A Growing Sense of Shame

For the first time in my life I’m ashamed to be British. It’s never happened before. It’s come as a bit of a shock. What’s it all about? The response to comments made by the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, that’s what.

When I started writing this blog, I hadn’t even read the transcripts of his speech or the interview on BBC Radio 4 that have sparked this controversy. Now I have and I’m livid. Not at the Archbishop, but at those who either through malice or incompetence are taking comments from a seemingly compassionate man and twisting them to make us more frightened of something we shouldn’t be frightened of at all.

I may not agree with every word the man says but I like to think I actually listen to what he has said before disagreeing with it. And I used to pride myself that at least some aspects of the British media would do the same, or at least provide a balanced view. But this time the media seems to have all jumped on the same bandwagon to condemn a man for something he hasn’t actually said. I’ve read his speech. I’ve read his interview transcript. And now I know how the reaction to them in the media makes me feel. It’s like the clever kid at school has said something profound and is now getting beaten up for it by the bullies who just don’t even want to understand what he’s going on about.

Even the BBC and the Guardian, once my two first choices of news, have jumped on the bandwagon. In a front page article, the Guardian focused on the controversy (ironic since the controversy was created by the media in the first place) and then only in the last sentence of the article stated that the Archbishop did not advocate the imposition of the inhumane aspects of Sharia Law.

The BBC news has been the same. Even the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 left a lot to be desired. Jeremy was told that the Archbishop didn’t want all aspects of Sharia Law. It was more a case of integrating Civil, not Criminal Law. Not as a parallel system, but integrated into existing British Law. What did Jeremy Vine come back with? What about punishing homosexuals? Why should there be one law for Muslims and one law for the rest of us? Why is it so hard to understand that if an Archbishop suggests the inclusion of SOME aspects of Sharia Law we could assume with almost complete certainty 1) he wouldn’t want anything inhumane and 2) it would not be a parallel system but integrated into British Law? And did the Archbishop say it would be easy? NO HE BLOODY DIDN”T.

Maybe it’s a difference in interpretation. My understanding of what he said before I read the speech and interview was that we as a nation should look for the best every system has to offer and if appropriate integrate it into our own. Integrating some aspects of Sharia Law might help British Muslims feel more involved in the British Legal System. Some integration has already happened and it is seemingly inevitable that more will. While I don’t know much about Sharia Law I think it’s fairly safe to assume that in a system of laws that old there might be at least a few parts that are worthwhile. And that some aspects of Sharia Law are the same as British Law. The media’s interpretation seems to be that the Archbishop has asked that Muslims have the right to cut thieves hands off and stone women and homosexuals.

I’m not a Christian, despite being raised in a Christian environment. Yet while authority figures in Christianity are allowed to perform legally recognized marriages, authority figures in Islam are not. Would it really be a threat to British society to allow properly accredited Imams to conduct legally recognized marriages in this country? Especially since the law will recognize Islamic marriages performed outside this country. If your answer is “no – this is no threat” then you agree with what the Archbishop said.

What I don’t think the most vocal critics even realize they are doing is implying that there is absolutely nothing in Sharia Law that is at all worthwhile. What message does that send to British Muslims? That their culture and history is nothing compared to ‘British History’.

My biggest frustration, especially now that I have read what the Archbishop actually said (transcripts are available at his website – google for Lambeth Palace Website) is that people just don’t seem interested in what he actually said but just want to stoke the controversy.

Some have said that the Archbishop had been naïve. I think his only naiveté was thinking that he would be judged by reasonable people on what he actually said.

It's almost over

Just a quickie for those keeping up to date, we were all in court today - and a court order was issued meaning my grandfather is out of our lives. The relief is incredible. I didn't realize how tired I was until now it's pretty much done. Now I'm just struggling to stay awake and have been since lunchtime...

Now all I have to do is find a job that I can stand, think about what we want to do with our lives and start making arrangements for my wedding...

Justice - just another abstraction...

I'm losing faith in British justice.

Back in May I wrote a blog describing the trouble my parents were having in getting an unwelcome house guest to leave. It's still not sorted. Things have taken a bit of a nasty turn.

Three and a half weeks ago I witnessed my grandfather threaten my parents with a hammer. It was a shock at the time, but not as great as when the realisation hit me that if my mother had not managed to stop him, my grandfather could have hit my father on the back of the head with a claw hammer. Now I'm no medical expert, but I've watched enough TV to know that that sort of blow can kill. My father could be dead right now.

Obviously we called the police, and after some discussion decided it would be best to make a complaint so the police could take it further. My grandfather was arrested and taken away and was eventually bailed on the condition he reported to the police after three weeks and did not come back to the property. We were told that after three weeks the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) would make a decision on whether to bring any charges. Mum and Dad went to the doctors and bruising they had as a result of the incident was recorded. Then we waited.

So, three weeks passed. We expected to hear from the police but didn't, despite repeated calls made by my father. Two days after they were supposed to let us know what was going on, we were told that my grandfather had reported to a police station, and had been released without charge. Apparently because it was in a domestic setting it wasn't affray of a breach of the peace. Because he didn't actually hit anyone it wasn't assault. They couldn't think of another charge that would be appropriate so no charge was brought. This made us feel great. One up side is that my grandfather has not tried to come back yet, and should he we have been advised that we can call the police and have him removed. The local police officer is also going to talk to his desk seargant tomorrow and see what else can be done, and at least try and get my grandfather summoned to court and warned about his behaviour.

So that's why my respect for law in this country is feeling misplaced at the moment. Not only has it taken more than 7 months so far to get the ownership issue sorted, but it appears threatening behaviour is perfectly acceptable in certain situations - or at least the police can do little about it.

I should say things are still progressing. My grandfather has now been required to provide evidence that he spent 60,000 GBP on improvements to the farm. He has supplied receipts and bank statements. Apparently he believes that underwear constitutes an improvement. I kid you not - one of the receipts he has submitted is for underwear. Others are for clothes, a mobile phone, his petrol (gas to those in North America), car repairs. This list goes on. It would be funny had they been submitted months ago. But now it's really not funny any more.

Life isn't funny - but at the moment it's not even fun. These events do not lead me to believe I live in an enlightened world, a civilised society, or even a safe country. I don't fear for my own safety. Mostly because I'm not afraid of dying. I don't believe in God, but like to think there may be something else to move on to. But I do fear for the safety and wellbeing of those around me - those people I care about. Most of all I feel so helpless. The only recourses I have are either to continue to be supportive (which feels like doing next to nothing) or taking the law into my own hands, which could hurt those I care about more than it would help them.

So what do I do?

If I work it out, I'll let you know.

Axis of disbelief

Axis of Evil - Iran, Iraq, North Korea
Axis of Terror - Iran, Syria
Axis of Hypocrisy - United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Israel
Axis of Disbelief - Me, and, I hope, others...

In 1969, the United States government put two men on the moon and got them back to Earth safely. It had never been done before. It was hard and it was dangerous. Hopes were high and generations were inspired to make the world a better place. Now they don't have either the willingness or the ability to condemn the killing of civilians by a 'friendly' nation. It wouldn't be hard to do. Hopes aren't high any more. New generations are being inspired to hate and kill and destroy.

Either International Law means something, or it doesn't. If a country is not willing to stand up and support the Geneva Conventions, then they should publicly announce they don't require their citizens to be protected by them in the future. In the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, the reluctance of the US government to enforce International Law, and the continued disproportionate condemnation of the parties involved, both the US and the UK have proven themselves to be entirely unqualified to mediate a full and just settlement. Only nations that can show themselves to be even-handed when it comes to condemning violations of International Law on both sides of the conflict (such as France, much as it pains me to say that as an Englishman...) have any hope of instilling trust enough to negotiate a lasting solution. Nations that refuse to publicly condemn one side's killing of civilians while vocally condemning the other side have no place in the peace process, and should withdraw completely.

It's no wonder that the conflict continues when the Western world continues to pursue foreign policy that implies the life of an Arab or a Persian is not of a significant enough value to attempt to intervene, but stating those same Arab or Persian populations are the only ones holding up the peace process. The implication that the lives of two soldiers could ever justify, in the eyes of the international community, a nation killing over 300 civilians of a neighbouring nation (so far) has wide-ranging ramifications for global terrorism and warfare.

Perhaps there has been pressure behind the scenes, but politics is not just about what happens, but what is seen to happen in the public domain. If the West continues to condemn unreservedly groups that see themselves, and are seen by large numbers of the Arab and Persian civilian populations, as resistance fighters against the occupation of Palestinian land, but refuses to condemn Israeli actions that violate International Law then they cannot complain when they are not trusted in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. The world is not blind, and contrary to popular belief (and the actions of governments) does have a conscience. The West also risks destabilizing nations that may be considered friendly now, when their inaction is seen as a weakness by their populations.

As I said before, either International Law means something, or it doesn't. I find it hypocritical that Israel's ambassador to the UN calls for the full implementation of Resolution 1559 (disarmament of Hezbollah and other militant groups in Lebanon) when the world has been waiting 40 years for Israel to implement Resolution 242 (withdrawal to Israel's 1967 borders), especially when it can be argued that some of these militant groups (or terrorist groups if you prefer) have only come into existence because Israel has continued to occupy Palestinian land in violation of a unanimously-passed UN Security Council Resolution.

I am disgusted that the number of civilian casualties on both sides of this conflict has yet to spur the international community to act beyond putting out facile statements urging restraint. Restraint that has so far failed to materialize. I feel sick seeing that my government has failed to even mention that what both sides are doing violates International Law and the perpetrators will be held to account. I feel pessimistic about the likelihood of a lasting and just peace in the Middle East when the world's most powerful nation sits by and lets any nation or group (friend or foe) make a mockery of human rights, International Law and the Geneva Conventions without so much as a warning that there will be consequences. I am angry that the theoretical power of the UN has been continually stifled by the permanent members of the Security Council using the veto for the sake of their own best interests (or in the case of the UK it seems for the interests of the US).

I hope the world turns it around. I truly do. If not only because no power lasts forever, and if the power shifts before I die, I don't want to be punished by the new power for the avoidable mistakes and the inexcusable inaction and posturing of most Western governments today. The hegemony of the US is in decline. It may not be a Western power that picks up the slack. There's a saying in business. Be nice to the people on the way up - you may meet them again on the way down. Perhaps someone should write that on a piece of paper and slip it under one of the doors of the Oval Office.

Democracy - a cruel joke, or our only chance?

Hitler was elected. George W Bush was elected (well, sort of). Tony Blair was elected. It maybe unfair to lump those three together, but then life’s not fair is it? Even in a democracy. If Democracy is such a good leadership philosophy why are there so many important institutions not run democratically? Autocratic institutions abound in democracies. Institutions where quick and decisive action is required are usually autocratic as it takes too long to have a vote. Institutions where considered and qualified debate or expertise are required can be autocratic as not everyone can be an expert in everything. Both extremes of the spectrum.

Think of it another way. You need brain surgery. Shall we vote for who gets to do it, or would you prefer a qualified surgeon? You need to be protected from an invader. Shall we vote how is best to do that, or shall we get the Army in? Yet rather than vote in someone qualified to run, say, the Department for Education, the Prime Minister gets to appoint an elected Member of Parliament. Some would say that those in the Civil Service are the qualified ones, and they can guide policy. But they don’t get to choose policy, only work out how to make it work. Taking advice is one thing, but how many politicians get expert advice before they choose their platforms, let alone before they are put in charge of departments? The Civil Service goes in the direction where Ministers point.

Even organizations set up along democratic lines have built in autocratic tendencies. Take for example the United Nations Security Council. It has five permanent members. When a vote is taken in the Security Council, each of these five members has the power of veto. The veto is not a tool of democracy, it is a tool against it – so why was this measure included in the UN charter? Because it allows these five members (the winners of the Second World War) to make sure that they can’t be forced to do something they don’t want to by the majority. It doesn’t sound like a resounding endorsement of Democracy to me. It is a fight between the recognition of the ‘fairness’ of Democracy against the idea that these five nations won’t be dictated to. But Democracy means that the majority can and should be allowed to dictate to the minority. And I’ve not even mentioned that ambassadors to the UN are appointed, not elected.

So is Democracy really anything more than institutionalized mob rule? Doesn’t Democracy just give the majority authority to make the minority obey? The problem being that once the elections are over, the electorate become the minority, while the elected become the majority, until the next election. We like to fool ourselves that the elected were voted for after an enlightened debate on the issues, not the personalities or personal histories, and actually work for us. Is that really true? After all we don’t vote to decide what happens, we vote for the people who decide what happens, usually based on general allegiances, not specific actions promised by the candidates. In effect, we vote for the least worst option, as it’s unlikely that we support every policy of any party. Is that the best way to run a country? The check is supposed to be that if they don’t do what the electorate wants, they get voted out. But after they’ve had the opportunity to do the damage…and who do we vote for instead of them?

Democracy is seen as the best option as the majority does not trust the minority (whether qualified or not) to make decisions on their behalf. The majority are simply not willing to risk relinquishing the authority. The image of the majority treated as children who need to be told what they can and can’t do is akin to modern day accusations of the nanny state destroying civil liberties in debates about the rights and wrongs of public smoking. Where do you draw the line? If you ban smoking on health grounds, should you not ban unhealthy foods? Then other unhealthy activities, starting with extreme sports, perhaps? “It’s for your own good” only allows you to go so far. Democracy as an ideal requires the involvement of all, at a level of understanding that simply does not exist in today’s world, based on an understanding of the ‘common good’. Many chose not to be involved, by not voting, or by not looking deeper than general party lines. Can Democracy be effective in a world where not everyone is even willing to take part? Is it the desire to retain power but relinquish responsibility? To be taken care of up to a certain point and then left alone? Democracy, however, does not cater for the individual unless they form a part of the majority. Individual ideas of where the line is drawn become an average, as abstract as the idea of the average person, of average height, weight and hair colour.

Power corrupts, they say. Does it corrupt elected officials any less than anyone else? Was Britain any better or worse under the rule of a powerful monarchy? Or do we just like democracy so we can say “well, he was bad, but next time we’ll vote in someone better.” Or is democracy just a way of limiting the amount of time someone has to do damage before we can get rid of them and vote for someone else? Is Democracy in fact just a damage limitation exercise?

And how exactly do you square Democracy with Capitalism? Capitalism is all about the pursuit and accumulation of wealth, and by necessity taking it or withholding it from others. Capitalism is necessarily selfish and about the betterment of individuals. Democracy is about inclusion – one person, one vote, everybody having their say. When it comes down to it, which is a priority – Democracy or Capitalism? Looking at the world today where the most powerful countries struggle, not to spread Democracy, but to work in their own best interests (interests mostly measured in terms of Capitalism and it’s apparatus) sometimes at the expense of Democracy (how many democratically elected governments are there that powerful nations refuse to even acknowledge?) it seems Capitalism comes first. Is it like the rich man who says money isn’t everything? Do you need to be a successful Capitalist society before Democracy can really take hold? Is it unreasonable to expect the less powerful nations to be successful in terms of Democracy, when they aren’t successful Capitalists? Does a Capitalist society encourage or discourage, support or erode Democracy?

Someone famous said that Democracy is the worst political system in the world – except for all the others. Perhaps that’s right. Perhaps it’s as close as we can get to a perfectly fair system. I’m not so sure. I look at the world around me and it doesn’t shout out “DEMOCRACY IS BEST!” It shouts “MONEY IS BEST!” Maybe it’s a problem of self-promotion. Shouldn’t we strive to find a better way? Maybe what could be better is a benign dictatorship. Someone who is qualified to do the job rather than some smug, soulless popularity contest winning politician in bed with powerful lobby groups or religious factions. The problem is that no-one who would be good at the job could ever get it. Even if they wanted it. In a Groucho Marx sort of way, anyone who did want the job by definition shouldn’t get it (along the lines of “I wouldn’t join a club that would have me as a member”). So how do you even attempt to get someone who is qualified? You can’t just take out an ad in the paper. Who decides what qualifications are required? Would I trust someone installed as an absolute ruler? Not unless it’s me, frankly. And if I wouldn’t, I can’t expect anyone else to. Would I trust them any less than I trust some of our current batch of elected representatives?

Now that’s a tougher one to answer. But will I vote? You’re damn right I will.

What the hell is this?

So what's with the Middle East? The UK, US and chums have decided that democray is fine, but if they don't get what they want out of it, the Palestinians must be punished. And why not? After all it's not as if the victorious powers of the Second World War came along and told them they were freeing them from the imperial rule of the British Empire, but taking land they had been on for many centuries and giving to people who were there many more centuries ago. It's not as if they are stuck in two bits of land without control of their own borders. It's not as if the 'new owners' of the land are creating settlements outside of their legitimate borders with the aim of setting new borders more to their advantage. It's not as if Jerusalem is important to any other religion.

I'm resigned to be called anti-semitic for my belief that more should be done to make Israel obey international law and withdraw settlers from the occupied territories, not to mention ceasing construction of the 'land-grab' barrier. Or my belief that Israel holds the key to peace in the Middle East, but is unwilling to use it, since they want all the land God 'gave' them (despite the fact that God seems strangely unwilling to intervene on either side - wonder why that would be...). Or that the international community are acting in a truly disgusting manner by making ordinary Palestinians suffer for exercising their right to vote. I don't support bombing, whether suicide bombing or the reaction it garners from Israeli forces.

And yet it is not at all difficult to see why the non-Western world lacks trust in the West based on their actions (or inactions) in the international community. When the West puts self-interest aside and starts actually helping (rather than just throwing money or troops around) maybe by actually supporting the UN rather than tearing it apart just because it doesn't do what it's told, then we might be able to make the world a better place...

But the world continues to spin...

I've not written here in a while. Well, other than the old emails I've not written anywhere.

Life has, once again, flown by. At the time of my last blog I was in Vancouver with my intented. We had a blast. We managed to stay at two different Fairmont hotels - Hotel Vancouver for one night, a fabulous present from the friends we were staying with, and the Empress in Victoria. Originally it was for one night as a Christmas present for the love of my life. It ended up being three nights, and I have to say I was bloody marvellous. In fact, the trip to Vancouver was just so totally beyond expectations that we stayed an extra two weeks. My thanks, as always, to everyone who made the trip so great, including Maya, who was about a month old when we got there, and about four months old when we left...

After three months in a different time zone, the jet lag was pretty painful. I'd wake up between 04:30 and 05:30 for two weeks, so would get up and wathc the news on the BBC. We used it as a way of trying to start getting up ealier. The first meal we had was fish and chips. Now, while I love Vancouver, it does suffer from a lack of a decent chippie. Cornish pasty and chips? Not a chance. So when we got back, I had to have my fix. Not long after we got back we headed to my parents' farm in Wales. Cool place. Very relaxing (not counting the 'unpleasantness' which I'll get to in a moment). We were there for about a week I guess before we were asked by Mel's parents if we could look after thier place as they were going to Spain. We were heading out there ourselves for a wedding in March but they were going early. We agreed, and back to Hindhead we went. Bear in mind, it's about five hours by car.

It was good in a way, as not long after that I had a call from the last company I worked for. They had acquired a company called GFI, and all of my old team were being made redundant as they were closing our office and relocating to just north of Birmingham. I was asked if I would consider going back to help out. We had four weeks before we were heading to Spain, so I did it. It was actually really good. I went back on a not bad salary, four days a week, six hours a day. The lack of stress since my employment there last time was great! Unfortunately, it was at this time things started to go wrong elsewhere.

I'll jump ahead here and say Mel has been fabulous. I understand now the expression "he/she has been my rock." Without Mel, and with my closest friends being in Vancouver, I don't know if I could have done the little I have done in the last couple of months. So I reiterate here and now, without reservation, that Mel is my everything, and I am hugely grateful that she will soon be my wife.

But anyway, back to the events. While working back at my old job, my parents went away for a week to see my sister. My grandfather remained on the farm as he needed to feed his animals. Everything seemed to be going fine, but when my parents got back, they found the range which heated the house (including the hot water) wasn't working. My grandfather accused them of trying to kill him. He apparently believes that they sabotaged the heating, so he would get hypothermia and die, and they would get his money. Now this seemed a bit strange to me, for two reasons. The first is knowing my parents (it may be sad to admit, but I have lived with them for at least 29 of my 30 years on this planet) this is not something they would try to do. The second reason is that if they did decide to do it, he wouldn't still be here complaining about it. What gets me is that he didn't call my parents to say the heating was off. He just did nothing. They had had arguements before, but this was it for them. They said if that's how he felt, he had a month to leave, which they followed up in writing. They had to get an engineer out to fix the heating in the end.

So you'd think that would be it. My grandfather, believing his life was threatened would move out, and everyone would be happy. But no. One morning, the post arrives, and with it a letter from a solicitor saying that my grandfather was very disappointed to be told to leave the property, as he owned a third of it and had invested another considerable amount in animals and equipment, for which he wanted money. I couldn't believe it until I saw the letter. It was somewhere around here that me , Mel, my sister and her husband decided we'd all pitch up at the farm and see what was going on. It was fairly awful. Mum and Dad were both stressed beyond belief, and my grandfather, despite wanting money for the aforementioned bits and pieces, had removed them from the farm. Mum and Dad felt that they couldn't leave the farm unattended. Mel and I decided to stay, as I was only temping, Mel wasn't working, but both my sister and her husband had jobs they couldn't really take a break from at such short notice.

To summarise the next events, Mum and Dad now have a solicitor who advised that my grandfather was entitled to two months notice, which was duly given. That runs out this Monday. After that, they'll need to apply for a court order (as he has repeated stated he isn't leaving until a judge tells him to). So here we are waiting. There have been a couple of altercations, including one where my grandfather said he will make it his business to become the majority owner of the farm so he can call the shots. He's basically turned spiteful and vindictive. I didn't mention how he told my mother that he didn't love her or any of his kids, as he was too busy working. Nice.

It is draining being here, but I would make the same choice again - between hearing my Mum cry on the phone at least once a day and living here, I know I made the right choice. With me and Mel here, Mum and Dad can get on with things - they can go out together or work on the farm while we stay in the house. They don't feel so under siege in their own home. We can't do anything more until his notice expires, and then it's anyone's guess when the next availbale court date is. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I try and think that every day that passes, we are a day closer to getting this resolved.

And although it's not easy when the law gives rights to enable a house guest you want to leave to stay for three months before you can even apply for a court order, the world continues to spin...

Can I speak now?

I don't know if this happens a lot to other people, but I keep getting cut off mid-sentence.

I don't mean while I'm on the phone, but just when I'm talking. I'll start a sentence, and about three words in someone else will start talking and all attention turns to that person. It's not really a confidence booster. Maybe I talk too quietly, or I'm not assertive enough. Maybe I'm just boring. I don't know. But I like to think that if someone is saying something to me, I listen to what they are saying, and wait until they finish before responding. It's possible I don't do that in practice. A few days ago I had to try four times before I got the whole sentence out. It wasn't anything earth-shattering, but I'd still like to be listened to when I'm talking.

Perhaps in these days of multi-media and instant information, it's harder for people to concentrate on one thing. Perhaps as a society we are losing the art of being able to listen, let alone the art of conversation. I know I'm not very good at arguing. I can express myself far more clearly if I can ponder over a position and respond at a later date. Is this the first sign? Having said that, I've not always been very good at conversation anyway. It's only been in my later years that I've come out of my shell and started talking to people, rather than sitting and listening. But being interrupted just pushes me back to the quiet old days. Today when it happened and I got cut off, I just didn't bother trying again. No-one seemed to notice, so here I am. Expressing my not quite anonymous voice to all and sundry, or perhaps to no-one at all.

It occurs to me that this sort of thing can go some way to explaining why people find comfort in chat rooms, or blogs, or just emailing friends rather than talking to them on the phone or in person. It's harder to be cut off, and even if there is no-one there, you can get closer to fully expressing a thought, or a feeling, without fear of being interrupted and made to feel like what you are trying to express isn't important (although I know that's rarely the intention). Perhaps the loss of social graces is a vicious circle. People express themselves less, leading to others becoming less interested and cutting them off, leading to people not bothering to try and express themselves.

I hope I'm over-reacting. But I know I'll work harder to really listen to what people are saying to me, to give them my undivided attention.

We all deserve to be listened to.

What's all this shouting?

I don't have very good selective attention.

Although there are times when I can focus on one thing and ignore everything else, there are also times when I can't. I have particular trouble with sound. There are just some noises that I can't filter out, and that annoys the hell out of me. For instance, the sound of someone crunching their way through a bag of crisps (potato chips for those outside the UK). More often than not, that sound cuts through me like a knife. Transpose that noise into a fairly quiet location, and it becomes worse. A cinema for example. There are few things that wind me up as much as someone crunching through a movie. It's like that person has decided that the soundtrack has something missing, and chooses to add a 'crunch track'. Because as everybody knows, nothing heightens tension like the sound of someone eating. Nothing quite so evocative as the munch of popcorn.

The assumption (whether conscious or not) seems to be that the sound of the film isn't as important as the visual aspect - demonstrated by the fact that someone who stood up blocking part of the screen might not survive until the end of the film. I'm a fan of movie soundtracks. Not necessarily just the music, but the ambient noises, the talking, the sound effects. Someone has put a lot of effort into this for my entertainment, and I won't belittle their work by not listening. And I object to not being able to fully appreciate their work because someone in the cinema fancies a snack.

I know. I'm 'highly strung'. I freely admit it. It's not at all annoying to me when I'm eating crisps. People are not being malicious by choosing to eat the noisiest foods known to man. And although I would like the whole world to revolve around me, I'm grown up enough to know it's not going to happen. But I never understood why cinemas, whose job it is to show movies for my gratification, started selling snack foods that made so much noise. That is until I was told it was the concessions that make cinemas their money, not just the ticket sales. Then it all became clear. Capitalism at work. Fabulous. Guess why I prefer watching DVDs in the quiet of my own home...

I guess everyone has a sense they rely on, or appreciate, more than the others. Mine would be sound. Music, talking, the sound of the sea, or a river flowing by. If a picture paints a thousand words, to me a sound evokes a thousand images. It's just the way I was put together. And I only wish I could change that every now and then...