In which I discover that trying to get an answer from a politician can seem a bit like trying to get blood from a stone

As I mentioned here I was planning on writing to my Member of Parliament (again) on the subject of same-sex marriage.

I wrote:

 

Thank you for replying to my email. I've attached a copy of your reply to this email.

I was disappointed to hear that you voted against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill and also that you didn't actually answer the question that I asked in my email.

Please could you let me know if you will now support the Bill as it progresses through Parliament providing that "the Church and other religious organisations are not coerced to hold such ceremonies through the threat of litigation, and that those who wish to form same sex civil partnerships are treated equally under the law"?

Alternatively I would appreciate it if you could let me know if it is the case that you are fundamentally opposed to the concept of same sex marriages?

And the reply:

Thank you for your email regarding the changes proposed to marriage by the Government.

I certainly understand your concern over this issue and appreciate you taking the time to share your views.

As I mentioned in our previous correspondence, I will be taking a final view on this legislation once it has been scrutinised and amended in Committee and returns to the House of Commons. Legislation often changes during its course through parliament, and is sometimes withdrawn or significantly amended in the House of Lords.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am very much in favour of a long term commitment between same sex couples and I would like to see the same legislation underpinning every long term relationship so that there is no further inequality in the eyes of the law.

Thank you again for contacting me. You have my commitment that I give the legislation the scrutiny it requires.

Maybe it’s just me … but I can’t help but feel a real reticence to make any commitment at all to supporting the bill – only potential reasons for not doing so. And yet also, a reticence to say anything very strongly against it. Maybe it’s just the way politicians tend to be.

At the end of the day I’m left two thoughts:

• If the bill were to return to the House of Commons unchanged, then my MP would vote against it – having voted against it already
• My MP is either unwilling or unable to say what changes to the bill would result in him voting in favour of it

I’ll see what happens with it next and write back to him when things begin to move again.

Sparkle, Lynne Featherstone and Government Policy

9:00 am Saturday 9th July 1011. Premiere Inn, Portland Street, Manchester and the alarm on my mobile phone sounds.

I carefully remove the bandage from my arm … it comes off without having stuck to anything. Hardly hurts at all.

I decide to wear something with long sleeves to cover up the bruising and keep it clean.

It’s gone 10:30 by the time I’ve shaved, made up and dressed.

Tina sets off to visit Amy who’s staying at the Britannia Hotel a little further down Portland Street.

My elder daughter lives close to Manchester and we’ve planned to meet up.

I send a text and head out of the hotel. Almost raining but not quite. The Paramount (a Weatherspoons pub) is just a few doors to the right.

I order a Latte and sit by the window. After a few minutes Sarah arrives. Soaking wet from the rain. She gets an Americano and we sit and chat a while.

Eventually we decide to search for something to eat and eventually find ourselves in the Via bar. I show her the scene of the previous night’s bumps. See how narrow the steps are on the inside of that bend?

Laura and Billie join us after a while. Then it’s a short walk to Sackville Gardens where the official Sparkle opening happens and met up with Tina.

This year the Government Minister for Equalities, Lynne Featherstone was invited to opening and spoke for about 8 minutes. Hers she is saying what she said. It’s worth listening to if you’re interested at all in transgender rights.

 

Lynne mentions this in her own blog at http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2011/07/sparkle.htm

We listened to some of the music. This is The Strawberry Elephant Experience. The bass guitarist (wearing the hat) is Didi who sometimes visits Surrey Swans.

This is the Pink Punters bus in the background:

 

This is a little of Frillerz – I thought they were pretty good.

 

And here’s a variety of folk in the park. Some wearing rather more in the way of clothing than others

 

 

 

And here is what makes Canal Street … well … Canal Street, with the Rembrandt Hotel to the left:

And here’s Laura making her way towards us along with a wisp of Billie’s hair in the background:

Eventually we set off back to the hotel and get changed for the evening. I only have one other thing with long sleeves … so tonight I’m all in black.

 

We eat at the Red Chilli restaurant on Portland Street.

I’m a little amazed at how many inebriated people there are on Portland Street at 7:30 in the evening. They’re easy to spot since they are the ones that make idiots of themselves by making stupid comments.

In the restaurant the manager and staff make us feel extremely welcome. People take no notice of us … until all around us they begin to cough and splutter as the waitress places food onto a very hot sizzling platter.

The rest of the evening is mostly chatter and a few drinks. We end up at the Via bar again and I am especially respectful of the steps.

I hunt out the ladies loos.

“There’s a bit of a queue” says the girl in the queue.

“Oh. Are you the queue?”

“Yeah” she says. “And I bet you … whichever one becomes free first has no toilet paper.”

I smile.

A door opens and she sets heads for it explaining “… well I guess I’ll just have to drip dry.”

Next morning Tina and I meet up with my daughter Sarah again for a while. We have breakfast and a drink and talk and talk. The people at Weatherspoons take no notice of us.

The journey back home is a slow one … traffic pouring out of Silverstone where the British Grand Prix was raced slowed things down somewhat.

However … I did have a really nice weekend.

Roll on Sparkle 2012.

Humour, obsession and charity

A few days ago I came across this story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165892/Tory-councillors-gender-joke-led-dressing-police.html

According to the Daily Mail:

As the 50 members of the public at the police liaison meeting were handed their electronic handsets to take part in a survey, an official told them: 'Let's start with an easy question to get us going.

'Press A if you're male or B if you're female.'

But it seems nothing is ever that simple. Someone asked: 'What if you're transgendered?'

'You could press A and B together,' quipped Conservative councillor Jonathan Yardley.

…

A complaint was made  -  and as a result, he was spoken to by police for his ' homophobic' remark.

I have no way of knowing how complete a record of events this is.

My own reaction to Jonathan Yardley’s quip would have been to have smiled and pressed both buttons – though I suspect that the electronics wouldn’t have coped with it. I’m not at all sure how the remark could have been construed to be homophobic. But maybe the story is incomplete

I think that within the transgendered community there people who feel they are men trapped in women's bodies, women trapped in men's bodies and people who feel that they are somewhere in between.

Maybe most people are actually somewhere between?

Either way, maybe the options of button A, button B or button A + button B are adequate.

It seems a really strange kind of thing to have required police involvement.

 

I had a little think about the Sermon on the Mount … the bit that I quoted yesterday at least:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed ADULTERY with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into HELL. 

What does it mean? I have the feeling that very few Christians take this at face value. Otherwise there’d be a lot more guys in churches with fewer than two eyes.

Is it meant to mean that anyone who looks at a girl and thinks … wow … she looks fit … has to make a choice between cutting out their right eye or going to hell? What about the left eye?

There are times, though, I can imagine, when a person can get very wrapped up in thoughts that are doing them no good at all. A kind of obsessiveness where the obsession is destructive. Obsessions are not usually good things.

In the end though I’m sure that thinking something is not the same as doing something. And i don’t think that was the idea that Jesus was trying to convey. Not at all.

 

There was a story on the news today that the government are planning to experiment in making grants to charities that involve themselves in political lobbying as part of what they do.

There was a guy defending the idea, and a lady that was saying how bad it was – that charities should be about providing aid to people in need and not involved in messing about with politics.

The guy convinced me – though I was maybe already convinced. If a charity is involved in helping people and it discovers some kind of injustice that is built into the way that society is structured – then surely the charity needs to get involved in trying to change the way that society works – and that probably involves politics. The people that are being helped by charities are often not in a position to be able to bring about the changes themselves.

The guy seemed ok with the concept that it is ok for the government to supply funding to organisations that actually challenge the government and press for change. I think that’s a nice thought.

Politics

The opportunity to surprise work colleagues with an impromptu announcement of Andrea during a tea break seems to have passed (Hobbies and being myself). A little after Friday lunch T announced she was leaving the company having lasted a whole two and a half days. I think that's a record for shortest serving employee since I joined the company - though there have been several short stays over the years.


Lunchtime conversation skirted around politics and taxation. I have an ambivalent view towards politics ... a little like my sexuality I guess :) Politics sometimes seem like a necessary evil.


There was a show on TV during the week about Cherie Blair (wife of ex UK Prime Minister Tony Blair). Amongst the people being interviewed was Laura Bush (wife of current US president George Bush). I don't think I'd ever heard her speak before. Like many leaders wives she often appears in the background and hardly ever in the foreground ... at least not on TV in the UK.

I think that probably Tony Blair, George Bush and Gordon Brown and many other leaders are mostly guys doing what they think is right ... but under pressure also from all kinds of conflicting influences. Some of the influences are a lot less wholesome than others. It's a shame that they aren't often prepared to admit that they have made mistakes. It's also a pity I guess that the media often seem to jump on politicians that change their mind and seem to think that for someone to admit they made a mistake and make a change in policy is worse than perpetuating the mistake.