad he's done just that and I hope he'll be back.

TIP:  If you're not in a mood for being sociable, you can also take another shorter type of break.  Just read your timeline and don't tweet yourself.  I sometimes do this of an evening and it's wonderful.  It's just great seeing people chatting and knowing what they're up to without having to contribute yourself.  Sounds obvious, I know.

15. The Daily Mail

We ALL hate it.  The Mail hates Twitter and all those who sail in her.  It is the way of the world.  We even refer to it as the #FAIL and everyone knows what we're talking about.  End of.

16. Libel (added post Lord McAlpine/ Newsnight)

There's been much said about Twitter users and defaming people.  I've done my preachy bit too, here
It's really very simple.  If you tweet something that damages someone's reputation, that's every bit as defamatory on Twitter as it is in real life.  You can avoid liability if you can prove the statement is true, but read the tip on that point and think very carefully.  Pressing "retweet" is almost certainly a "republication" of someone else's libel and therefore a fresh offence by you.  It is no defence to say that you are repeating an allegation made by someone else.  Anonymity will not help you if the lawyers of the person aggrieved are determined to track you down. 

Damages in libel cases can run into the tens of thousands of pounds.  Aside from the legal aspect, there's the moral one: it isn't harmless fun to destroy someone's life by suggesting that they are a paedophile, for example.  A libel on Twitter can be both by a general tweet and by a direct message: what matters is that you say something "bad" about someone and a minimum of just one other person reads it.

TIP:  Apply this test: could the thing that you are about to tweet about someone been seen as damaging a reputation?  If so, do you know it is true, as opposed to believing it to be true, or have heard from someone else that it's true?  Does your confidence go so far as to be able to stand in court and demonstrate this?  Consider that the burden of proof flips in libel cases: you will have to prove on a balance of probabilities that a defamatory statement is true.  If you're happy, tweet away.  If not, don't.

[disclaimer: I am not a practising solicitor and this should be seen as general guidance, not replied upon as an exhaustive explanation of the law that you should rely upon.  If in doubt, contact a solicitor]

17. Favouriting Tweets

You can hit the favourite key and a tweet will then be saved to your favourites.  I've already mentioned that this can be a handy way to find out what someone is like, or to find new people to follow.

People use favouriting in different ways, and this has changed recently for many people.  It used to be a way of keeping a few select tweets that you really liked for prosperity.  It was also used by many to "bookmark" a tweet for later: for example a Youtube clip that you want to watch when you are at home and have wifi, rather than using up data allowances on your phone.

Recently however people have been using "favourite" increasingly as a "like" feature as on Facebook.  It's a quick way of acknowledging a tweet that was sent to you, or bringing a polite end to a conversation.  I most amusingly thought my (now) boyfriend fancied me because he "favourited" virtually every tweet I sent to him.  He in fact was being lazy and couldn't be bothered to talk to me.  Oh well, how fortunate for me I misunderstood the multiple uses of this feature!

 


NOW SOME PRACTICAL THINGS FOR COMPLETE BEGINNERS

You're welcome to skip past these 17 points if you've been on Twitter for a while and go straight for the offer of a beer at the end! 

General vs @Tweets

1) There's a distinction between general tweets & tweets directed at a particular person (@tweets)

2) A general tweet is one you just type and that all your followers will see.  Anyone doing a search for any keyword in that tweet will also see it.

3) @tweets, by contrast, start off with the @ symbol plus the name right at the start of the message e.g.  "@HyperbolicGoat Have you eaten many table legs recently?"  This tweet would appear only in HyperbolicGoat's timeline, and would not show in the timeline of the rest of my followers.

4) The exception to 3 is where someone follows both me AND HyperbolicGoat. It enables that "mutual follower" to see the conversation happening between us and join in if s/he wishes (Note, see "Butting In, above".)

@Mentions

5) Sometimes you want to publicise an @tweet to someone and make sure all your followers see it.  You can do this my simply not putting the @ right at the start of the message. e.g. ".@HyperbolicGoat is a lovely person, follow him!"

6) Alternatively you could put the name anyway else in the tweet e.g. "I had a great drink this evening with @HyperbolicGoat and @Dancing_Piglet".

7) There are many ways to keep the @ away from the first position in the tweet - "@ or ,@ or .@ all work just as well.

8) To see if anyone has referred to you in a tweet like this, you have to go to the "@mentions" section of your timeline.

9) Similarly, if someone who you don't follow has interacted with you, the message will not appear in your timeline because you don't follow them.  Instead you need to go to the "@mentions" section to see it.

10) You cannot use the @ symbol followed by any word or it will appear in the @mentions of the person with that username.  If you write "I wanted to laugh @Oscar" - it would have popped up in the mentions of whichever random person has the name "@Oscar". What you actually should have written is "I wanted to laugh at Oscar" or even "I wanted to laugh @ Oscar" with a space in between.

Protected Accounts

11) You can protect your tweets so that only your followers can see them.  You may want to do this for any number of reasons, including for example if you're a teacher and don't want your pupils seeing your private persona.  It will also lead to less spam (annoying marketing people who randomly pick up on keywords you have used and provide you with links to websites).  However it makes it less likely you will pick up new followers, as people can't see what you're saying.

12) If your account is protected, you cannot be retweeted by use of the "retweet" button.  People still can retweet you though by copying and pasting your tweet with the letters "RT" at the start of the tweet.  They generally won't do so without having the decency to ask first.  Your account is protected for a reason after all.

13) If your account is protected and you reply to someone who is not following you, they cannot see your tweet.  Even experienced Twitter users frequently don't realise this.

14) If someone Google searches your username your tweets will not appear if you have protected them.  Only if you have allowed them to follow you, will the Google search throw up your timeline (sophisticated and quite impressive, eh?)

Direct Messages

15)  Twitter is inherently a public medium.  This is why you should be aware that anything you type, even in an @message is potentially viewable by anyone.  The only exception is if your account if protected - and even then your own approved followers can see the tweet, screen grab, and repost it if they so choose.

16) The exception is the direct message.  This is a way of having a completely private conversation between just two people.  You can only send a "DM" to someone who follows you and they can only reply if you follow them back.  Remember however that a libel passed by a DM still constitutes a libel even if just one person reads it.

17) The direct message is sometimes called the "Dark Room of Twitter" as this is where all the confidential, naughty stuff goes on.  Apparently. Ahem.  However: concerns have been raised that it is not quite as secure as you might think and it can be hacked.  Further, any photos you post may well be viewable in your general photo stream.  Therefore if you want to be really naughty and are worried about confidentiality, save it for email or texts which are inherently more secure.



RIGHT, this was meant to be a quick blog.  It's turned into something almost as long as a 19th century Russian novel.  Biers are on me if you made it this far!  If you've found it useful, do please share this post with people you know are new to Twitter.  It's a great medium and there are precious few practical "how to" guides in my experience.