“England and the English as a rule they will refuse even to sample a foreign dish, they regard such things as garlic and olive oil with disgust, life is unlivable to them unless they have tea and puddings”
Sunday, 1 January 2012
Sweden, really?
Firstly, let's get one thing absolutely clear, we live in uncertain times. This phrase has certainly been banded around over the years. I can remember reading newspapers and academic journals at university in 2002 or 2003, relative golden years, at least in terms of public confidence, that talked even then, of high unemployment and rising inequality. Now everything is relative, and these years had specific worries of their own but roll on 8-9 years and things start to become much more foggy.
I suppose in a way, being British, we tend to see the problems we face i.e social inequality, a disconnected youth and immigration as purely British problems. For sure, other European countries have had successes in areas that the UK have not but they are by no means immune to the social problems that we face as a nation.
Economical policies apart, the social problems we now face stem more from our inability to tackle the problem head on rather than evolve policy initiatives to deal with them over time. Take school exclusions for example. By insisting that schools do everything in their power to retain extremely disruptive pupils, the government help maximise classroom disruption, ensuring that the other 95% of pupils aren't given the education that they deserve. It's somehow thought that teachers who fail to control these pupils are somehow failures themselves, or at least that is the way it reads in the Government statistics. Imagine another industry or business where the employees are given the task of selling insurance to someone who has already said no fifteen times before to a certain policy. Not only would that one customer get more annoyed that you have continued to push something in their face that they do not want to accept but the other customers, some of them who are crying out for your policy, are ignored. It's a depressing reality that teachers, in fact nearly all public sector workers, aren't given the necessary freedom to do their jobs to the best of their ability.
It's often when talking to people from continental Europe that you start to get a good idea of the similarities between us. We often think that to look at Sweden, the bastion of the social model which bears the same name, is to look at a society bordering on utopia. I suppose it's lazy in a way, stereotypical even, to think of countries based purely on their reported benefits or problems but from the outside Sweden is nothing but a beacon of prosperity. From the inside you can hear, much like the UK, the same problems that we all face. Rising unemployment, astronomical house prices and an immigration policy without direction.
Sweden is but a small example and they, seemingly, continue to flourish, relatively speaking, compared to other Western nations. Spending the past week with two Swedish couples it is interesting to hear, comforting even, that even though the media would have you believe otherwise, we are not alone in the problems we face. It's almost as if we could have been spending our time with a couple from Leeds and another from London. Our hopes, worries and insecurities are, understanably, inextricably linked.
These certainly are uncertain times but that should never be a reason to start thinking introspectively. Although we are separated by language and culture, we are, socially speaking, closer to our European cousins now than we ever have been. Without sounding like the European financiers, we need more Europe, not less!
I suppose in a way, being British, we tend to see the problems we face i.e social inequality, a disconnected youth and immigration as purely British problems. For sure, other European countries have had successes in areas that the UK have not but they are by no means immune to the social problems that we face as a nation.
Economical policies apart, the social problems we now face stem more from our inability to tackle the problem head on rather than evolve policy initiatives to deal with them over time. Take school exclusions for example. By insisting that schools do everything in their power to retain extremely disruptive pupils, the government help maximise classroom disruption, ensuring that the other 95% of pupils aren't given the education that they deserve. It's somehow thought that teachers who fail to control these pupils are somehow failures themselves, or at least that is the way it reads in the Government statistics. Imagine another industry or business where the employees are given the task of selling insurance to someone who has already said no fifteen times before to a certain policy. Not only would that one customer get more annoyed that you have continued to push something in their face that they do not want to accept but the other customers, some of them who are crying out for your policy, are ignored. It's a depressing reality that teachers, in fact nearly all public sector workers, aren't given the necessary freedom to do their jobs to the best of their ability.
It's often when talking to people from continental Europe that you start to get a good idea of the similarities between us. We often think that to look at Sweden, the bastion of the social model which bears the same name, is to look at a society bordering on utopia. I suppose it's lazy in a way, stereotypical even, to think of countries based purely on their reported benefits or problems but from the outside Sweden is nothing but a beacon of prosperity. From the inside you can hear, much like the UK, the same problems that we all face. Rising unemployment, astronomical house prices and an immigration policy without direction.
Sweden is but a small example and they, seemingly, continue to flourish, relatively speaking, compared to other Western nations. Spending the past week with two Swedish couples it is interesting to hear, comforting even, that even though the media would have you believe otherwise, we are not alone in the problems we face. It's almost as if we could have been spending our time with a couple from Leeds and another from London. Our hopes, worries and insecurities are, understanably, inextricably linked.
These certainly are uncertain times but that should never be a reason to start thinking introspectively. Although we are separated by language and culture, we are, socially speaking, closer to our European cousins now than we ever have been. Without sounding like the European financiers, we need more Europe, not less!
Monday, 15 August 2011
Riots: the aftermath!
After spending two years working as a youth worker on a high-crime, inner-city estate. Then the next three years working with 16-19 year olds in further education I feel that, although I am no expert, I have some gravitas and cultural understanding when talking about the issues affecting young people today.
In the clear light of day, it is morally wrong for politicians, the police or members of the public to make quick judgement on what happened last week. The situation we find ourselves cannot be ring-fenced by this idea that quick arrests, tough sentencing and the exemption from welfare benefits is the ultimate solution where, as soon as you introduce said measures the apathetic and disenfranchised will fall in line. The root problems of last weeks turmoil have been growing organically for a generation, the remedies, alas, cannot be found in a week.
It is easy, as some people inevitibly will, place the blame for these riots squarely on the shoulders of parents, or maybe even successive government's laissez-faire approach to school discipline and although these are mitigating probems, they are not unilateral problems. In truth we are all at fault. The reasons as to why thousands of people chose to loot and riot stems equally from our own beligerance as it does any criminality from so-called 'gang-culture'. The riots that struck last week are just a small reminder of what is at stake here. By trying to solve the reason's why we must first look at ourselves and our place in society. In short it is not so much one or two small problems that need fine-tuning such as arrests or taking away the benefits of looters but a complete cultural shift within society.
The young people who rioted last week, and this must be stressed with vigour, do not represent the entirity of young people today. It is all too easy though, even among politicians in the aftermath late last week, to once again tread the careful line of political correctness by stating that the vast majority of young people are respectful and upstanding pillars of community. Arguably, this isn't the case. Yes, most young people would never even think about looting, vandalising or rioting to the extent of some young people last week but we cannot be naive into thinking that young people are otherwise respectful of authority and rules or,more importantly, are they grateful to the opportunities given to them. The issue here, and this isn't just entrenched into the younger elements of society, is that we have lost touch with what we have to be thankful for. Respect, hope and promise are feelings that citizens have when they understand the definition of society, not just the parts that come free with it.
In my work, two things became abundantly clear over the past five years. One, for all the exclamations that violent video games and gangsta rap do not have anything to do with the current social problems, I completely disagree. Although, the youth 'rising up' against the establishment is nothing new, it seems to have taken on a much more toxic context over the past few years. Watching young people, some as young as 10, imitate the language and mannerisms of a pimp, drug dealer or thief is sickening. Teenagers in hoods, carying knives, stood with their hands down their pants, intimidating their community, this isn't how it was supposed to be. This isn't middle-England's attack on rap music, this is looking on in horror as a whole generation get seduced by the 'get rich or die tryin' attitude which seems to have enveloped the nation. This isn't the veneration of a whole genre of music, more the irresponsibility of the majority to not acknowledge that this is one of the root causes of the problem.
Secondly, we have been made to believe that even in less economically challenging times certain pockets of society have been offered nothing or to a lesser extent are not being listened to. Again, and this is ofcourse all relative, young people in this country, compared to similar developed nations across Europe, are offered more activities, more qualifications, better standards of youth services and sports organisations than any other. For thirteen years of a Labour government the answer was to throw money at trying to halt the rising tied of youth offending and although some success has been made in areas, it cannot be backed up by a resonated change in attitude. Organisations often proudly showcase their statistics but it is these very statistics, so often lauded by government, that undermine the very purpose of these youth services. In essence, young people, even in these frought economic times, have opportunities to better themselves, whether it be through education, community-driven projects or merely hobbies and interests. Unfortunately, these things go against the grain of the culture they aspire to, to better themselves, to better their communities or simply to earn their living through hard-work.
Doom mongering is not the aim here but the past week has to be seen as a marker in evolution in society that we so desperately crave. We have to teach not only our young people but also ourselves that what we aspire to cannot be consistently handed on a plate. That by doing somnething positive in your community will not only benefit your neighbours but will go a long way to halt the rising tide of alienation that they feel from the rest of the society. If young people want a stake in society, it is theirs for the taking, but they must earn that right.
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Travelling
In about a year's time me and my girlfriend will be leaving these shores for a 'sabbatical', a year long trip into the void that is the world, to gain new experiences, new friends and new memories that will last us a lifetime and hopefully keep us content till we are trapped in the mundanity of old age and ill health. This trip though is not something we have decided to do on a whim oh no. It has been talked about, fantasized about and mulled over for the best part of our relationship from the latter stages of university, to training and starting new jobs and the years spent in-between. For me this is the dream, the chance to experience something a lot of people say they would like to do but never get round to doing it, or get so stuck into the tedious inevitability of routine that the thought of taking a risk and getting out of all that for a while seems overwhelmingly daunting. I don't blame them; going on a trip of this magnitude has its risks, not least the fact that leaving our jobs could be deemed irresponsible! I kind of agree but look at it this way, we are saving the money up ourselves, meaning that although we will be pretty penniless and unemployed at least we won't have the immediate comedown of a mountain of debt to scale upon our return! In addition to this, why do we have to be constrained by economics!? What a sad life we would lead if something you have planned for so very long could no longer be achievable due to a recession or an over eager Tory hell bent on massive public-sector cuts! We have no responsibilities, no ties that won't be there on our return, and a feeling that if we don't do it now then unfortunately it may never happen.
Now ever since I can remember I have had this infatuation with places, place names and where they are in the world. I can trace this all back to when I used to go round to my grandma's house after school on a Monday afternoon where she would make me two crumpets smothered in butter and a sweet milky tea. She would sit me on her knee and pull out what I thought was the most famous atlas in the world due to its sheer size and sense of importance. We would sit flicking the pages looking intently at all the countries of the world with their river systems, mountain ranges, secluded bays and obvious desolation. It was this sense of wonder, of infinite possibility that got me wondering and the excitement grew through the years until I was school and could beat anyone at the capital city game, giving the geography teachers a run for their money with Nicaragua and Uzbekistan!
Losing my brother three years ago to cancer definitely put things into perspective. Although never holding massive ambitions to travel the world his death served as a mental warning, maybe that I was now aware of my own mortality and that life was just too precious to be sat watching TV or just idling along spending your best years wishing it away. Life has now become very pressurised but at least it has served to point me in what I believe is the right direction. This trip for me, rightly or wrongly, is all I want to do, all I have ever wanted to do. Whilst others were dreaming of careers and making money, all I have ever wanted to do is see the world and meet as many nice people as possible, call it daft, call it irresponsible, call it what you like, in a world full of overused clichés, we have one life....MAKE THE MOST OF IT!
Now ever since I can remember I have had this infatuation with places, place names and where they are in the world. I can trace this all back to when I used to go round to my grandma's house after school on a Monday afternoon where she would make me two crumpets smothered in butter and a sweet milky tea. She would sit me on her knee and pull out what I thought was the most famous atlas in the world due to its sheer size and sense of importance. We would sit flicking the pages looking intently at all the countries of the world with their river systems, mountain ranges, secluded bays and obvious desolation. It was this sense of wonder, of infinite possibility that got me wondering and the excitement grew through the years until I was school and could beat anyone at the capital city game, giving the geography teachers a run for their money with Nicaragua and Uzbekistan!
Losing my brother three years ago to cancer definitely put things into perspective. Although never holding massive ambitions to travel the world his death served as a mental warning, maybe that I was now aware of my own mortality and that life was just too precious to be sat watching TV or just idling along spending your best years wishing it away. Life has now become very pressurised but at least it has served to point me in what I believe is the right direction. This trip for me, rightly or wrongly, is all I want to do, all I have ever wanted to do. Whilst others were dreaming of careers and making money, all I have ever wanted to do is see the world and meet as many nice people as possible, call it daft, call it irresponsible, call it what you like, in a world full of overused clichés, we have one life....MAKE THE MOST OF IT!
Friday, 16 April 2010
Election debate number 1
So the first ever pre-election priministerial live debate passes, embracing presidentialism and giving the public, at least for a while, the chance to remind themselves that politicians are relatively real people. What this live debate has done, looking past the political engineering and one-upmanship, has once again linked the public to popular politics much like Nick Griffin’s tumultuous appearance on Question Time a few months ago. This has both its benefits and its flaws, on the one hand any attempt to get the public to engage with politics has to be seen as a positive, this goes without saying. On the other hand this idle attempt at showcasing the future leadership of this country leaves quite a strange taste in the mouth.
The debate itself went largely without incident with each candidate at their stereotypical best. Gordon Brown unexciting and uninspiring, David Cameron hollow, with style (make-up) over substance and then Nick Clegg, the leader of the third party in British politics, eager to make a name for himself on the equal footing in which the live debate provides. In essence each leader did everything that they were expected to do, David Cameron wanting to point nuclear weapons at China aside, they all managed to neither significantly help or hinder their cause in a way that was going to have a big influence on the way people will vote. Out of the three leaders up there only David Cameron had anything big to lose and in most respects he reminded everyone watching that despite some populous ideas on immigration and school discipline he has very little else that will distance himself from the other leaders, apart from maybe the most orange face. As a signal of intent David Cameron provided almost nothing in the way of a nucleus for change.
If the inevitable does happen and Mr Cameron does win a majority on May 6th the comparisons are likely to be drawn with New Labour’s victory in 1997. Coming on the back of 18 years of a Tory government the New Labour agenda promised, and provided for a while at least, the prospect of real change lead by a man who provided the real promise of making a difference. If David Cameron and the Tories think they are on a similar bandwagon after 13 years of a Labour government, they are sadly misguided.
As for Gordon Brown the debate was never going to portray him in the greatest of lights. Gordon Brown is just not made for modern, publicity driven election campaigns. Gordon Brown is the type of politician that should be left in the backroom to read big dusty books on Milford and Keynes and devise policy, not out in the shop window scaring the babies. To be fair to him though he handled himself ok but wasted too much time on reminding the public of the Tories flaws. He should have taken this time to convince the public that to vote Labour won’t mean the continual breakdown of society and the risk of a place on the economic slagheap.
The real winner of this debate and the one with the least to lose was Nick Clegg. Being the least well-known of the three all he had to do was not to make a tit of himself, which he managed to achieve quite comfortably. Giving concrete policy promises and answering the public on first-name terms he provided the freshness and ease of speech which Mr Cameron can only yearn for. Only time will tell what this could do for the Liberal Democrats but with solid and respected politicians like Vince Cable behind him they surely have to be taken much more seriously on the back of this performance.
The debate was odd that’s for sure, with the set looking like it cost the equivalent of the X Factor’s firecracker budget it was hard to give the occasion the seriousness it deserved. Added to this the presenter looking at best like an overeager sixth former and at worst Alan Partridge at his camp and socially inept best it lacked the sheen and legitimacy that the BBC adds to these occasions. Let’s just hope that the bland realisation that politics is dead can in part be resurrected by two more debates.
The debate itself went largely without incident with each candidate at their stereotypical best. Gordon Brown unexciting and uninspiring, David Cameron hollow, with style (make-up) over substance and then Nick Clegg, the leader of the third party in British politics, eager to make a name for himself on the equal footing in which the live debate provides. In essence each leader did everything that they were expected to do, David Cameron wanting to point nuclear weapons at China aside, they all managed to neither significantly help or hinder their cause in a way that was going to have a big influence on the way people will vote. Out of the three leaders up there only David Cameron had anything big to lose and in most respects he reminded everyone watching that despite some populous ideas on immigration and school discipline he has very little else that will distance himself from the other leaders, apart from maybe the most orange face. As a signal of intent David Cameron provided almost nothing in the way of a nucleus for change.
If the inevitable does happen and Mr Cameron does win a majority on May 6th the comparisons are likely to be drawn with New Labour’s victory in 1997. Coming on the back of 18 years of a Tory government the New Labour agenda promised, and provided for a while at least, the prospect of real change lead by a man who provided the real promise of making a difference. If David Cameron and the Tories think they are on a similar bandwagon after 13 years of a Labour government, they are sadly misguided.
As for Gordon Brown the debate was never going to portray him in the greatest of lights. Gordon Brown is just not made for modern, publicity driven election campaigns. Gordon Brown is the type of politician that should be left in the backroom to read big dusty books on Milford and Keynes and devise policy, not out in the shop window scaring the babies. To be fair to him though he handled himself ok but wasted too much time on reminding the public of the Tories flaws. He should have taken this time to convince the public that to vote Labour won’t mean the continual breakdown of society and the risk of a place on the economic slagheap.
The real winner of this debate and the one with the least to lose was Nick Clegg. Being the least well-known of the three all he had to do was not to make a tit of himself, which he managed to achieve quite comfortably. Giving concrete policy promises and answering the public on first-name terms he provided the freshness and ease of speech which Mr Cameron can only yearn for. Only time will tell what this could do for the Liberal Democrats but with solid and respected politicians like Vince Cable behind him they surely have to be taken much more seriously on the back of this performance.
The debate was odd that’s for sure, with the set looking like it cost the equivalent of the X Factor’s firecracker budget it was hard to give the occasion the seriousness it deserved. Added to this the presenter looking at best like an overeager sixth former and at worst Alan Partridge at his camp and socially inept best it lacked the sheen and legitimacy that the BBC adds to these occasions. Let’s just hope that the bland realisation that politics is dead can in part be resurrected by two more debates.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Why Cameron doesn't want you
So Mr Cameron today unveiled his mighty new manifesto in the bold hope that it represents something completely unique, an unparalleled document so unalike to any other political party it would almost make us want to clean his shiny bicycle every morning. The truth is the Conservative manifesto seems to have fallen flat right at the moment when it should have underpinned Mr Cameron's growing sense of complacency as to who will win the election on May 6th. It offers little or no major alternatives to Mr Browns own manifesto published yesterday, other than the fact that Mr Cameron seems to believe that the way to cure the countries budget deficit it so punish the public sector.
Now the Tory party’s language over the past few months, especially George Osborne’s has at best been annoying and at worst a full fish-slap across the face. How can he possibly say, in many public speeches, that we are all in this together?? I had absolutely nothing to do with this mess; neither did 99% of the population, so the audacity to stand on his platform and give us some public-relations smothered spiel about how we all have to do our bit stinks of hypocrisy of the worst kind. Now the main focus of the Tories successful campaign, and let’s face it- they will win, is that within 50 days of the general election they will enforce an emergency budget. In this 'emergency' budget they will lay down their plans for a massive overhaul of the £128 billion budget deficit on far greater scale than that of the Labour Party. Within this budget the Tories will announce massive public sector cuts, something which, if you think about Labour's massive public sector spending is fair enough, but what the Tories are proposing is to hand out the 'punishment' of the recession squarely at the feet some of the hardest working and in most cases over-worked people in the land.
This is no more evident than with teachers, who for years now have seen their profession turned from one of the most inspiring and important roles in society to arguably one of the most frustrating. Held back by years of a government who believes that whatever the rights of the teacher, they will always come second place to the rights of the child, including in this the fact that to discipline a pupil is a near myth nowadays. In fact, one child was allowed to stay in a friend’s classroom for 6 months even though everyday the child attacked other children, other staff and caused mayhem on a 'Damien' scale. The answer to this was to put him in another room to 'play games' or to reward him for not smashing the face of the teaching assistant. Now although this is surely (and hopefully) an isolated incident it is part of a much wider problem. Teachers are asked to perform miracles and it can't continue. They are castigated for not hitting targets when this should never be a target driven profession, they are bullied into 'controlling' violent children and then vilified for not doing so, they are given paperwork after paperwork when they should be teaching and marking and are given responsibilities to teach all children at the same level, even if some pupils are clearly not capable. In what other profession would this be allowed to happen? On top of this they have the 'privilege' of having to put in 80 hours plus per week.
And what is the Tories answer to this? There answer is to freeze all public sector pay for at least 1 year, with the probably intention to make that three years. So in a profession where they are social worker, prison guard, crowd control, admin assistant, learning assistant and a multitude of others they are now being asked to effectively take a pay cut? Is that fair? Is it fair that the blokes who have cleaned the gutters, mended the bin lorries, cut the hedges, shovelled the shit and sick off the street for forty years now be asked to work till they are 66 and accept a much reduced 'slap in the face' rate of pension??
Now if Mr Osborne thinks we are all in this together, I ask you this. Let’s sacrifice your pension, give you a classroom of inner-city school children to teach and then tell you we are taking away your money. No My Osborne I don't think we are...
Now the Tory party’s language over the past few months, especially George Osborne’s has at best been annoying and at worst a full fish-slap across the face. How can he possibly say, in many public speeches, that we are all in this together?? I had absolutely nothing to do with this mess; neither did 99% of the population, so the audacity to stand on his platform and give us some public-relations smothered spiel about how we all have to do our bit stinks of hypocrisy of the worst kind. Now the main focus of the Tories successful campaign, and let’s face it- they will win, is that within 50 days of the general election they will enforce an emergency budget. In this 'emergency' budget they will lay down their plans for a massive overhaul of the £128 billion budget deficit on far greater scale than that of the Labour Party. Within this budget the Tories will announce massive public sector cuts, something which, if you think about Labour's massive public sector spending is fair enough, but what the Tories are proposing is to hand out the 'punishment' of the recession squarely at the feet some of the hardest working and in most cases over-worked people in the land.
This is no more evident than with teachers, who for years now have seen their profession turned from one of the most inspiring and important roles in society to arguably one of the most frustrating. Held back by years of a government who believes that whatever the rights of the teacher, they will always come second place to the rights of the child, including in this the fact that to discipline a pupil is a near myth nowadays. In fact, one child was allowed to stay in a friend’s classroom for 6 months even though everyday the child attacked other children, other staff and caused mayhem on a 'Damien' scale. The answer to this was to put him in another room to 'play games' or to reward him for not smashing the face of the teaching assistant. Now although this is surely (and hopefully) an isolated incident it is part of a much wider problem. Teachers are asked to perform miracles and it can't continue. They are castigated for not hitting targets when this should never be a target driven profession, they are bullied into 'controlling' violent children and then vilified for not doing so, they are given paperwork after paperwork when they should be teaching and marking and are given responsibilities to teach all children at the same level, even if some pupils are clearly not capable. In what other profession would this be allowed to happen? On top of this they have the 'privilege' of having to put in 80 hours plus per week.
And what is the Tories answer to this? There answer is to freeze all public sector pay for at least 1 year, with the probably intention to make that three years. So in a profession where they are social worker, prison guard, crowd control, admin assistant, learning assistant and a multitude of others they are now being asked to effectively take a pay cut? Is that fair? Is it fair that the blokes who have cleaned the gutters, mended the bin lorries, cut the hedges, shovelled the shit and sick off the street for forty years now be asked to work till they are 66 and accept a much reduced 'slap in the face' rate of pension??
Now if Mr Osborne thinks we are all in this together, I ask you this. Let’s sacrifice your pension, give you a classroom of inner-city school children to teach and then tell you we are taking away your money. No My Osborne I don't think we are...
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Grief
Three years have passed and still the throbbing sensation of hurt lingers on. People say that the stages of grief are somehow scientifically proven to resemble a process with an eventual end point. What they fail to realise is the complexity of the human spirit and how this ‘process’ can be dramatically inconsistent person to person. Deep inside I know this numbness of emotion probably won’t heal and that nothing I do or say will ever make me the person I once was. Losing close friends or family is the ultimate dejection, leaving people with that unbearable feeling in the pit of the stomach of pure desperation. But for some it is more periodical, constantly nagging away at you, resurfacing when you least expect it. Looking around you feel completely disconnected with everything and everybody, constantly envious of their pain-free existence but constantly guilty of wanting to put your problems on theirs.
I lost my brother in December 2006, just before Christmas. At the time of his illness (a kind of cancer which goes everywhere) it all seemed very surreal. I myself was nearly 300 miles away at university which kind of put me on the periphery of what was going on, neither shielding me from the pain nor preparing me for the inevitable outcome. Three years on and the pain seems to reverberate around my consciousness like a dove stuck in a barn, hitting the rafters every now and then. It’s a strange situation, knowing that most of the people you know will never have to go through this, its as if bitterness has become your one true emotion knowing that for most people the worst thing they will feel will never compare to what you have been through.
Still, three years…time certainly makes a difference. For me it has lead to myriad of questions both consciously and more importantly, subconsciously. It is the latter which is taking more extracting, meaning help from unbiased professionals who don’t seem to do much other than recap and summarise, it is these things which seem to be their most valuable trait.
Grief is such a complex emotion.
I lost my brother in December 2006, just before Christmas. At the time of his illness (a kind of cancer which goes everywhere) it all seemed very surreal. I myself was nearly 300 miles away at university which kind of put me on the periphery of what was going on, neither shielding me from the pain nor preparing me for the inevitable outcome. Three years on and the pain seems to reverberate around my consciousness like a dove stuck in a barn, hitting the rafters every now and then. It’s a strange situation, knowing that most of the people you know will never have to go through this, its as if bitterness has become your one true emotion knowing that for most people the worst thing they will feel will never compare to what you have been through.
Still, three years…time certainly makes a difference. For me it has lead to myriad of questions both consciously and more importantly, subconsciously. It is the latter which is taking more extracting, meaning help from unbiased professionals who don’t seem to do much other than recap and summarise, it is these things which seem to be their most valuable trait.
Grief is such a complex emotion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)