lataiwish

Newspaper articles

Read and give your own comment and reaction to the article by publishing your point of view in the guestbook. Thanks.

Flight 93 'was shot down'
by ROWLAND MORGAN 23:15pm 18th August 2006

Let's roll: but was Flight 93 shot down?
The heart-thumping moment came when when passengers on board one of the hijacked 9/11 jets fought back against the ruthless fanatics hellbent on crashing the plane into the heart of America.
Jumping out of their seats to a rallying cry of ‘Let’s roll!’, they charged towards the front of the Boeing 757 and began smashing down the cockpit door to reach the hijackers at the controls.
Amid the desperate commotion, the plane rolled violently from right to left and pitched up and down as the rogue pilots tried to throw the passengers beyond the door off balance. As the struggle continued, the cockpit voice recorder captured the hijackers urgently discussing whether to ditch the plane. ‘Is that it? Shall we finish it off?’ asked one of the fanatics.
‘No, not yet. When they all come, we finish it off,’ was the reply. Minutes later, at10.03am, with the same voices shouting in Arabic, ‘Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest,’ the plane headed down, banked hard right and rolled on to its back. It smashed into an empty field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at its top speed of 580mph and exploded into a massive fireball.
The flames set nearby woods on fire as the impact sprayed body parts and other debris into the trees and up into the sky, to float to earth as far as eight miles away.
This, then, is the legend of United Airways Flight 93, one that has been vigorously promoted in a stream of books and films, most recently in the £9.6 million Hollywood movie United 93. It is the story of how 33 innocent passengers and seven crew gave their lives to save countless others as their plane flew kamikaze-style towards the White House or the Capitol in Washington.
To a nation still reeling from the attacks on New York’s World Trade Centre and the Pentagon that same September morning, these were men and women every bit as heroic as those who had fought at the Alamo.
Yet my own exhaustive investigations have led me to conclude that the story of Flight 93 is far from being the straightforward account of supreme courage that the authorities would have us believe.
Instead, the real story is mired in cynical manipulation and warmongering propaganda. I am convinced there is evidence to suggest a wholly sinister twist to the tale that already holds pride of place in American folklore. For I believe that Flight 93 may well have been deliberately shot down as a means of stopping it from reaching its ultimate target — even at the expense of the 40 blameless people on board. It is a suspicion that was held even by the FBI, but was swept aside as a shaken America clung on to the official version of selfless sacrifice and raw patriotism.
Today, with the approach of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, some will still say that such speculation only serves to lend comfort to terrorists and does a disservice to the dead.
Others, however, will feel there are too many disquieting circumstances and unanswered questions to simply ignore.
But let us examine the evidence — so that you can come to your own conclusion. The massive impact caused the entire plane to disappear 30ft deep into the earth, telescoping down on itself and crushing everyone and everything inside the fuselage beyond recognition.
However, the absence of any significant debris — including tailplane and wings — bewildered witnesses, relatives and, more importantly, some crash experts.
They found it hard to believe that an airliner up to 155ft long, with two engines each weighing more than six tons, could have penetrated the ground so completely as to utterly disappear. Had it, in reality, been blown to pieces in mid-air?
CERTAINLY, it is unclear how a single piece of fuselage the size of a dining room table could have been recovered from a marina in Indian Lake, a couple of miles away from the crash site — unless it fell from the sky during an aerial break-up.
But a bigger mystery is why the engines went missing.
Considering their weight, they should have plunged deep into the earth along with the rest of the airliner.
Yet they weren’t in the crater and only a one-ton segment of an engine was ever recovered, again more than a mile from the crash site. The FBI said, unconvincingly, that it had ‘bounced’ there.
The FBI also claimed metal fragments found up to eight miles away could have been carried there by the wind, even though the breeze was very light.
Witnesses said nothing was left at the crash site, yet the FBI belatedly claimed to have made two sensational discoveries — a red bandana and a passport allegedly belonging to the hijackers.
Very conveniently, these turned up as prosecution evidence earlier this year at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the socalled 20th hijacker and only terrorist to be convicted over the 9/11 atrocities.
IF FLIGHT 93 was shot down, there must have been a fighter jet in the skies to unleash a guided missile.
The U.S. government has admitted that two F-15s were flying above New York City before 9am on September 11 and three F-16s were patrolling over Washington by 9.40am. They could have reached Shanksville in minutes.
According to investigative writer David Ray Griffin, several witnesses saw two F-16s tailing Flight 93 minutes before it went down.
They claim they saw an F-16 move closer in and fire what were probably two Sidewinder missiles, one of them catching at least one of the Boeing’s huge engines, after which the ‘plane dropped like a stone’.
Someone else ‘heard a loud bang’ and saw the airliner plummet. A Vietnam War veteran said he ‘heard a missile’, a sound he knew well. It is debatable how seriously we should take these reports. But there are numerous and highly credible witness accounts of a mysterious white jet being seen after Flight 93 went down.
Jim Brant, owner of the Indian Lake marina where debris was found, said he heard the roar of jet engines overhead, then saw a fireball rise into the air. He looked up and noticed a white plane circling the wreckage. ‘It reminded me of a fighter jet,’ he said.
Another resident, Tom Spinelli, said: ‘I saw the white plane. It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash.’
He said it had high tail wings and no markings on it. John Feegle, another witness, said: ‘It didn’t look like a commercial plane. It had a real goofy tail on it, like a high tail. It circled around, and it was gone.’
Dennis Decker and his friend Rick Chaney were also close to the impact site. ‘As soon as we looked up we saw a mid-sized jet flying low and fast,’ said Decker.
‘It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out.’ Decker and Chaney described the jet as white with no markings. Decker added: ‘It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, I’d find out who was driving that plane.’
A total of 12 eyewitnesses are on record as having seen the white jet. One witness, Susan McElwain, complained that the FBI told her there was no plane and did not note down her account.
However, amid the growing furore over the sightings, the FBI was forced to offer an explanation, which again many found unconvincing.
It claimed the jet was a passing civilian Fairchild Falcon 20 that was asked to descend to 5,000ft some minutes after the crash to give co-ordinates for the site. The plane and pilot have never been produced or identified.
One commentator pointed out: ‘The reason why this seems so implausible is that, first, by 10.06am on September 11, all non-military aircraft in U.S. airspace had received orders more than half an hour earlier to land at the nearest airport.
‘Second, such was the density of emergency phone calls from people on the ground in the Shanksville area as to the location of the crash site, that aerial co-ordinates would have been completely unnecessary.
‘Third, with F-16s supposedly in the vicinity, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that, at a time when no one knew for sure whether there might be any more hijacked aircraft still in the sky, the military would ask a civilian aircraft that just happened to be in the area for help.’
THE military’s role in 9/11 is shrouded in confusion, ambiguity and inconsistency.
A news report on September 20, 2001, said: ‘America’s defence establishment has disclosed that it ordered its fighter jets to intercept all the passenger aircraft hijacked in last week’s attacks on New York and Washington.’
The report also stated that military intelligence was aware of the hijackings before any of the aircraft had hit their targets.
Three years later, however, the military said it hadn’t heard about Flight 93 until after the plane had crashed — a line accepted by the official 9/11 Commission, which published its findings in July 2004.
The official inquiry said the Federal Aviation Authority — responsible for the security and safety of U.S. civilian aviation — had been incompetent in failing to alert the U.S. Air Force.
But the FAA had already acted quickly in ordering more than 4,000 aircraft to land at the nearest airstrip to avoid any more hijacks. And the military would have learned of Flight 93’s hijack via teleconferences set up by the FAA, the White House and the U.S. Defence Department as events began to unfold on September 11. Richard Clarke, who ran the White House video conference, stated that at 9.27am, the FAA informed both Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, Chief of Defence Staff, of a number of ‘potential hijacks’ including ‘United 93 over Pennsylvania’. Therefore, more than 25 minutes before Flight 93 went down, both Rumsfeld and Myers knew all about it. No wonder the military’s claim to have learned about Flight 93 only after it crashed is dismissed by many as a bare-faced lie. IN OTHER air crashes, information from the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder — the black box recorders — were dealt with in an open manner, with crash investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board discussing the progress of their inquiries with reporters. But in the case of Flight 93, the Transportation Safety Board was not in charge of the investigation — the FBI was.
The black box recorders were reportedly found buried 25ft deep inside the crater. But a threeminute discrepancy in the crash time led to suspicions of foul play.
Seismic records, consolidated from four seismology stations in the region, originally pegged the impact time at 10.06am. It was only later that the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission decreed that the correct impact time to have been at 10.03am.
But Terry Wallace, who heads the Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory and is considered the leading expert on the seismology of man-made events, was puzzled.
He complained: ‘The seismic signals are consistent with impact at 10.06am and five seconds plus or minus two seconds. I don’t know where the 10.03 time comes from.’ So there were two crash times.
Sceptics note that a lot could happen in three minutes — minutes that could be removed from the end of a flight-deck recording to delete evidence of an attack by U.S. jets.
The FBI kept the contents of the voice recorder secret until it was forced by bereaved relatives to play the tape under heavy security at a hotel in April 2002.
The family members later reported they heard sounds of an on-board struggle beginning at 9.58am, with a final ‘rushing sound’ at 10.03am, when the tape fell silent. Could the ‘rushing sound’ have been made by the plane being holed? And what of the moment when the plane hit the ground?
‘There is no sound of the impact,’ said Kenneth Nacke, whose brother Lou had been on Flight 93. There is a further twist. In 2006, when the judge at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui ordered a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, it ended with the sound of the hijackers shouting praises to Allah.
Just where had those praises been in 2002 when the tape was first played to relatives? For many, their sudden appearance confirmed suspicions of tape tampering.
AT FIRST, the FBI was keen to show it was keeping an open mind over the fate of Flight 93.
Within days of the crash, Reuters reported from Shanksville: ‘Federal investigators said they could not rule out the possibility that the United Airlines jetliner that crashed in rural western Pennsylvania during this week’s attacks on New York and the Pentagon was shot down.’ ‘We have not ruled out that,’ FBI agent Bill Crowley told a news conference when asked about reports that a U.S. fighter jet may have fired on the hijacked Boeing 757. ‘We haven’t ruled out anything yet.’
Why did Crowley later retract his statement — and on the same day as the U.S. Air Force issued its official denial of any involvement?
AT THE crux of the legend of Flight 93 are the phones calls passengers are said to have made to their loved ones after the hijackers took control.
These are said to have alerted the passengers to the fact that they were victims of no ordinary hijacking, but a co-ordinated mission by fanatics to strike at the heart of America in New York and Washington. At the same time, a number of passengers allegedly told relatives of their resolve to fight back. Interestingly, phone contact from passengers on the two hijacked planes that hit the Twin Towers and a third jet which crashed into the Pentagon that same morning was scarce to non-existent.
Yet officially there were 35 calls made among the 40 passengers and crew on Flight 93, with callers using either mobile phones or GTE Airfones fitted into the backs of the aircraft seats.The use of mobile phones is suspect anyway because telecommunications experts say that — given the technology of 2001 — calls at an altitude of six miles could have only occurred by fluke at best. Just as baffling, the FBI insisted there were 13 mobile phone calls — of which there were no billing records — yet reduced this number to just two at the trial this year of Zacarias Moussaoui when the evidence risked being exposed to the harsh light of law.
Why had the FBI failed to put the record straight over the previous four-and-a-half years?
One answer is that it suited the heroism legend to keep silent as the Pentagon banged the drum for war in Iraq.
The 9/11 Commission claimed that five of the calls described the intent of the passengers and crew to revolt against the hijackers. One caller, the Commission said, ended her message with the words: ‘Everyone’s running up to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.’ But all this begs the question: why did the hijackers allow such a free-for-all of phone calls as they attempted to terrify their hostages?
After all, the hijackers would have realised that experts would have been able to locate the lost aircraft if people were using their mobles.
THE most intriguing of the calls is the one said to have been made by Flight 93’s most famous passenger Todd Beamer, whose ‘Let’s roll!’ phrase became a byword for the victims’ heroism and patriotism.
Beamer’s call was said to have been taken by a telephone supervisor working for the Verizon Corporation, owners of GTE Airfones, the gadgets on the airplane seats.
At the time, Verizon had a contract worth £750million for installing a high-security telecoms package across U.S. government departments, including the Pentagon.
One of its supervisors, Lisa Jefferson, an evangelical Christian like Beamer himself, retains a vivid recollection of her 15-minute conversation with him.
After discovering that she shared her first name with Beamer’s wife, they apparently talked about his two little boys and the new baby on the way, Beamer’s fear that he might not make it home, and his faith.
Faced with the awful prospect of dying on board Flight 93, Beamer supposedly recited the Lord’s Prayer and Psalm 23 with Mrs Jefferson. He also asked her to promise to call his wife. MRS JEFFERSON received a Verizon Excellence Award from her bosses for her handling of the call. To some this may have seemed inappropriate.
She had not taken a recording of it, contrary to convention. She had not gone through the routine questions in her distress-call manual. She had not connected this agitated man to his wife waiting anxiously at home. Nor had she informed his wife subsequently of the call as promised.
Mrs Beamer only learned of her husband’s final call four days later, when a representative of United Airlines got in touch.
She says the United Airlines representative told her: ‘The FBI had been keeping the information private until they’ve had the opportunity to review the material. But now they’ve released it, I have a written summary of the call.’
But later Mrs Beamer learned that the FBI had not kept the call so secret after all. Her husband’s boss at his computer company had already spun the story of Beamer the hero aboard Flight 93 before anyone else knew of his phone call.
As for Lisa Jefferson’s evidence, it was single-sourced, unsubstantiated hearsay of which there was no record. For spooks inside a sprawling empire of wires like Verizon, rigging up a phone call to Lisa Jefferson’s headset would have been simple.
She had no idea what Beamer’s voice sounded like, and she would never hear it again to judge whether he had actually been speaking to her. This year, Lisa Jefferson published a book entitled Called — the story of seeing ‘her life transformed, simply by answering Todd Beamer’s call’.
The blurb added: ‘Jefferson sends a stirring challenge to all of us whether it comes during quiet obscurity or international adversity, we must be prepared to answer God’s call.’
Evangelical Christians throughout America rallied to that call. But one puzzle remains: Todd Beamer’s wife later said she had never before heard of his reciting the Lord’s Prayer in pressure situations. Nor, she added, was Psalm 23 something he often recited.
TODD BEAMER’S ‘Let’s roll!’ phrase became the war on terror’s recruitment slogan.
President Bush had launched the legend in a speech on September 20, 2001 as he declared his unprecedented ‘war on terror’. Beamer’s story of selfless patriotism, according to the President, was a ‘defining moment’ in American history. Alongside President Bush on this occasion was Todd Beamer’s wife Lisa.
Nobody, of course, would begrudge Mrs Beamer her celebrity, given her tragic circumstances. But her presence undoubtedly helped President Bush’s cause.
The President again invoked her evangelical Christian husband’s courage in another speech a month later.
‘We will no doubt face new challenges,’ said the man widely regarded as having taken office fully intending to attack Iraq. ‘But we have our marching orders. My fellow Americans… let’s roll!’
Such a phrase couldn’t fail to chime with the President’s gung-ho admirers — nor with the 40 million evangelical Christians in the so-called ‘red’ states where the Bush regime had its most fervent support Later U.S. Navy personnel would spell out the words 9/11 LET’S ROLL by forming themselves on the deck of a warship bound for Iraq.
Lisa Beamer, always a staunch ally of the White House and its war on terror, had herself photographed unveiling a ‘Let’s Roll’ logo on the side of a U.S. Air Force F-16.
She even sought to have ‘Let’s Roll’ trademarked and signed a six-figure book deal which, along with her seven-figure compensation cheque, made her a rich woman. And in August 2002, just in time for the first 9/11 anniversary, she published her memoir entitled — predictably — Let’s Roll!
The front cover showed the author with the Stars and Stripes and the publisher issued a staggering one million copies in hardback.
Truly, the Let’s Roll slogan had become a call to arms — just at a time the White House needed it most.
Bush administration not admit its guilt? It could surely have argued that the poor souls lost in the airliner were a tragic but necessary sacrifice in order to prevent horror and destruction on a larger scale in at the Capitol Washington.
Air Force scrambles had been frequent enough in the past. One report said there had been 129 within the U.S. during 2000.
But secrecy is the first instinct of any war department, especially amid reports flooding in of a passenger revolt on the plane.
Any admission of a shooting down must have been ruled out politically because those brave passengers just might have retrieved the controls from fanatical hijackers.
For the U.S. military to have snatched victory from their grasp was unthinkable.
There are countless theories and areas of evidence to examine. There is even a theory that the plane could have blown up because of a bomb on board.
Air traffic controllers on the ground reportedly heard an anonymous voice in the cockpit announce: ‘Ladies and gentleman. Here is the captain. Please sit down and keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So sit.’
But if Flight 93 had been blown up by a bomb at cruising altitude, its debris area would have covered at least 20 miles, as in the Lockerbie crash.
The 9/11 Commission speculated that the rogue pilot jolted the plane violently in the minutes before the impact to disrupt a passenger revolt.
This in turn led to claims that he might have succeeded in tearing a wing off, or otherwise wrecking the aircraft in mid-air, causing it to crash.
Boeing has refused to discuss this possibility. Such movements, however, could easily have been caused by the pilot attempting to avoid an approaching heatseeking missile homing in on its engines.
EYEWITNESS reports differed from the official story. Along the plane’s route, people confirmed that the Boeing came in from the north-west, but they said it was not nose-diving. Instead it was flying low.
Bob Blair and Linda Shepley saw the plane when it dropped to 2,500ft. Rodney Peterson and Brandon Leventry noticed it at 2,000ft. Terry Butler saw it at about 500ft. Eric Peterson saw the plane at ‘maybe 300ft’.
Lee Purbaugh, a scrap metal worker, was the closest. He told reporters: ‘I heard this real loud noise coming over my head. I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me.
‘It was coming down at 45 degrees and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke.’
Purbaugh’s account was perhaps the nearest of all the witness testimony to the official version of the story. Except for one important element.
Not once did Purbaugh mention the plane being upside down, as the 9/11 Commission, the FBI and the Pentagon all maintained it was.
With such a huge airplane roaring over his head, he could hardly have failed to notice which way up it was.
To some, this cast doubt on the credibility of his reported evidence. To others, it was merely another piece of the Flight 93 jigsaw that failed to fit.
• ADAPTED from Flight 93: What Really Happened On The Heroic 9/11 ‘Let’s Roll’ Flight by Rowland Morgan, published by Constable & Robinson on August 24 at £7.99. © Rowland Morgan 2006 To order a copy (p&p free), call 0870 161 0870.

March 31, 2006
Kelsie Buckley, age 11, is a one-girl fundraising team for Misssissippi librairies that were devastated by Hurricane Katrina. (CBS)

Quote

"Books help you get your mind off of any bad things that are going on," she says.

Kelsie Buckley

(CBS) Celia Barrett is the head librarian in Gulfport, Miss. — not that you'd find the library without the solid marble sign in front. Barrett says Hurricane Katrina checked out 30,000 books and every lick of furniture in the Gulfport library. It will take a mammoth effort to rebuild. But fortunately, as CBS News correspondent Steve Hartman reports, someone is leading the charge.

That someone is 11-year-old Kelsie Buckley, who raised more than $9,000 in pledges for Gulfport's library by riding her horse halfway across the state of Mississippi.

"This fundraiser she put on for the libraries was just amazing," says Barrett.

"I just wanted to help," says Kelsie, who's planning more fundraisers — just for libraries.

Why libraries? "Books help you get your mind off of any bad things that are going on," she says.

Kelsie would know more than a little about bad things. She and her parents lost their home in the storm, too. They now live in a FEMA trailer. Her reaction: "We need to focus on the other people who need our help."

Obviously, selfless doesn't begin to describe her.

Kelsie's goal is to raise $10,000 for every Mississippi library destroyed by Katrina. There were seven. That's $70,000 — a lot of books, especially for a girl who may never get to read a single one of them.

Kelsie has lovely brown eyes, but they don't work well. "The left eye is just, blah," she says, and the right one is no better. That's because she has a rare disease that sometimes gets better — but usually gets worse, often ending in total blindness. To which she says: enough about that.

"She doesn't want to worry about the what-ifs," her mom says. "Of course it bothers her. But she says it takes the enjoyment out of today if you worry about tomorrow."

For now, all Kelsie cares about is saving as many libraries as she can and reading as many books while she can. Her foundation, Kelsie's Books helps raise money for large-print books.

Will Kelsie be angry if she goes completely blind and can't see any more books? No way. "I won't be mad," she says. "I might cry a little. But I'll keep on going."

If only we could all see life so clearly.

-------------

Ghadames
Located in western Libya the history of this oasis town is thought to go back some 5000 years. It owes its origins to the copious fresh water that till recent years kept the oasis full. For two centuries it was a Roman outpost and the Berbers were converted to Christianity until the 7th Century when the Islamic armies came and brought in Islam.
For centuries Ghadames has been an important trading town. Many caravans originated from and ended their journey at Ghadames. The market was rich in produce from all areas of Africa and the Mediterranean countries.
The town suffered during the Second World War. It was initially under Italian control, was bombed by the allies, and after the war was passed for a short while into British hands. Thirty years ago a modern town was built next to the old town and the people readily move to the bigger houses that had air conditioning, water and electricity.
The old town is one of the best preserved of Arab towns in Libya and has been placed under UNESCO protection. It is composed of several quarters that used to be inhabited by different family groups. Most of the streets are just narrow alleyways, almost completely covered over. The houses also are virtually part of a troglodyte world. Most families in the new town still own their house in the old town and it is possible to visit one or two of them - see picture below.
Rooftops were interconnected by walkways used only by womenfolk to meet each other. Unless accompanied by men belonging to the family women were never seen in the alleys of the old town. Amongst Arabic street and house signs are a few in English, for the post office and for the British consul!
Normally in mid-October (early November in 2005) the Ghadames festival is a colourful event when the local people gather together to sing, dance and eat together.
The scene from the past is actually a scene from the medina (old town) in Tripoli, but the similarities are very great.
It is possible to visit Ghadames in one day from Tripoli but this means 14 hours of driving. A 2 or 3 day trip is much better allowing time to visit Nalut, al-Kabaw or Yfren along the way.

Customs
Libya is still a very conservative, Islamic society. Women, despite all government efforts, are repressed and have their freedom restricted by most of tribes, more by local traditions and culture than by religious or legal requirements. Exceptions include coastal cities and the Tuareg and Toubou tribes whose women have much greater freedom than those of Arabic tribes.
Dress is a particularly sensitive area and women visitors should cover themselves up using long skirts or trousers and dresses not revealing their shoulders when in towns. When swimming a full bathing costume is strongly recommended for women. Men should also avoid bearing themselves too much except in the more informal desert surroundings. In towns shorts are acceptable for men except when visiting religious sites or if invited to visit an Arab family. When passing or receiving any item, in particular food, the right hand should be used.
It is forbidden to bring alcohol into the country although alcohol free beer is available. Secretly many Libyans do drink some locally made excellent drinks and some drinks smuggled in from neighbouring countries.
Most officials are very helpful and friendly but be aware that this is a very carefully controlled country. At all stages the police are aware of your movements through the system of travel permits. Do not try to go against the laid down procedures.

Students and staff protest against lecturer's race views

Matthew Taylor, education correspondent
Friday March 17, 2006 The Guardian

The campaign against a university lecturer who claims that black people and women are genetically inferior is spreading to campuses around the country following a demonstration in Leeds yesterday.
Frank Ellis, a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies, sparked anger after stating he was an "unrepentant Powellite" who thought the BNP was "a bit too socialist" for his liking.

In a row that has reignited the debate about academic freedom, Mr Ellis said he supported rightwing ideas such as the theory developed by Richard J Herrnstein and Charles Murray in their 1994 book, The Bell Curve, which claims that white people are more intelligent than black people. He also told the Leeds Student newspaper that women did not have the same intellectual capacity as men and that repatriation would get his support if it was done "humanely".

Yesterday more than 300 students and staff gathered in Leeds to call for him to be sacked and campaigners said the struggle was picking up momentum at other universities. Hind Hassan, treasurer of Unite Against Fascism at Leeds University, said: "This is a fight that is going to go on and on until we get rid of this man. It has gone beyond an issue of freedom of speech or academic freedom and now directly impinges on the rights of students to live and work in a safe and tolerant environment. How can female students or those from ethnic minorities possibly get a fair educational experience?"

Students from several universities attended the rally. Shaheed Fazal, who travelled from Warwick University, said: "It is completely inappropriate for a lecturer in his position to push these views."

Pav Aktar, NUS anti-racism organiser, said the campaign was gathering national momentum. "For someone in a senior position to validate racist and fascist opinions on campus represents a real danger to all students, not just those at Leeds."

Leeds University secretary Roger Cair, one of its senior administrators, has resisted calls for Mr Ellis to be sacked, although he said the views expressed were abhorrent to most staff and students. Staff had the freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and put forward controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs, he said.

But he added: "We would expect such academic freedom to respect the university values and to be exercised within their context. We are deeply distressed that this expectation has not been met in opinions attributed to Dr Ellis."

Last night Mr Ellis told the Guardian he had been gagged by the university. Five years ago he hit the headlines when he spoke at the American Renaissance conference in the US, which attracts figures from organisations like the Ku Klux Klan.

Leeds seeks to silence 'racist' lecturer

Donald MacLeod Thursday March 16, 2006

Leeds University has moved to silence a lecturer who aired controversial views on race following protests from students.
The university initially resisted calls for the sacking of Frank Ellis, a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies, who caused outrage went he told the Leeds Student newspaper he was an "unrepentant" supporter of Enoch Powell who predicted "rivers of blood" in multicultural Britain and supported the so-called Bell Curve theory that white people are more intelligent than black people.

But the university management has now paved the way for possible legal action against Dr Ellis by asking him to clarify his views on its policy on equality and diversity. In the meantime he has been asked to refrain from public comment.

The university secretary, Roger Gair, today issued a statement saying the university had a "legal duty as a public body to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between people of different racial groups".

He added: "Dr Ellis' opinions on racial issues, as reported extensively by the media, are not only abhorrent to the overwhelming majority of our staff and students, and run counter to our values, but jeopardise our legal responsibilities in this area.

"Accordingly, we wrote to Dr Ellis on March 8 asking him to desist from further public comment for the time being, until we are satisfied that he is not undermining our commitment and legal responsibility to promote and protect diversity and equality of opportunity and provide a safe and supportive environment for our staff, students and visitors. The university intends to discharge its full responsibilities under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000."

After causing a furore with an interview with Leeds Student, Dr Ellis wrote a follow-up article in which he stated: "Multiculturalism is doomed to failure - and is failing - because it is based on the lie that all people, races and cultures are equal, that no one race or culture is better (superior) than any other."

Such lies were propagated by the "Guardian-reading classes", he said.
University resists call to sack 'racist' lecturer

Donald MacLeod
Wednesday March 8, 2006

Leeds University is investigating the views of an "unrepentant Powellite" lecturer following protests from students.
The university has resisted calls for the sacking of Frank Ellis, a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies who aired his views on race in the Leeds Student newspaper, saying it would protect his academic freedom.

But a statement from the university secretary, Roger Gair, made it clear this support was not unqualified. He said staff had the freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs.

But he added: "We would expect such academic freedom to respect the university's values, and to be exercised within their context. We are deeply distressed that this expectation has not been met in opinions attributed to Dr Ellis.

"We have written to Dr Ellis asking him to clarify his position with respect to the university's policy on equality and diversity, and we are seeking clarification on the legal implications of his attributed comments."

Dr Ellis described himself as an "unrepentant" supporter of the late Enoch Powell, who predicted "rivers of blood" in a multicultural Britain. He said he supported the so-called Bell Curve theory, which held that white people were more intelligent than black people. After causing a furore with an interview with Leeds Student, he wrote a follow-up article in which he stated: "Multiculturalism is doomed to failure - and is failing - because it is based on the lie that all people, races and cultures are equal, that no one race or culture is better (superior) than any other." Such lies were propagated by the "Guardian-reading classes", he said.

The views accredited to Dr Ellis in recent issues of Leeds Student were abhorrent to the overwhelming majority of our staff and students, said Mr Gair.

He added: "We agree with Leeds University union education officer Ruqayyah Collector, who said: 'All our students have a right to study in an environment free from racism and discrimination and to be judged on their academic performance and not the prejudices of their tutor'.

"Dr Ellis has a right to his personal opinions, but he does not have the right to treat students or colleagues in a prejudicial or discriminatory manner. The university has no evidence yet that this has happened, but we will look carefully at any such evidence presented to us," said Mr Gair's statement.

He said all students' work counting towards a degree was double marked.

Campus storm over 'racist' don

Leeds University refuses to sack a lecturer accused of a slur against black people, citing his right to free speech

Anushka Asthana and Jessica Salter
Sunday March 5, 2006 The Observer

Students and lecturers are calling for a Leeds University don to be sacked after he said he supported a theory that black people were inferior to whites.
In a row that has reignited the debate on the limits of freedom of speech, Frank Ellis, a lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies, sparked anger after stating, in an interview with the university's student newspaper, that he was an 'unrepentant Powellite' who thought that the BNP was 'a bit too socialist' for his liking.

Ellis said he supported right-wing ideas such as the Bell Curve theory, which held that white people were more intelligent than black people. '[It] has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt there is a persistent gap in average black and white average intelligence.' Repatriation would get his support, he added, if it was done 'humanely'.

Now students are preparing to picket his lectures, protest on campus and bombard the vice-chancellor with emails calling for Ellis to be removed from his post.

Hanif Leylabi, a student at Leeds and a member of Unite Against Fascism, said: 'Knowing that he's a lecturer and that he holds views that black people are inferior and that women can't achieve the same as men, it's disgusting and certainly not conducive to an academic environment.'

But while the university called his views 'abhorrent to the overwhelming majority our staff and students', it said he had a right to express them. A spokeswoman said that there was no evidence his extreme theories had affected his teaching. 'The question of discrimination does not arise in student assessment. All work counting towards a degree in Russian and Slavonic studies is double-marked. Ellis has a right to his personal opinions, but he does not have the right to treat students or colleagues in a prejudicial or discriminatory manner. We have no evidence that this has happened, but we will look carefully at any such evidence if it is presented to us.'

Greg Mulholland, MP for Leeds North West, whose constituency contains 20,000 students, said the university had a duty to check whether his employment was sustainable, given the impact his words would have on racial relations. Ellis's 'extraordinary views', he said, were 'narrow-minded, intellectually bankrupt and morally reprehensible nonsense'.

The angry reaction has not deterred Ellis, who wrote a follow-up article in the Leeds Student,in which he argued: 'Multiculturalism is doomed to failure - and is failing - because it is based on the lie that all people, races and cultures are equal; that no one race or culture is better (superior) than any other.' Such lies were propagated by the 'Guardian-reading classes', he said. He also made insulting remarks about Africans, citing research that claimed the average IQ on that continent was 70. He said: 'In the West, an individual with an IQ of 70 would be regarded as being very close [to], or within the range of, mental retardation.'

Mulholland dismissed his assertions: 'Not to acknowledge that much of the problems experienced by African nations are down to exploitation by Western nations over the years and centuries is simply to ignore the reality of history.'

Psychologists have said that IQ has been discredited as a reliable measure of intelligence. Robert McHenry, chairman of the psychology consultancy OPP, said: 'It was developed by white researchers and tested on white populations, so is not suitable for measuring other cultures.' He said the Bell Curve theory was out of date and showed lower achievements among the black population because they were economically worse off.

'There is no scientific data that supports the idea that the difference between blacks and whites is genetic.'

Kat Fletcher, president of the National Union of Students, said that she supported academic freedom, but Ellis's beliefs were 'academic nonsense'. She called for the university to launch an investigation into his teaching.

First Published 2006-03-21, Last Updated 2006-03-21 14:45:02

Sahar in action

Saudi Arabia's first film blazes taboo-breaking trail

’Keif al-Hal’ is comedy-drama which embodies tension between moderates and religious extremists.

By Sam Dagher - DUBAI

A trailblazing Saudi film featuring the country's first silver screen actress will be shown this summer everywhere in the Middle East - except the ultra-conservative kingdom where cinemas are banned.

"Keif al-Hal" (How Are You?) is the first produced by Saudi-owned Arab entertainment company Rotana owned by reform-minded Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

The movie is a comedy-drama which its makers say embodies the tension between moderates and religious extremists and the struggle, especially among the young, to embrace globalisation while retaining cherished Islamic values.

Given the absence of a Saudi movie industry, the film was shot in neighbouring Dubai - a booming and relatively tolerant Gulf city state. It was directed by a Palestinian-Canadian and its script written by a Lebanese national and an Egyptian.

On a recent sunny afternoon in Dubai, the film's Saudi associate producer Haifa al-Mansur, 30, sat in an outdoor cafe wearing a purple shirt and jeans with her hair exposed flanked by two Saudi men, an actor and a budding movie critic.

They would have been arrested or worse, if they were back home, where Saudi women must be covered in black from head-to-toe and where the strict segregation of the sexes permeates every aspect of daily life.

Keeping these strict social norms in mind, the producers had to tread a very fine line in making the film and deciding what to show on the screen.

"We were very careful not to show anything offensive to Saudi society to the point we were watching the eyes of the actresses to decide if that is an appropriate look," said Ayman Halawani, head of production at Rotana's film division who conceived the film's idea.

"Keif al-Hal" tells the story of Sultan, played by Saudi heartthrob Hisham Abdulrahman who was the 2005 winner of the pan-Arab version of the Star Academy talent contest.

Sultan, who lives at his uncle's home after the death of his parents, is constantly clashing with his pious and ultra-conservative cousin Khaled because of his hip attitude and Western style.

Enter Khaled's pretty sister Sahar, played by a Jordanian actress.

Saudi actor Meshaal al-Mutairi, who has experience in theatre and television drama, plays an opportunistic character who becomes closer to Khaled and his family by growing a long beard in the style of Saudi-born Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and pretending to be religious while vying for Sahar's attention.

Sahar escapes the tensions at home by going out with her best friend Dunya played by first-time Saudi actress Hind Mohammed, 25.

Not wanting to give away the plot, Rotana's Halawani declined to say if a love story binds Sahar and Sultan but said the movie was free of any romantic dalliances, hand-holding or secret dating.

"The thing that it does not do is say who's right and who's wrong... we want to leave it up to the viewers," he said.

The movie's lone Saudi actress said she was determined to forge ahead with her movie career despite the potential backlash she may encounter in a male-dominated and puritanical society.

"I want to prove that a woman can do something despite the education we receive that she is weak and dishonourable and must never speak up," Mohammed said by telephone from Riyadh.

For the past three years she has been involved in radio and also does the voices for animated television series.

The highest profile Saudi woman involved in films is the movie's associate producer Mansur, who made a controversial documentary last year titled Nisaa bila Dhil (Women Without Shadow).

Her film, in which a reformist cleric declares that it is not mandatory for women to cover up their faces, caused an uproar among the hardline clerical elite.

It was shown at 17 film festivals worldwide and has attracted the attention of Prince Alwaleed, a nephew of King Abdullah who is the world's eighth richest individual with a fortun estimated at 20 billion dollars (16 billion euros), according to the latest rankings by Forbes magazine.

Mansur said she was optimistic about her country's prospects in the light of reforms initiated by King Abduallah and wants to continue making films in Saudi Arabia.

"I do not want to insult. Although there are many things I dislike, I can express myself in a way that society will listen and debate," she said.

But actor Mutairi, 28, warned that nothing would change as long as many voices in Saudi society regard a desire for modernity and self expression through arts like cinema as an "immoral attachment to Western values."

He was the last to graduate from the theatre school in 2000 at Riyadh's King Saud University before the department was "temporarily suspended" for no real reason by a group of hardline professors.

Mutairi said his "creative space" is also limited by government intolerance to all forms of political expression by young people as it battles suspected Al-Qaeda militants bent on overthrowing the monarchy.

Saudi television turned down a drama he produced in which a group of aspiring theatre actors discuss the Middle East conflict with a character representing 10th century Arab poet al-Mutanabi.

"Saudi society's problem with art in general is that half consider it against religious values while others think it is shameful." Print Printer Friendly Version
---------------------------------------------------------
Use synthetic phonics to improve reading, Kelly tells teachers

· Minister tells heads to set ambitious targets
· Teachers should retain flexibility, warns union

Rebecca Smithers, education editor
Tuesday March 21, 2006
The Guardian

The national curriculum is to be revised to incorporate a legal requirement for all primary schools in England to teach a "back to basics" form of reading, the government announced yesterday.
Ministers accepted the central recommendation of an independent review that all children must be learning to read by the age of five using a scheme called synthetic phonics. The review was carried out by Jim Rose, a former director of inspections at the education watchdog, Ofsted, who yesterday issued his final report recommending that synthetic phonics should be the "prime" teaching method used in reading lessons.

Responding to the report, the education secretary, Ruth Kelly, said that headteachers should set "ambitious targets" for the literacy skills children are expected to have by the end of primary school.

Synthetic phonics involves blending letter sounds to form whole words. It was popular in the 60s, then fell out of favour. The government's current literacy strategy recommends a mixture of methods, including understanding words from their context, but teaching synthetic phonics will now be a legal requirement.

Ms Kelly predicted the system would boost literacy: "This is a clear roadmap for reading which draws on the experience of teachers and experts to show what works best for children in the classroom.

"There have been rapid improvements in children's literacy over the last seven years, but we know that one in five of our 11-year-olds still leave primary school without reaching the necessary standard in English. This is not acceptable and we must do more to help these children." But teachers' leaders questioned the government's endorsement of such a prescriptive framework. Steve Sinnott, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: "Phonics is already at the heart of early years teaching. All teachers know that understanding words and sentences is not simply achieved by decoding text.

"Teachers need the flexibility and trust in their professional judgment to be able to respond to children's individual needs. There are many children who come into school for whom the first priority must be to learn how to speak and listen."

Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, added: "Phonics has a role to play in teaching children to read, but it should not be the start of the process of learning to read.

"We caution against a one-size-fits-all approach - phonics should be just one part of learning to read along with play, talking, and enjoying books."

The Conservative schools spokesman, Nick Gibb, said the alternative "look and say" approach had led to poor literacy levels. The Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman, Sarah Teather, said: "Schools should get guidance based on the latest research but the precise mix of methods used in classrooms is a matter for teachers working with individual pupils."

Teachers join in criticism of Kelly reading plan

Liz Ford
Thursday February 2, 2006

Specialists in early years education have criticised the government for its insistence that children under the age of five be taught to read using synthetic phonics.
The Early Years Curriculum Group (EYCG) said that, while it agreed the method had a place in teaching, it should not be used until pupils reached Year 1.

In December, the education secretary, Ruth Kelly, declared that all primary school children should be taught to read using synthetic phonics, a method whereby children learn the sounds of letters before they begin reading books.

Ms Kelly's views backed recommendations in the Rose report, an investigation into how literacy levels could be improved, which was undertaken after figures showed one in five pupils were leaving primary school unable to read and write properly.

The review, conducted by a former director of inspections at the schools inspectorate, Jim Rose, said current teaching methods should be scrapped in favour of synthetic phonics.

Schools are now expected to adopt the new method in September.

But today, Sally Barnes, a member of the EYCG, who has taught for 35 years, told EducationGuardian.co.uk that forcing children to read purely through phonics could do more harm than good.

"The government doesn't understand that there is no quick fix to learning to read. There is no one method," she said.

"There are reams of research about how people come to read. It's complex and many layered. People think there must be an easier way, but it depends on the children. There's not an easy way."

Young children should be read stories and poetry and taught songs to allow them to catch the "magic of language".

"And then they can start being interested in words and will want to read books," she added.

Ms Barnes warned that forcing children to read too early could turn them off books and damage their ability to learn to read later in life, when they might find it a more natural process. She pointed to schools in Finland, where pupils start to read at a later age and where results are among the best in the world.

"Once they [children] think it's hard and difficult, they will think that when they are older. It's hard to undo a bad introduction."

Ms Barnes said there was a "groundswell" of support, from parents, teachers and academics, for the group's comments, which were published in response to the government's edict.

Earlier this week, research commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills found there was no conclusive evidence to support a move to phonics.

The report, from York University, said teachers should be trained to use the system "in a judicious balance" with other methods.

While synthetic phonics looked "promising", the evidence in its favour was still "relatively limited", the researchers said.

A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills said the early years foundation stage for children from birth up to the age of five would be "a play-based approach" to care, learning and development. "As with the existing foundation stage, which includes phonics teaching in the 'communication, language and literacy' area of learning, it will support the appropriate teaching of phonics," he said.

"Jim Rose has made clear that an emphasis on speaking and listening for young children forms the basis on which phonics teaching builds and that phonics teaching for young children within a rich and varied curriculum can and should be multi-sensory and both enjoyable and rewarding."

Teachers join in criticism of Kelly reading plan

Liz Ford
Thursday February 2, 2006

Specialists in early years education have criticised the government for its insistence that children under the age of five be taught to read using synthetic phonics.
The Early Years Curriculum Group (EYCG) said that, while it agreed the method had a place in teaching, it should not be used until pupils reached Year 1.

In December, the education secretary, Ruth Kelly, declared that all primary school children should be taught to read using synthetic phonics, a method whereby children learn the sounds of letters before they begin reading books.

Ms Kelly's views backed recommendations in the Rose report, an investigation into how literacy levels could be improved, which was undertaken after figures showed one in five pupils were leaving primary school unable to read and write properly.

The review, conducted by a former director of inspections at the schools inspectorate, Jim Rose, said current teaching methods should be scrapped in favour of synthetic phonics.

Schools are now expected to adopt the new method in September.

But today, Sally Barnes, a member of the EYCG, who has taught for 35 years, told EducationGuardian.co.uk that forcing children to read purely through phonics could do more harm than good.

"The government doesn't understand that there is no quick fix to learning to read. There is no one method," she said.

"There are reams of research about how people come to read. It's complex and many layered. People think there must be an easier way, but it depends on the children. There's not an easy way."

Young children should be read stories and poetry and taught songs to allow them to catch the "magic of language".

"And then they can start being interested in words and will want to read books," she added.

Ms Barnes warned that forcing children to read too early could turn them off books and damage their ability to learn to read later in life, when they might find it a more natural process. She pointed to schools in Finland, where pupils start to read at a later age and where results are among the best in the world.

"Once they [children] think it's hard and difficult, they will think that when they are older. It's hard to undo a bad introduction."

Ms Barnes said there was a "groundswell" of support, from parents, teachers and academics, for the group's comments, which were published in response to the government's edict.

Earlier this week, research commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills found there was no conclusive evidence to support a move to phonics.

The report, from York University, said teachers should be trained to use the system "in a judicious balance" with other methods.

While synthetic phonics looked "promising", the evidence in its favour was still "relatively limited", the researchers said.

A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills said the early years foundation stage for children from birth up to the age of five would be "a play-based approach" to care, learning and development. "As with the existing foundation stage, which includes phonics teaching in the 'communication, language and literacy' area of learning, it will support the appropriate teaching of phonics," he said.

"Jim Rose has made clear that an emphasis on speaking and listening for young children forms the basis on which phonics teaching builds and that phonics teaching for young children within a rich and varied curriculum can and should be multi-sensory and both enjoyable and rewarding."

Teaching reading

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello again, Janet and John

Leader
Friday December 2, 2005
The Guardian

The c-a-t is back on the m-a-t and traditionalists everywhere are triumphant. The old ways are the best, and sometimes, of course, they are right. But it might be a mistake to assume that the teaching of reading through synthetic phonics - the c-a-t approach - is the right answer for every child in every classroom.
"This is a swamp infected by sharks," Barry Sheerman, chair of the Commons education committee, was warned by one expert when he began his inquiry into reading methods. His report, prompted by concern that the sharp improvements wrought by the literacy hour had tailed off - leaving around a fifth of children unable to cope with the demands of secondary school literacy - duly reignited the simmering argument between progressives and conservatives. Sheerman concluded that the National Literacy Strategy framework, which had ducked the old controversy by recommending word recognition and other techniques as well as synthetic phonics, was part of the problem. He also criticised teacher training for leaving too many teachers with too little understanding of how children learn to read. And he highlighted research from Clackmannanshire reporting on the successful introduction of synthetic phonics in seven Scottish primaries.

Now, at the request of the education secretary, a new inquiry has supported many of Mr Sheerman's findings. Like him, the education consultant Jim Rose finds that the literacy strategy framework is failing. He says that for many beginner readers, learning simultaneously a whole range of skills was "a daunting and confusing experience", while for teachers it reduced the priority that phonics ought to have. While its critics warn that phonics is a "drill and kill" approach which can stifle a child's interest and risks putting them off all together, Mr Rose says he saw phonics teaching that was as creative and engaging as all good lessons should be. The phonics bandwagon is now reaching breakneck speed. But there is still only limited evidence about how effective it really is - Clackmannanshire covered just 300 children - and a suspicion that the education secretary has had her arm twisted by Downing Street's man in the department, Lord Adonis.

Reading programmes are not necessarily the key indicator of why some children fail to read: good teaching of any system plus lots of encouragement at home are important, too. If the government really wants schools to be more independent it should be careful that implementing Mr Rose's findings does not turn into an exercise in writing teachers' lesson plans.

The Times October 18, 2005

Times 2

Why Ps and Qs count
Saying please and thank you, or acknowledging that others may not want to hear your mobile phone calls, are things that increasingly we fail to do, says Lynne Truss in the second extract from her book

Please and thank you — nothing could be simpler than to learn these words. They cost nothing! Also, they are in limitless supply and are miraculously immune to the dangers of overuse. But the world is changing. Those of us who automatically deal out politeness words in suitable contexts are becoming uncomfortably aware that we earn less credit for it than we used to. It is becoming obvious that we are the exception rather than the rule, and that our beautiful manners fall on stony ground. People who serve the public are becoming impervious to rudeness, either because they are young and don’t care, or because they are older and have learnt to toughen up or suffer a nervous breakdown.
Either way, if you attempt to sympathise with a shopworker who has just served a rude customer, the response is rarely the one you expect. Mainly you will get a blank shrug, which carries the worrying implication: this person doesn’t care whether customers are polite or not.

So what is to be done? In terms of making the world go round, these words used to mean a lot. Courtesy words are our most elementary way of indicating that we are aware of the presence of other people, and of the impact we may be having on them. Consideration for others being the foundation of manners, children ought to be taught to use the courtesy words because they thereby learn to remember that there are other people in the world.

We are not invisible to one another. The problem is that people are increasingly unwilling to admit when they are out in public, that they are not nevertheless — through sheer force of will — actually in private. When they are on trains, or in the street, or in a queue for taxis, they can’t say the courtesy words because to do so would explode their idea of the entire experience, which is that they are alone and that nobody else exists. They are, I believe, afraid to speak to other people. Hence the astonishing aggression that is unleashed if you challenge them. If you speak to them, you scare them.

Politeness is a signal of readiness to meet someone halfway; the question of whether politeness makes society cohere, or keeps other people safely at arm’s length, is a false opposition. Politeness does both, and that is why it’s so frightening to contemplate losing it. Suddenly, the world seems alien and threatening — and all because someone’s mother never taught him to say “excuse me” or “please”.

I seem to spend my whole life wrestling resentfully with automated switchboards, waiting resentfully at home all day for deliveries that don’t arrive, resentfully joining immense queues in the post office, and generally wondering, resentfully: “Isn’t this transaction of mutual benefit to both sides? So why am I not being met halfway here? Why do these people never put themselves in my shoes? Why do I always have to put myself in theirs? Why am I the one doing this?” And I lump the internet into this subject because it is the supreme example of an impersonal and inflexible system which will provide information if you do all the hard work of searching for it, but crucially: (a) doesn’t promise anything as a reward for all the effort; (b) will never engage in dialogue; (c) is much, much bigger than you are; and (d) exists only in a virtual kind of way, so never has to apologise. It seems to me that most big businesses and customer service systems are either modelling themselves on the internet or have learnt far too much from a deep reading of Franz Kafka. Either way, they certainly benefit because our brains have been pre-softened by our exposure to cyberspace. Our spirits are already half-broken. We have even started to believe that clicking “OK” is an act of free will, while “Quit” and “Retry” represent true philosophical alternatives.

In his book Grumpy Old Men (2004), which accompanied the BBC series, Stuart Prebble memorably refers to the culture of DIYFS (Do it your effing self) and I think he is on to something that extends well beyond the trials of flat-pack assembly furniture.

A replacement credit card arrives in the post. “Oh, that’s nice,” you say, innocently. “I’ll just sign it on the back, scissor the old one, and away I go!” But close inspection reveals that you must phone up first to get it authorised. You dial a long number and follow instructions to reach the card-authorisation department (press 1, press 1, press 2), then are asked to input the card number (16 digits) then the card expiry date (four digits), then your date of birth (six digits), then your phone number (11 digits), then told to wait. Naturally, your initial okey-dokeyness has started to wane a bit by this time. You start to wonder whether the card will actually expire before this process is complete. “Please enter card number,” comes the instruction. “What? Again?” you ask. But, listening to the menu, there is no button assigned to this reaction (“For What? Again? press four”), so off you go again with the 16 digits and

Piczo