Oh Ian Handsome-man-thing, I miss you so

A few years ago, my brother gave me a magnet with CBC broadcasters Ian Hanomansing and David Gray on it. I have no idea where he got it from but it's one of the best gifts I've ever received.

It's currently in our bathroom above the soap dish near our sink. So anyone that uses our bathroom has the pleasure of having CBC news broadcasters reminding them to wash their hands. The geek-o-metre is tipping the scales. It's brilliant.

I used to love watching Ian Hanomansing -- or as he is better known in one of my circles of friends: Ian Handsome-man-thing -- on Canada Now, the CBC 6 o'clock news. And when I was at home in the afternoon at university, I would like watching the news on Newsworld from David Gray (the broadcaster, not the musician). I really miss the CBC.

I do visit the web site pretty much every day, but it's not the same. I want to hear Ian's rich voice, and stare into Peter Mansbridge's blue, blue eyes. I would also love to listen to Shelagh Rogers more often. (I can get Shelagh on the Internet, but as I don't have broadband at home, it's difficult).


Ian Hanomansing


David Gray


Shelagh Rogers

But since I can't get the CBC, the Beeb is my main source of news. The Beeb, I have to say, is very good. Especially Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman. And I do like Huw Edwards on the Beeb's 10 o'clock news. He's like your important Welsh uncle, and you can trust every word he says. I don't actually have an uncle like that but if I did, he would be just like Huw.


Huw Edwards

But my new favourite broadcaster in this country is Sarah Smith, who presents More Four news. It's the spin-off channel associated with Channel 4 -- a very good British "terrestrial television" channel. I haven't seen Sarah in action very much because we only just got digital television, but the first time I saw her, I liked her immediately. She's Scottish and I believe she's the daughter of a former Labour Party leader.


Sarah Smith

The devil's got a boutonniere

There are certain givens in life.

For instance, it's a given that just when you think reality television couldn't possibly get more ridiculous, something even more ridiculous comes along.

It's also a given that today, some smug English person, somewhere, is saying "This just proves that Americans don't understand football," following the USA's exit from the World Cup yesterday.

Another given, I've recently learned, is that everything you do in preparation for your wedding day is automatically going to be harder than you think it will be.

Last autumn, when I started to seriously think about planning the big day, my thinking was that, since I'm a cynical newspaper-type-person (as opposed to a gushy romantic), it would be fairly easy just to get on with the planning. I didn't have any desire to leaf through hundreds of bridal magazines, nor did I have a "perfect day" in mind. I wanted to look at what was available in my price range, and book it. Simple, right?

Not so.

Take dress-buying, for example. You can't just pop into a bridal shop and look around. You have to make an appointment -- and good luck getting a Saturday appointment. I'm guessing this is due to the fact that most women have leafed through hundreds of bridal magazines and already know the dresses they want to try on. And then when you finally get to the shop, the other brides-to-be are there twittering excitedly with their entourage of bridesmaids, moms and other close relations. So you start feeling like you've ruined the party atmosphere by going by yourself. (You would take your fiance, whose opinion, in your mind, matters the most, but other women find that offensive to their pre-concieved notions of how a wedding is done -- he's not allowed).

Things have moved on for me since then. The dress is now bought, the church and reception hall are booked -- thankfully -- and I've moved on to writing out the order of service for the ceremony. Unfortunately this task is, once again, proving my theory that nothing about a wedding is as easy as it should be.

In theory, all we needed to do was pick four hymns, three readings and two pieces of music for the entrance and exit of the bridal party. I thought this could be done in a couple of weekends. How wrong I was.

I think we started planning it about two months ago and all that is set in stone is that we're going to play Mendelssohn's The Wedding March at the end. Only because it's a big cliche and you have to do it.

Apparently there are quite different ideas about English wedding hymns and Canadian wedding hymns -- even when the Canadian church is an Anglican church. The church weddings here in England are strictly traditional, so you can only really choose between about 12 hymns, such as "Love Divine" and "I Vow to Thee My Country" -- hymns that people in Canada don't even know. So it has been an absolute nightmare trying to please the traditionalists on this side of the world, and the people saying, "I don't know that one -- can't we have one everyone knows?" on the other side of the world.

What's even more frustrating, is that I'm beginning to actually mind. A few months ago, I might have said: "I don't care what hymns we have -- it's not going to have a big impact on the mood of the ceremony." But these days, it's getting on my nerves. These days, it's my way or the highway. A little devil is sitting on my shoulder going: "If they don't want to sing 'Morning is Broken' then get them to sing a bloody Amy Grant number. Then they'll see the err of their ways! Mwa ha ha!"

Ironic, I suppose, that the devil has only come out since I started thinking about songs of praise.

Yes, Lauren, you do look bovvered

When I was a student of journalism, one of the things that most appealed to me about the profession was that journalists seemed to know how to cut through the bullshit and get to the point. But, increasingly, journalists don’t seem to be doing that as well as they should.

The British media are good at addressing trivial, everyday things, such as the best restaurants, the finest clothes, the nuttiest celebrities, the greatest footballers and the richest businessmen. They are also very good at reporting on what they see as the latest outrageous American behaviour, or the worst tragedies in the developing world. However, they’re terrible at examining societal problems within Britain. Pop bands like The Kaiser Chiefs do a better job of it than The Times do. (The lyrics to the song I Predict a Riot say more about British society than your average edition of The Times. “Watching the people get lairy/Is not very pretty I tell thee/Walking through town is quite scary/And not very sensible either/A friend of a friend he got beaten/He looked the wrong way at a policeman/Would never have happened to Smeaton")

As an outsider who is used to a different culture, I suppose I notice the flaws more than a native Briton would. When you grow up surrounded by societal flaws, you learn to consider it normal. Either that, or you feel you have to justify it.

Take football hooliganism for example. I know people in Britain are very sensitive about this subject. Britons always say it’s not as bad as people make it out to be. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the fact that it’s there at all is problematic. I’ve never been to a Premiership match, but I’ve seen some pretty deplorable behaviour at Championship football matches. The fact that supporters from opposing clubs have to be separated proves that hooliganism is still rampant. But despite the problem, the British media will always make excuses or try to justify it. For example, I often read about how much worse the problem is in Italy. It’s the grown-up sport reporter equivalent of a kid saying to his mother: “Tommy did it first!”

As another example, the British media made much fanfare about the survey that revealed that Britain is now a fairly classless society. At least, that’s how most newspapers chose to spin coverage of the survey.

The survey revealed that many rich people didn’t consider themselves “upper class.” It also revealed that people who were once considered “middle class” now consider themselves “working class.” The whole thing, to borrow a British expression, was a load of bullocks.

If Britain were a classless society, the media wouldn’t have even considered covering the story. In Canada, the class debate doesn’t even register. No one would think to associate themselves with a class. You would never hear someone say: “That is way too middle class for my tastes” -- a comment I have heard muttered in England. I’m not even entirely sure what it means.

Britain is no more a classless society than it was 20 years ago. People are now just more embarrassed about being privileged because it’s not cool. It’s much more hip to be an Alan Sugar (rags to riches business tycoon) than it is to be a David Cameron (Eton/Oxford-educated Tory leader). (As an aside, the pendulum may swing in Cameron’s favour. A 1980s-like fixation on wealth and prestige -- i.e. people being obsessed with footballer’s wives -- seems to be in style at the moment).

And if you need more proof that Britain is not a classless society, take a look at the general public’s love of poking fun at the group of people known as “chavs” -- widely considered the new word for “working class.” A fictional character called Lauren Cooper is the most memorable television creation of last year. She was a slightly overweight, track-suit-wearing, tight-pony-tailed, under-educated girl who always said: “Do I look bovvered?” This is clearly poking fun at Britain’s poor, “working class” population. And if you’ve used public transportation in the last five years, you know that girls like Lauren are out there. They’re usually not funny like Lauren, though. And they do look “bovvered.” For the most part, they don't have terribly happy lives. Deep down, these girls know they were born in a class-based society, and they won’t be able to break out of it very easily.

Still, the British media snapped up the story that Britain is a classless society. Nobody seemed to question it. I wonder if the media were looking for the positive spin in the story, or if they simply failed to see what’s obvious to an outsider like myself.

Privileged to work in the press

A new survey published recently by the UK’s Times Higher Education* showed that the number of journalists from swanky private schools is increasing. A staggering 56 per cent of journalists were educated privately.

When you look at the UK population as a whole, you find that only about seven per cent of the population went to private school. It means that the UK’s richer population is being over-represented in the media, especially at the national level.

I am not shocked by this news, but I am disappointed. Newspaper readership is slipping, especially amongst the younger population, and it’s important for newspapers to keep abreast of what’s meaningful to the unprivileged majority. And if writers and editors are not in touch with the unprivileged majority, than they're not likely to publish things that appeal to them.

I don’t think the reason more journalists are coming from privileged backgrounds, is, as a columnist in yesterday’s Guardian suggested, due to more privileged people ceasing to see journalism as a working class pursuit. (Annoyingly, I can’t remember the name of the columnist, but she wrote the “On the press” column in the Media supplement. My copy of yesterday’s Guardian is at home in the recycling box).

It is more a result of the entry-level positions being so poorly paid and mostly based in London -- one of the most expensive places to live in the world.

It is also the result of national newspaper editors preferring to hire young journalists if their work has been published in national papers. Most young journalists are able to get stories published in nationals only if they’re able to afford to do several unpaid internships at national newspapers. In England, young journalists can do work experience for a week at, for example, The Independent, The Times or The Guardian. But if you don’t have the money to live, eat and travel in London, then you probably won’t be able to go for it.

When I first moved to the UK, I was looking for work in journalism, and I considered trying to get a week’s work experience in London. But the thought of spending hundreds of pounds on travel and expenses put me off. I had no income whatsoever and I needed a job as soon as possible. (The Canadian government’s aggravating student loan lenders would not temporarily stop demanding payments, despite my lack of employment).

I’m not suggesting that people who come from private schools do not deserve to be in newspaper offices. These privately educated individuals have the confidence, know-how and ability to chase down good stories.

However, there is a danger that they’ll ignore some stories that mean a lot to the people living in the lower echelons of society.

Just as an example, how many stories are written about how difficult it is for teachers in the South East without high-earning partners to get on the property ladder? Given how widespread the problem is, relatively few. And while the media does a thorough job of covering stories about released prisoners who commit crimes and illegal immigrants, there are very few stories about prisoner rehabilitation, and the desperation in immigrant communities that causes some of them to enter into a life of crime. This is perhaps because most journalists don’t live next-door to people in these situations. Increasingly, they’re more likely to live next door to lawyers, architects, politicians and high-profile actors.

It is time more newspaper editors took a gamble and hired less experienced, less privileged -- perhaps even more timid -- recruits. Given the chance, these individuals will chase down the stories that every other paper is missing.

*The study was carried out by the Sutton Trust

Home is no longer where the heart is

There's a government document in England that everyone seems to be up in arms about. It's called, rather unassumingly, The South East Plan. It's a dull document, but it's creating a fury -- and because of this fury, I'm driven to come out in support of it.

The South East Plan is a big document. I'm guessing there are probably more than 500 pages of the sucker. (In the unlikely event that you're interested in reading it, you can find it here: http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/southeastplan/plan/view_plan.html)

If you look at the whole thing, it looks like a whole load of very expensive bureaucratic nonsense. Which is probably, for the most part, pretty accurate. But within the document, there are some key "strategies" that people are worried about.

The most controversial one is the housing plan. The government wants local councils to build 28,900 new houses in the South East every year.

I think it would be difficult to count the number of letters to the editor I've seen in the regional press decrying this plan. People are constantly writing in to say there's already far too many houses in the region.

You can obviously never tell what the people who write these letters look like. But I would be willing to gamble everything I have on the fact that they're white, they're older, they're homeowners, and at least half the time, they've probably been living in the same village their whole lives and they're scared of outsiders living nearby. The letters are always like, "Oh, you can't build houses near where I live because it's pristine and wonderful, and what about my children? These outsiders will probably run them over in the street." Not only that but, the houses will "destroy the character of the neighbourhood."

What they're really saying is: "I have a nice house and my nose is in a knot because I don't want the value of said house to go down if there are lots of other houses on offer nearby. Plus, this neighbourhood is a white neighbourhood and I'd rather keep it that way."

In this country, one out of three houses bought is bought as a buy-to-rent investment rather than as a home. It means that people who already own homes are snapping up the available ones. That is a statistic I've seen published in a reliable newspaper. It leaves people who are not on the property ladder in a really tough situation.

I think it is sad that homeowners in the South East -- many of whom have seen the value of their homes triple in the past few years -- can only think of themselves. An average house in the South East is now worth more than £200,000 (approximately $400,000). That is also a statistic I've read in reliable newspapers.

Young people, such as myself, immigrants, people who have had significant life disruptions -- such as really difficult divorces -- need to be able to get on the property ladder and it is unfair that homeowners are blocking new builds because they don't want to see the value of their homes decrease.

Some homeowners are obviously also concerned with traffic and a lack of infrastructure (like doctors, parking spaces, roads). But for the most part, if everyone were being honest, they would say that they're trying to protect their pocketbooks when they try to block more houses from being built.

These people have money so they naturally have more power and influence than the above-mentioned young, immigrant, disadvantaged, etc, people -- so it's likely they'll get their way. Even if The South East Plan continues to contain the magic 28,900-houses-to-be-built-every-year statistic, the homeowners will probably scare off the builders somehow. I just hope they realise their children will suffer because of their actions.

When in Roma... don't support AC Milan

I've come to the conclusion that I'm an adaptable person. Most people are -- I just think I have an extra-strong adaptability streak. Living in England, I have become so familiar with my internal "when in Rome..." monologue, that it has become an internal cliché. So too has the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" phrase.

Take, for example, my new-found enthusiasm for football. Three or four years ago, would I have ever imagined that watching the World Cup would appeal to me? No. But now here I am, pretty much every day, checking out minute-by-minute coverage on the Guardian Unlimited web site, and watching live coverage in the evenings. Why the sudden interest in football? I'll tell you.

A preamble: Football is known to some Canadians as "boot hockey", as in: "It's a shame about those Brits and their boot hockey -- it's too bad they're in too backward of a country to enjoy the sport as it should be played, with ice rinks, skates and sticks." Football is also known, of course, to more open-minded Canadians as "soccer."

I know I can't be objective, being a Canadian who never watched football on TV before 2005, but I still want to argue that football culture is a lot more difficult to penetrate than other sports cultures. The reason for this is because of its complexity. (In addition to English people's obssession with cult heroes and random sports trivia, but I digress). I've lived in England for more than a year and a half, and I still learn something about football everyday. And after 400-plus days of tutelage, I'm still hopeless. There are so many teams, cups, coaches, grounds, rules, sayings, songs and taboos that an outsider can't help but be hopeless.

Now, I've never been a massive sport enthusiast -- styling myself mostly as a creative type -- but I do like the way sport creates bonds. In this country, if someone supports the same football club as you, you've immediately got about forty hours worth of conversation to work with. I like that -- I want to have those resources. As an adaptable person, I don't want to sit in stoney silence as the guys at the office chat about football all day. I'd rather join in.

But it's not easy -- I've found myself asking loads of dumb questions, which probably gets on everyone's nerves, because it's the only way I can learn. Eventually, I will be able to make one or two intelligent additions to the conversation. In the meantime, I may get a laugh or two, and that's good enough for me. For now.

PS -- I reckon Italy look good for the Cup. They look speedy, and their strikers have the right instincts. But mostly, I just like their dramatics. Lots of pained and/or exhilarated expressions and arms flailing everywhere for no reason. (As a self-styled creative type, I've got to appreciate the most artistic team).

But those pesky Brazilians could shape up and steal the show. It's all up in the air, folks.