ONE PERSON'S FREEDOM

The funeral of Margaret Thatcher will take place tomorrow.  In her lifetime, as Prime Minister, she managed to divide the country.  People with firm opinions and uncompromising stances usually do encourage strong views one way or the other.  Since she won three consecutive elections and is still Britain's longest serving Prime Minister for over 100 years, those divisions clearly did not split the country into two equal parts, but the minority that opposed her of course became the most vociferous and violent.

The same will no doubt be the case during her funeral tomorrow.  There are those who still hate her and will go out of their way to show it tomorrow. But those that make the loudest noise, as ever, will not necessarily be right.  Maybe they are incapable of rational argument or perhaps after all this time (Thatcher resigned in 1990) their ineffectual resentment has still not evaporated or maybe they are just hateful, but demonstrating at a funeral will not endear them to anyone, nor elicit support for their views.  Any violence will no doubt be condemned by all political parties.  So such protesters will simply be dismissed as outside normal society.

But a separate debate has arisen which is much more interesting, and important, than whether you still like or dislike Thatcher.  The police have said that, in policing the funeral, they are determined not to prevent freedom of speech.  In this country, I'm pleased to say, dissent is allowed, even in public.  But what is the limit of that dissent?  To what extent is freedom of speech, or freedom of expression, or freedom of movement, restricted by public order legislation?

I am quite firm that freedom of speech should be permitted unconditionally.  At any time, in any place.  If someone wishes to stand up in church and say that religion is poppycock, that's fine by me.  If they want to shout tomorrow that Thatcher was an evil woman, that's OK too.  But they can't expect that theirs will be the only view expressed.  And this is where demonstrations can run into legal difficulties.  Holding up a banner is fine.  Chanting what's on the banner is also fine.  But when have you seen two opposing groups of demonstrators simply standing together chanting their opposing views?  When one group seems to be chanting louder, insults will be bandied, jostling will begin and one group will no doubt soon physically attack the other.  So where does the public order offence begin - when the chanting starts?  When the chanting takes on an aggressive tone?  When physical contact occurs?  When the fighting starts?  And which group committed the public order offence?

We can easily accept that a public order offence may have occurred when we hear a Muslim cleric preaching against the West.  But what of a group dishonouring Margaret Thatcher and preaching against her?  At what stage does freedom of speech spill over into an illegal act?  A public order offence may well have occurred if a milk bottle is thrown at her coffin.  But what if just the milk is thrown?  Or what about holding up a placard covered in hate filled words and chanting hatred against her?  Is this incitement to violence?  Or maybe it's libel, legally punishable defamation?  But at what stage would you be inhibiting a person's freedom of speech - when you take away their placard or when you move them along or when you arrest them?

There have been attempts to quantify freedom of speech for the purposes of demonstrating tomorrow. As usual it all sounds silly.  It's a bit like a contract for behaviour on a date.  This is OK, but that isn't.  In the end, it will depend on the personal judgement of one police officer.  And I suspect it will not be placards or chanting or turning one's back or singing, 'Ding dong - the Queen is dead' or even throwing milk that leads to arrest.

I sincerely hope violence doesn't arise.  And, on the other hand, I hope too that the police will get it right.  If many are arrested, far from turning in her grave, I suspect  that Thatcher will be smiling.  She had no time for trouble makers then and would certainly not have now.

So, even in death she arouses strong views.  But, in the debate over freedoms in British society and the rights of the individual, I think I know where she would have drawn her uncompromising line. 

WINNER TAKES ALL

Here I go again.  Someone has died and I'm writing about it.

I just heard that Michael Winner died (actually I heard earlier today and have only just got round to writing about it) and I'm sad.  I was upset when he recently stopped writing his Winner's Dinners column on the back page of the Sunday Times.  The article was like him - infuriating, self-centred, opinionated, sometimes rude, yet completely unmissable and delightful at the same time.  I bought the S Times almost exclusively to read his column.  He visited, usually the best, restaurants and hotels and often slated them.  He was the only critic I know willing to cut through the hype.  I suppose being able to afford lunches costing several hundred pounds allowed to him to do so.  But who else would pay a fortune for a meal and then say it was rubbish?  I gather that many restaurants refused to allow him in.  More fool them.  Frankly, if a restaurant knows he's coming, pulls out all the stops and still gets criticised, they deserve all they get.  He also published a column of letters from readers who were usually offensive to him too, but they all clearly loved him.

When he appeared on television, he had no hesitation in saying what many would think, but most fear to say.  He was unreconstructed and sometimes wrong, but it was always fun to listen to him.  He was also a generous person and apparently very amusing company, which was no doubt why people continued to like him, even after he was rude to them (which he often was). 

He will probably be remembered, as a film director, for the Death Wish series of films, which was highly successful at the box office, but he made a lot of films, few of them smash hits, despite an extraordinary cast of actors.  But I suspect there will be little but praise for him and regrets at his passing on the ether tonight and in obituaries tomorrow.  You can read of his recent medical problems there and his eventual decision to marry a couple of years ago, neither of which events stopped his irrepressible gadding about and his robust and humorous writing.

But more importantly, read his book of Hymie jokes which are fabulous!  Here are a couple of my favourites:

Hymie finds he is sharing the cabin on the night sleeper with a very beautiful young woman. He gallantly offers her the top bunk and steps into the corridor so that she can prepare for bed.  When he returns, he wishes her goodnight and gets into his own bunk.  Some time later she says: ‘I’m feeling a bit cold.’
‘Would you like me to get you a blanket?’ he asks.
‘Well,’ she replies,  ‘I was rather wondering if you’d like to pretend that I was your wife?’
‘Oh, I see,’ says Hymie, ‘get your own blanket then!’

Hymie is involved in a motorway accident. When he wakes in the hospital the doctor says: ‘You’ll be fine, Mr Cohen.  However, I'm afraid your manhood was chopped off in the wreck; we can build you a new one for £1,000 an inch and you’ve got £9,000 insurance compensation, but you’d better discuss with your wife what size she’d prefer.’ Hymie agrees to consult his wife.
The doctor comes back the next day and asks: ‘What’s the decision?’
Hymie replies: ‘We’re having a new kitchen.'

RIP Michael.  Long live, Hymie!

THE REAL STORY

A little while ago, I suggested that the Strictly Come Dancing format could be translated into soaps and we could phone in each week and vote off anyone we don’t like in the soap or vote to change storylines we don’t like.  This seemed like the perfect example of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ – we the people taking control of our entertainment.

One of you took this further and suggested that we might also phone in while watching Match of the Day and change the team (or the result).  That would be good too!  Then on the radio the other morning, one of the commentators, who clearly reads my blogs, proposed that the audience ought to be able to telephone in and choose what news they wanted to hear on the news round-up.  That sounded like a good idea as well!

The problem though of course with this sort of Big Society application is that powerful groups will win over wider society.  This is the anti-terrorist argument – should we let a small group of ignorant agitators dictate our viewing for the night (or anything else for that matter)?

Well, now it has actually happened.  Eastenders has introduced a storyline into its new year series in which a new-born succumbs to cot death and the traumatised mother exchanges it for another baby.

Now this is absolutely tragic stuff and I thought the actress playing the mother (and the mother of the other baby for that matter) played the part very well.  I actually said, well done BBC for continuing to find controversial topics to pursue in these otherwise mundane dramas.  It was moving, realistic and totally believable, particularly as we've already sat through 9 months of drama with both of the mums concerned.

But was it believable?  There have now been almost 10,000 complaints from viewers about this storyline.  Extraordinary!  I saw some of the interviews with complainants – ‘this should never have been put on TV’, ‘I lost my child this way.  This belittles it.’, ‘BBC have missed an opportunity’, etc.  Of course we all feel for anyone who has had to suffer this terrible tragedy, but surely that alone isn’t a reason not to air the issue on a soap.  I am always impressed at how these programmes incorporate issues of the times and handle them through drama.  I’ve no idea whether such a process can help anyone, but the process is certainly thought-provoking and often helps highlight the various sides to an argument, if not only the problems themselves, and indeed how others cope or not as the case may be.  There is moreover a helpline for anyone disturbed by the action.  In this case though the problem seems to have been simply that viewers didn’t want to watch.  I’ve no idea whether anyone rang the helpline, but writing to the media or ringing BBC to complain?!  For goodness sake, it’s a drama!  And you can switch over and watch Hugh Fearnley-Thingummy cooking potatoes.

And there is, curiously, a side issue; the actress playing the part of the traumatised mother has apparently been subjected to abuse in the street (the real street that is) for stealing someone else’s baby.  Unbelievable!  Some people actually do think it’s real.  In fact one of the other actors said in an interview that, when the star ‘became pregnant’, she was sent piles of baby clothes by viewers.  Oh dear!  The actress has now decided to leave the series because of the abuse she has received, despite being one of its stars.  And on top on all this madness, BBC has now decided to cut the storyline short.  It had been planned to run for 6 months, when presumably the baby would go to its rightful mother, everything would be back to normal, and the character would not have to be written out but could go to rehab and probably also prison.  Wouldn’t this be a good message for viewers?  How have BBC missed an opportunity yet?

Anyway, there it is; viewers have voted, a character has left the series (in fact 2 characters – they didn’t expect that!  That’ll teach them!) and the scriptwriters have cut the storyline short from 6 months to 3.  Big Society in action!!  But what is it the viewers wanted to watch?  Are we any the wiser?

Do they just want a boring, cosy daily life?  It can’t be that; there have been deaths, murders, attempted murders, bodies buried here, there and everywhere, descents into crack addiction, all sorts of naughty goings-on in the bedroom that would have certainly shocked Queen Vic, and even someone overcharging in the market (shock, horror!).  But no one seems to mind those story lines.  No one objected, as far as I know, when Archie was murdered on screen, or even when Bradley fell off the roof and died.  At one time I might have assumed that viewers wanted a more homely storyline like the Archers, until Nigel fell off the roof and died there too last week.  (What is it with soap actors and roofs?).

So who is it that complains?  Murder’s OK, sudden death from illness or accident is OK, alcoholism and drug abuse is OK, but a baby-related storyline is bad.  Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like another Mumsnet campaign?  What will they make of the 16 year old Whitney turning to prostitution next month?