Tuesday, 11 October 2022

I can't begin to tell you how much I love Adventures With Purpose but I'm gonna try

Okay so usually I'd put an edit at the end, but given the seriousness of the circumstances I'm putting it first - almost as a disclaimer:

EDIT

Following the allegations / charges against Adventures With Purpose (AWP) creator Jared Leisek (https://www.the-sun.com/news/6609361/adventures-with-purpose-rape-charge/) I have a few things to say:

1. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Bear in mind what happened with Ricky Martin so recently; smoke without fire is definitely a real thing. Think too about JD vs AH - for six years the vast majority believed the allegations, supported the victim... and were shown to be wrong once the evidence was available. DUE PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL. Of course miscarriages of justice (innocent going to jail, guilty set free) happen but at least both sides get heard along the way; a one-sided allegation-only account is never adequate.

2. Bear in mind that Jared is 47 years old (as of date: 2022) - IF guilty that means he was 17 at the time of the offences. Certainly plenty old enough to know right from wrong and to be held responsible for his actions but still a minor. The law treats minors with a degree of leniency because it is supposed that they are less responsible and more capable of being rehabilitated. THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY DIMINISHING THE CRIME but context is also important.

3. IF guilty that does not make ANYONE guilty by association - not his wife, his kids, his co-workers, or AWP supporters. EVERYONE has a past and you have NO CLUE what secrets those around you might be keeping. It could just as easily be your relative, friend, or colleague.

4. IF guilty that does not invalidate the good Jared & AWP have done, nor does that good negate past evil. Very few people are all good or all bad; even serial killers can make seemingly incongruous acts of kindness, and people still revere Gandhi and the man was dodgy af! Modern 'cancel culture' leaves no room for the shades of grey most of humanity comes under. Once time has been served the hope is always that criminals will not reoffend, will re-enter society as better people who have the potential to do good in the world. Time may need to be served here... but the good still stands. They are not mutually exclusive.

Please do not take this as ANY kind of defence against child sex offenders; just a plea to keeping an open mind until more is known and not misdirecting blame on bystanders. With that said, I have rephrased a couple of points in the body of this blog, changing those sections to red text in the interests of transparency.

I forget exactly how I first heard about Adventures With Purpose (AWP) but it was either through this YT video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxYGBOfJRU0&t=325s) or a news story about the same. As the rant video was posted on 9th October 2020, the same day as AWP posted their video of the solved case, I can safely say it was now two years ago. I have been following AWP ever since.

Starting at Nicholas Allen

Nick Allen was a young man of 17 from North Carolina who disappeared in February 2020 with his mother's vehicle. It later transpired that he'd broken up with his girlfriend and his mum feared the worst. As Nick had introduced his mum to AWP, and as her gut pulled her to a particular stretch of river she called them in... Her instincts proved to be spot-on; despite the police's claims the river had been searched they found her vehicle within minutes. (https://eu.the-dispatch.com/story/news/local/2020/10/02/body-found-car-may-connected-missing-teen/5893349002/)

However, the police's reaction was DESPICABLE. AWP were treated like crap on-scene which is one thing but the police kept denying it was her car even with the license plate in hand, there was no way her boy could be in there etc. etc. Given that I'm in the UK and heard about it before the bad press forced the Sheriff to issue an apology (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article246433185.html) you might get a sense of just how bad it was.

I seriously recommend watching the AWP video on the case (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfYtXB-qN4); both for the context of the controversy and to understand the amazing 'job' AWP do.

AWP: A Superhero Origin Story

From scrolling back through the available videos on the channel AWP started out in July 2018 with videos of collecting trash from waterways. That was the original, intended 'purpose'. A diver named Jared Leisek using his skill set to do some good cleaning up the environment and making some fun 'treasure hunting' YT videos along the way.

But sometimes the universe has other ideas. Trash like lost go-pros and sunglasses became bikes and cars... They could have simply decided the job was too big, to daunting, but they just took it like "huh, guess this is what we're doing now."

On January 10th 2020 AWP premiered their video about the recovery of Nathan Ashby, a 22 year old missing almost 5 months in Missouri (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUc87t6yIF8&t=64s). The diving conditions were terrible, visibility was non existent... Jared identified that the car contained human remains by touch. Think about that for a sec. That's a horrific enough thing to have to do even if you've had some kind of specialist training.

Another key moment was during a livestream on 27th May 2020 when a car pull went from clean up to call the cops (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ1z9M4KAhM&t=5s). Timothy Robinson of Oregon had been missing for 12 years; he was 56 (https://lailasnews.com/international/timothy-edward-robinson-oregon-what-happened/). Again, they could have baulked. It's the sort of experience that might stop anyone going back in the water. Instead they accepted this new direction, and became dedicated to cold cases - specialising in searching underwater for people who had gone missing with their vehicles which was where their accidentally developed skill set had led.

Over time the team changed and grew. I don't want to get into the Sam Sam The Adventure Man debacle except to say that I am strictly Team AWP over that. There will always be those who disagree with how a thing is done but I strongly support AWPs ethos: they are not paid by the authorities, they ask nothing of the families they assist, they are funded through YT revenues, merch sales, donations from subscribers (inc. premium memberships), and they rarely accept sponsorships as advertising products while dealing with sensitive cases doesn't sit well with them. 

I don't have any time for those who diss what they do. Indeed, while researching the sources for this blog I have unsubscribed from another, unrelated YT channel because the owner used a secondary channel to throw sh*t at AWP. NOT that I believe anyone is above being critiqued (nobody is perfect and nobody is obliged to make the choices others would wish of them) but sh*t throwing is not acceptable and the YouTuber in question was already on their last red flag for me given some of their content (esp. borderline transphobic BS). 

AWP have, in the time I have been watching them, gone from a small, fairly amateur group with a beat up Winnebago to a highly respected movement operating two fully equipped teams in proper rigs. The videos have become far more professional and as they've honed their skills they've been encouraging people to check boat ramps with their fish-finding sonar and helping train up volunteers. They want more people found so it's all about getting more people looking; if they were all about 'the fortune & glory' (what fortune?! There was only one case where a reward was offered and that never materialised) as some like to accuse them of why the heck are they so keen to share their unique skill set? 

Some have accused Jared of being fame-hungry but he's deliberately stepped back lately, probably in part to counter those accusations. Probably the worst I could say of Jared in terms of his role in AWP is that he knows what he wants said and has a tendency to say it before anyone else gets the chance! Most of the recent videos have been presented by Doug Bishop - to the endlessly asked question of "where's Jared?" lol.

Doug was operating a towing company when Jared reached out to his business for help recovering a sunken vehicle. Not only did he immediately jump to help but he trained as a diver and is now leading an AWP team (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zEcGU7-iwU). For some this is clearly a calling. There are literally people being inspired by these videos to learn to dive, learn to use sonar, to trawl through missing persons cases looking for leads, to create apps that help track searched areas for accuracy... all sorts of people with all kinds of skills bringing what they have to the table in order to get the lost found. 

That beat up Winnebago was donated to Chaos Divers (Jacob Grubbs) who regularly works with AWP as well as working on his own channel solving missing persons cases in water (https://www.youtube.com/c/ChaosDivers). AWP also work with others such as Team Watters (https://teamwatterssonar.com/) and Exploring With Nug (check out this truly amazing video of him solving the 21 year old cold case of Tennessee teenagers Erin Foster & Jeremy Betchel solo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjL4TZse6hs). 

Kiely Rodni

I remember seeing a tweet come by with a missing persons poster for 16 year old Kiely Rodni and my immediate thought was it was an AWP case, despite AWP not running a twitter account. Turns out it was a retweet from someone I'd been following since my Blockhead (NKOTB fan) days. But I looked at it and just *knew* she was in the water and AWP would find her. Ridiculous, I know. She'd gone missing with her vehicle at a lakeside party and the similarities with the Ethan Kazmerzak case seemed startling.

About 24 hours after I saw that tweet AWP livestreamed that they were dropping what they were doing and heading to California for Kiely. 

This was probably the case that garnered them the most public attention yet, it was an incredibly high profile case (*cough* Missing White Woman Syndrome *cough*) costing around 20,000 man hours in the search for her over just a couple of weeks. In my mind it also tied back to Nick Allen because multiple agencies had already searched Prosser Creek Reservoir, insisted it was clear - AWP even searched multiple sites before returning to Prosser Creek Reservoir just to check for themselves... at which point they found her vehicle after approx. 35 minutes on the water. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPwnDyW26gk).

Not only had the 'amateurs' found what the 'professionals' had missed they'd done it in next to no time. No disrespect to the authorities but they deal with that sort of case every once in a while, AWP do it all the time - that makes a difference. 

Watching and Weeping 

It's a strange thing to get hooked on perhaps. I have a particular horror of drowning, being trapped underwater, and of bodies in water... but for anyone to be brought out of that? To be returned to their family, given a proper burial. That's beautiful. Sad that it's ever necessary but no one should stay under water for months, years, even decades. No one will ever convince me otherwise that AWP are doing something truly incredible and bearing witness to it reassures me that there are at least some good people on this planet.

It's so damn emotional when they find someone. The one that probably broke me the most was Samantha Hopper. She was exactly 7 months younger than me. When she died she was 19 years old and 8 months pregnant with her third child - I was five months pregnant at that date. My older daughter was just a few months younger than her daughter Dezarae who was with her grandmother and was the time and so survived. It felt entirely too close to home, for all they were from Arkansas.

It's also truly humbling to see some of the cases which contrast so starkly with that first one I saw. The livestream regarding finding Tod DiMinno was just two days ago and they spoke about the way they worked with local authorities, and the mutual respect they usually now receive rather than being treated as interfering amateurs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXGKvJTsVcw).

Found So Far

(apologies if I've missed anyone, this was purely from scrolling through thumbnails)

Nathaniel Ashby
Timothy Robinson
Nicholas Allen
Ethan Kazmerzak
Antonio Lopez
Bill Simmons
Tammy Goff
Richard Ritz
Carey Mae Parker
Samantha Hopper, her unborn baby, and toddler daughter Courtney Holt
Charles Fluharty
Nadine Moses
John Zarkowski
Jeff Shepherd
Thomas Thornton
Stephanie Torres
Annie Lee Hampton
Margaret 'Jan' Shupe Smith
James Amabile
Dedrick Smith
Ralph Brown
Jed Hall
Kiely Rodni
Tod DiMinno

Also thinking here of Donnie Messier whose truck they found underwater on October 5th 2022. A 34 year old man from Vermont who was last seen alive in 2006. No remains were found but reports indicate his vehicle was pretty trashed... it may be that his case is as 'solved' as is possible.
My thoughts are with all their loved ones.

Friday, 30 September 2022

The Slimline Royal Family Diet

Despite her 50 year reign I pretty much had never heard of Margrethe II of Denmark until she came down with COVID-19 following Queen Elizabeth II's funeral a couple of weeks ago. Sorry. But I was today years old when I decided I don't like her. Not sorry.

CONTEXT:

Margrethe Alexandrine Þórhildur Ingrid was born in 1940 making her 82 years old. In 1967 she married Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, known as Henrik, who died in 2018 aged 83.
The couple had two children, both born before her reign began - Crown Prince Frederik, who is 54 and Prince Joachim, 53.

So the story is that to slim-down and modernise the Danish Royal Family she is stripping Joachim's children(^) of their titles, effective from the New Year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/denmarks-queen-margrethe-strips-four-grandchildren-of-royal-titles

Crown Prince Frederik married Mary Donaldson in 2004. They have four children:

  • Prince Christian, who is nearly 17
  • Princess Isabella, 15
  • Twins, Prince Vincent and Princess Josephine, who are 11

Prince Joachim first married Alexandra Manley in 1995. They had two children before divorcing in 2005.

  • Prince Nikolai, 23^
  • Prince Felix, 20^
Prince Joachim remarried in 2008 to Marie Cavallier and they had two children together:
  • Prince Henrik, 13^
  • Princess Athena, 10^

Just think about that for a moment. The cardinal rule of parenting is to treat your children equally. Of course, life doesn't work like that: one son will be King, the other will not. But this just smacks of favouritism. The golden child, the heir, gets everything; the spare not only gets nothing but his children get stripped THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OR THEIR OWN what they have had since birth.

I've already seen from social media responses that there's a loud contingent of 'aw diddums, poor little rich kids' but that's REALLY NOT THE POINT. It's about the inherent unfairness of treating one group of grandchildren differently because they were not born to the favoured child. The wrong of taking back a gift. 
So I make no apology for the overuse of the word 'imagine' in the following rant. Whether or not you approve of royalty is irrelevant; put yourself in the shoes of a young man in his early 20s or a girl of 10 and imagine your granny doing something this unkind.

"The official reason was to allow the four children of her youngest son, Prince Joachim, to live more normal lives"

I've argued this before with Britain's (or America's) Harry and Meghan - stepping back from Royal Duties and / or renouncing titles does not a commoner make. Especially regards the security concessions (amounting to the team he is paying for being given any relevant information) Harry has asked for - opting out does not reduce or negate the RISK OF ASSASSINATION. Harry, Meghan, Archie & Lilibet will always be potential targets whatever their titles or roles, as will Nikolai, Felix, Henrik and Athena. This in no way affects who they are, for all it cuts at their personal sense of identity.

"With her decision, her Majesty the Queen wants to create a framework, for the four grandchildren, to a much greater degree, to be able to shape their existence without being limited by the special considerations and obligations that a formal affiliation with the Royal House as an institution implies."

Do you know what affiliation means? It means 'adopted as a son'. These are actual sons (and daughter) who are not adopted (which presumes that adoption is any less than biology), by unaffiliating them from the Royal House literally means rejecting them as family. How can that be anything other than cruel?

It is barking mad that Queen Margrethe thinks switching out 'Prince' and 'Princess' for 'Count' and 'Countess' would give them any more freedom over their personal destinies. There is nothing you can do as a count that you can't as a prince. It makes zero sense to me.

"They can't understand why their identity is being taken from them." 

This quote refers to the older two children as it was made by their mother but I imagine this will be just as hard on the younger two. Most little girls go through a phase of wanting to be a princess... poor little Athena *is* a Princess and is having it snatched away. I can't imagine any of them being disposed kindly toward their grandmother for this. Even at Nikolai's twenty-three I can't see this as being 'understandable'.

I've seen people comment that it's just a title, not their identity. Ye gods... Imagine you are a doctor... you get to keep your qualification but you are no longer allowed to use the title. Would you be hurt and angry about that? Maybe because that's something a Dr worked hard for you think it is different to a hereditary title... so imagine instead you have your SURNAME stripped. Your grandma has decided you're surplus to requirements so you no longer get to use the name you have had since birth. 
Maybe your title (Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mx) is irrelevant to you but it is literally still part of your name whether you use it or not. Also, if you *choose* to change your name (by deed poll, by marriage, whatever then that's a CHOICE) but imagine someone suddenly deciding you're no longer allowed to use the one you have. Your parents may be cruel, may reject you, but I know of no culture where they have the right or ability to take your familial identity away.

My parents didn't see fit to give me either of their names. Perhaps you will think that means, never having experienced that sense of belonging, that I don't know what I am talking about. Naturally, I believe the reverse is true - that I am fully cognisant of the sense of fundamental rejection that comes with being denied what is normally considered your birthright. It makes you feel neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. Bad enough from birth, I can't imagine the pain of being rejected anew at an age enough to understand.

I can understand, to an extent, the logic for sliming down the Royal Houses of Europe but there are far better ways of doing such things. For starters, how about offering the kids a CHOICE when they come of age? Rather than expecting Frederik's children to become working royals ASK THEM. It'd be quite something if Christian, Isabella, Vincent and Josephine were to reject the job, huh? If I were one of those siblings that'd be what I'd suggest - that we all ganged up against the system in solidarity with our cousins. Strike action!
Another idea would be to decide that, apart from the direct heir, no one's spouse would receive a title on marriage and no one's children would have a title either. It'd just be a matter of time until it slimmed down naturally. Far less hurtful too.

"Only the future king, Prince Christian, will receive an appenage, a decision taken in 2016"

An appenage is described as 'a grant of land or revenue' gifted when the royal child comes of age. Note the timing of this change - just as Nikolai was approaching his coming-of-age. The average family equivalent might be throwing a granddaughter a Quinceanera and then changing your mind when your eldest granddaughter hits fourteen... while promising to do one for just one of their (younger) cousins. Although a party is obviously not directly comparable to a gift that sets a kid up for life it's still going to be a bitter disappointment; expecting a celebration and being denied. Sure, that's a very privileged gift to receive but imagine being led to expect such a thing your whole life only to be told it's not happening practically on the eve? Not kind. And to keep that gift in place for the one kid who very specifically doesn't need it (because they stand to inherit everything)? Weird.

That was bad enough as it was a gift not yet given but taking back a gift, whether it's a child's Lego set or royal titles, is a big no-no. 

All I know is that if I treat my grandkids as shoddily as Queen Margrethe is doing I'd be disowned. And they'd be damned right too.

Big Kids In Buggies

Just saw a clip on Instagram that niggled so once again this Opinionated Potato is putting in their tuppenceworth...

GENERAL GIST: Take a stroller to Disneyland for a child 7 and under because it's a lot of walking and they need the sensory breaks.

Seven and under. Where to begin with this? First up this assumes you only have ONE child under seven or that your family consists of enough adults to have a stroller for each young child.
Assuming that is even the case it means the adult had to deal with the stroller ALL DAY regardless of whether the child is using it. Even if you need to take a stroller it can be quite difficult multitasking between dealing with the stroller and ambulatory children - meaning that any non-strollered child has their parents being necessarily more hands off. Part of the magic of a family holiday / day out is holding hands and physically interacting with their kids (or indeed coupled parents holding hands and physically interacting with each other).

Theoretical family, using neutral names for obvious reasons...
Parent: Sam
Parent: Lee
Child 1: Brook, 8
Child 2: Ocean, 5
Child 3: River, 2

By this advice Sam & Lee have a stroller each - one for River who genuinely needs it, and one for Ocean who may only use it for a short breaks. Sam & Lee don't get to hold hands at all during the day, they both get tired of pushing; no one holds Brook's hand, when Ocean is out of the stroller no one (other than Brook) is holding theirs. Basically everyone has a fairly sucky time except the only kid whose needs are being fully met.
If instead they only take a stroller for River then Sam and Lee can take turns pushing so they don't get so tired and can enjoy quality time with their children. If Ocean gets really tired maybe they can take a ride while River toddles or is carried? Overall the family get to physically interact a whole lot more.

Next objection: where are you even finding a stroller that can take a SEVEN YEAR OLD??? My eldest broke every buggy she ever had and we gave them up before she was THREE. That's not down to childhood obesity, she wasn't overweight. She was 9lbs 11oz at birth and off the growth chart completely by about 7 months.
At almost four she wasn't well and was tired so she sat in her baby sister's stroller... and it broke.
In later life I've realised that a lot of the dirty looks my elder daughter and I got when she was 'little' were likely not because I was a teen mum, but probably because it looked like I had a four year old in a babygro with a dummy.

Assuming your child has no disabilities (more on that in a moment) why are you thinking a 5, 6, 7 year old is going to struggle to walk around a theme park? Do you walk too fast for your kid? Are you not taking regular rest breaks? Most of the comments were from parents going "WTF?! My kid has more energy than I do!" and especially adding in the excitement factor... I mean I'd get it more if you were walking around a particularly unexciting art gallery and the kid was bored out of their tiny mind.
Mostly I'm thinking that this is a DRIVER PROBLEM. Most kids don't walk any great distances or over prolonged times and if you're concerned about little Joey managing to walk around all day TRAIN THEM, like you're training for a big hike or whatever. Before I took my kids anywhere we'd brush up on what to do if we got separated etc etc so unless your trip is super impulsive surely you factor in prepping your kids for what you have in mind?
So ahead of a planned trip to Disney (or wherever) start taking your kid(s) on walks. Short at first, building up if you can. Ensure the pace is sedate enough, take rest breaks, and pay special attention to the comfort of their shoes and other clothing. Chances are they'll be fully able and if they're not you'll be better prepared knowing exactly what you do need.
It might help the parents too, if they're quite sedentary.

Which brings me to what I'm gonna term here INableism Obviously if your kid has any particular special needs, diagnosed or otherwise, you likely already know the right course of action for your family, but the context of this seemed to be a travel agent or childcare expert (I wasn't paying attention) being asked for advice. And yeah, this is my unsolicited advice: don't assume anyone can't do a thing until you either ask them or try.
Assuming people with disabilities are going to struggle with certain tasks is inverted ableism. Someone in my family has a physical disability and their primary school teacher was SHOCKED they'd learned to tie their laces. It went down in family legend as being a really important example that you shouldn't assume. Assuming a woman can't lift something heavy is sexism, as is assuming that a man can lift it. Assuming a child can't walk around a theme park is pretty much just ageism.
A kid isn't going to wake up on a specific birthday suddenly able to climb a mountain or whatever - just like they're not innately able to adult at 18. Skills need to be taught, learned, practiced, reinforced.

I once knew someone who'd make wild sweeping statements as to what their kid could do, liked and disliked, what interested them... Didn't encourage their kid to try anything new EVER - skills, foods, experiences. Nope 'Mother Knew Best' poor kid. Don't be her.


Tuesday, 27 September 2022

The Queen's Cousins

Fell down a bit of a rabbit hole last night and find myself needing to put in my tuppence-worth, quelle surprise.

I remember watching The Queen's Secret Cousins (2011) and it annoyed me as misrepresentation at the time. I was reminded of that irritation during the recent coverage of the death of HM Queen Elizabeth II where the tale got wheeled out again.

So last night, set off by a vague reference, I found myself looking to see if there was any further information and I found this rather lovely review from The Guardian (source: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2011/nov/17/tv-review-the-queens-hidden-cousins) which all the quotes in bold are from.

"The voiceover whispered of "dark secrets". Only none were forthcoming in The Queen's Hidden Cousins (Channel 4); unless by secrets you include a story that was all over the tabloids in 1987." 

There's almost a quarter of a century between 1987 and 2011; it's not unreasonable to think that a lot of viewers in 2011 had never seen or heard of the scandal. I was 9 years old in 1987 and disinclined to read tabloids. Nowadays a lot of the tabloid reading adults in the UK weren't even born in '87! Certainly it's been no secret for many, many years but it's still getting trotted out intermittently as a 'shameful scandal' against the Royal Family although none of the people involved are in any way Royal - the late Queen Mother (1900-2002) was Royal by marriage, not by birth, and this is her family.

I would like to take a look at the idea that The Queen Mother was in any way culpable for her nieces treatment. Sure, she was a patron of Mencap (a charity for people with learning disabilities) but at a familial level was it really anything to do with her?

Let's start with the Bowes-Lyon family tree (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngRK08NpoNo): Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, later The Queen Mother, was the ninth of ten children; from them she had 23 nieces and nephews. The eldest of that generation was only 10 years her junior.

The cousins in question were Nerissa Bowes-Lyon (1919-1986) and her sister Katherine (1926-2014), the children of her brother John (1886-1930). Not only was this brother fourteen years her senior but there were four other siblings between John and Elizabeth. 

Obviously all families have different dynamics but from everything I've seen over the years siblings usually have closer relationships to same sex siblings who are also close in age. It's not particularly remarkable that Elizabeth may not have been especially close to John. Siblings don't always stay in close contact anyway. 

My mother has a brother and sister - she had a fairly good relationship with her sister but no contact with her brother for years now. My father has three brothers - all close in age - and he has nothing to do with any of them.

There were certainly a large number of other family members who could have but did not interest themselves in Nerissa and Katherine but no one's mentioning them, I assume because they're not Royalty.

"Maybe the Royal Family's apathy towards Katherine and Nerissa was catching"

If anything it would have been the other way about - if the Bowes-Lyon clan had interested themselves more maybe the Royals would have also. Families can be estranged for any number of reasons and <<<UNPOPULAR OPINION>>> perhaps it's more toxic to expect people to be close just because they're related.

Aside: So much has been made of the Duchess of Sussex cutting her attention seeking toxic father Thomas Markle out of her life but people (and MSM) choose to ignore that Thomas has never met Ashleigh and Chris Hale, his grandchildren by Meghan's half-sister Samantha (Ashleigh is approximately 37 while Chris is about 35) and estranged from her other daughter, Noelle Rasmussen. But the narrative is all poor Thomas, cut out of Archie & Lilibet's life. I'm certainly not disputing the poor Nerissa, poor Katherine narrative but they had Bowes-Lyon and Trefusis relatives before the House of Windsor and there might well have been other factors at play. Just using this as an example that interpersonal relationships are frequently complicated and the media doesn't always present a balanced perspective.

This is WITHOUT factoring in that the Queen Mother was a wife with young children herself (the late Queen Elizabeth II and her cousin Katherine were the same age), her husband's family and her Royal duties. To my way of thinking the idea she should have known Nerissa and Katherine's fates is a bit of a stretch, especially as families often tried to hide how disabled their children were.

The Royal Family proper (i.e. the lines directly related to the monarchy) are not insubstantial in themselves. The Queen Mother had in-laws, and the late Queen Elizabeth II had another seven cousins on her father's side (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6F5JC9Ut3I). There are also more distant cousins such as those via Edward VII or Queen Victoria who may well have taken precedence over their Bowes-Lyon relations with the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret Rose.

All things considered I don't find it at all remarkable that The Queen Mum (allegedly) didn't know what became of two relatives out of so many. She had plenty else going on in her life.

"Surely someone must have noticed that the women had disappeared"

WHY?! Neither Nerissa or Katherine would have lived at all publicly. They would not have gone to school, or have been debutantes, or simply attend family events. Who exactly would have missed two young women who had probably not been seen since early childhood?!

John's widow Fenella (nee Trefusis - this is relevant later) is described as having been 'a leading guest' at the wedding of Princess Elizabeth & Philip Mountbatten in1947 (17 years after John's death; source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowes-Lyon) but it does not necessarily follow that the family were close. A lot of people include close relations in their wedding parties... and never speak to them for decades. 

As an aside to my own familial experiences I have far less cousins but even in these days of social media I have little idea where they are, what they're up to, if they've put any kids in institutions... How much do YOU know about YOUR extended family?

"Katherine and Nerissa Bowes-Lyon, then aged 15 and 22 respectively, had been secretly placed at Earlswood mental hospital in 1941 by their parents"

Well, that's blatantly untrue, isn't it?! Their father John had been dead for 11 years, all that time Fenella was raising her four surviving children alone; she never remarried. Also, define 'secretly'? They didn't make it public, it was later reported (quietly) that they had died... but there's a subtle difference between secrecy and privacy. Secrecy makes it sound underhanded, and perhaps it was. But it could just have been a private family matter no one felt like sharing.

"If the family had stayed together for that long, what was the breaking point? It must have been something quite dramatic."

Also nonsense in my humble opinion. Any parent of a severely special needs child (let alone a lone parent, let alone two special needs children, let alone trying to balance the needs of their other kids) can reach breaking point over nothing at all. Eventually an awful lot of carers burn out.

It is also worth noting that in 1941 Nerissa and Katherine's sister Anne, then 24, was recently married and had her first child that year (Lady Elizabeth Shakerley 1941-2020). Is it possible that the sisters were hospitalised so that Fenella could be an active grandmother, or perhaps their disabilities made them a risk to the new baby. Just because someone is mentally disabled it does not follow that they are passive or inactive, physically incapable of doing harm; indeed, some mentally disabled people can be dreadfully violent.

Fenella Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis was 52 in 1941. She was likely getting to old to physically care for them any more. She may well have felt that they would be happier and more settled in an institution. Perhaps she had health issues of her own (as many carers do) and was concerned that her daughters ought to transition to a hospital before her own death.

Second guessing the strains which Fenella was under is vague at best but remember that the 1940s were not only a different age culturally speaking but also technologically - there were no communication devices for the non-verbal, wheelchairs and other aids were primitive at best, even basic care needs like laundry would have been quite burdensome without modern appliances. Certainly Fenella was better placed than most but that does not infer that she had it at all easy.

"None of this would have mattered so much if there had been any attempt to discover why the two women were placed in care in 1941, as this was the one part of the story that was genuinely still a mystery"

They were placed in care because they were non-verbal and estimated to have a 'mental age' of six years - isn't that enough of a reason? I assume the author, John Crace, means what medical condition(s) led to this unhappy situation... But between their medical records being justifiably private and the lack of genetic diagnostics when they were young it's very unlikely a definitive answer could ever be provided.

A different Anne, Anne Tennant, Baroness Glenconner had her engagement (to the future father of Diana, Princess of Wales) broken off after "his father objected to the match on the grounds of "mad blood", as one of her grandmothers was a Trefusis" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerissa_and_Katherine_Bowes-Lyon)

This is no mere paranoia about heredity, but based in fact. I mentioned earlier that Nerissa & Katherine's mother was a Trefusis, I have shown an example of another Trefusis descendant having her engagement called off due to the family's reputation... Fenella had five children - two disabled, two healthy, one who died in infancy. Her only sister's story followed the same pattern: Harriet Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis (1887-1958) married, in 1910, Major Henry Nevile Fane and had seven children (source: http://www.thepeerage.com/p1246.htm#i12451): three disabled, three healthy, one who died in infancy. There was quite plainly something wrong in that family and potential suitors were understandably alarmed.

The three disabled children of Harriet were also, eventually, life patients at Earlswood - Idonea (1912-2002), Rosemary (1914-1972) and Etheldreda (1922-1996) (source: https://www.tatler.com/article/real-story-nerissa-and-katherine-bowes-lyon-the-queens-cousins-the-crown-season-4). It is perfectly possible that Harriet and Fenella having between them five daughters with similar, if not identical disabilities, may have chosen to send the young women to Earlswood together. While apparently cutting off all contact with the five girls it was likely a hard decision; very few parents get up one morning and decide to write their kids off completely. It's also worth noting that popular thought at the time was to make a clean break of it - that it would be distressing for the disabled person to see family members and not be taken home with them, it would likewise be extremely painful for the family members leaving them behind.

It seems improbable that a birth-injury disability such as cerebral palsy would (a) not be recognised as such and (b) affect at least five of twelve cousins (after all, we don't know whether the two who died in infancy would have been similarly affected or not). Much more likely is some genetic illness although what motivation would there have been for seeking a diagnosis at such a late stage when their siblings children, and indeed THEIR children, all appear to have been unaffected. Sure, there's curiosity but realistically only Katherine could have been genetically screened, the others having died before such testing was widely available. Even if she had been screened that does NOT guarantee any answers. 

"If the 85-year old Katherine had made her first ever public appearance on the Buckingham Palace balcony: that would have been abusive"

Obviously this was a scenario that was never going to happen - as a Bowes-Lyon she would not have got a balcony spot in a month of Sundays. But even if it had been an option I agree with Crace; it would have been abusive. While hiding people with disabilities away is, thankfully, largely done away with there is nothing admirable about putting them on display to be gawked at like in old freak shows. Like I said earlier - there's a big difference between secrecy and shame, and privacy and protection.

Maybe their family did them dirty but it was in line with societal norms of the era and judging them by the standards of several generations later is pointless. Also, no one has ever really addressed whether Earlswood was a good, bad, or indifferent place to be. I also think this sort of story is immensely unhelpful to struggling carers who may need to consider residential homes

Perhaps we need to consider empathy before judgement, especially in a historical context where little can ever be certain. 

Friday, 12 August 2022

Bryan or Cedric or Dermot

Page numbers from my copy of 4.50 From Paddington by Agatha Christie
(ISBN 0-00-615762-9)

There is a long-running mystery in the 4.50 From Paddington and it is nothing to do with strangled women on trains, or any kind of crime.

The final lines of this classic Christie whodunit read as follows:

'What about Lucy Eyelesbarrow? Wedding bells there too?'

'Perhaps,' said Miss Marple, 'I shouldn't wonder.'

'Which of 'em is she going to choose?' said Dermot Craddock.

'Don't you know?' said Miss Marple.

'No, I don't,' said Craddock. 'Do you?'

'Oh yes, I think so,' said Miss Marple.

And she twinkled at him.

Unfortunately, what seemed so plain to dear Miss Marple has been vexing readers for 65 years!

It is perhaps the final line - she twinkled AT him - that pulls Detective Inspector Dermot Craddock of New Scotland Yard into the running for the role of the future Mr Eyelesbarrow. The 2004 Geraldine McEwan version threw me for a loop as I had never considered him to be 'on the menu' so to speak.

Apparently a later book has Craddock as telling someone he is still unmarried but I don't know as that signifies. Christie is not above continuity errors. There's also the possibility that they began a relationship but it didn't work out. Another possibility is that Craddock is lying - people hide their marital status for all kinds of reasons and it's not so very unreasonable that a senior policeman might want to protect his family by not telling people they exist.

So first I shall consider the wild card entry - Dermot Craddock. Certainly as an intelligent, successful police officer he would be a splendid catch but would he suit the redoubtable Lucy?

I don't think so. Lucy Eyelesbarrow is a force to be reckoned with, immensely intelligent and easily bored. She would not be able to assist Craddock in his investigations and, as his wife, would be constrained in her options. Perhaps she might satisfy herself with motherhood and then the academic career she'd previously rejected but I doubt it.

Lets progress to the two intended prime suspects:

Approaching the end of the novel (p. 208) Miss Marple addresses Lucy's unacknowledged dilemma...

'I know, dear, it's very difficult for you because you are quite strongly attracted to both of them, aren't you, in very different ways.'

'What do you mean?' said Lucy. Her Tone was sharp.

'I was talking about the two sons of the house,' said Miss Marple. 'Or rather the son and the son-in-law'

The son, or rather the sole surviving son (Edmund having died in the war; Harold and Alfred having been poisoned in preceding pages) is Cedric Crackenthorpe. He is unmarried and has been enjoying it. The son-in-law is Bryan Eastley, a WWII Squadron Leader at a loose end in civvy street. Five years have passed since his wife Edie, the former Edith Crackenthorpe, died and he is lonely. Bryan has a rather adorable son, named Alexander, of whom Lucy is very fond.

As a ne'er-do-well artist living in Ibiza Cedric certainly held quite an attraction for Lucy and apparently this solution is the one Dame Agatha had in mind. However, Agatha's romance novels (as Mary Westmacott) are a bit rubbish, as was her own love life. Agatha's first husband, Archibald Christie, ran off with another woman and, although her second marriage, to archaeologist Max Mallowan, seemed happy enough he remarried rather quickly to a woman he had known for years. I'll bow to Christie's genius for detective fiction but I'll form my own opinions on love.

Lucy's interest in Cedric is clearest in terms of pigsties (e.g. "for some reason or other, pigsties came into her mind" p.163) which is in reference to an encounter with Cedric in chapter eleven although there's a possibility, hinted at on p. 143, that they've perhaps continued to meet there:

'Why the pigsty, dear?' asked Miss Marple with interest. 'Do they keep pigs?

'Oh no, not nowadays. It's just - I go there sometimes.'

For some reason Lucy blushed.'

In my opinion, while Lucy might be attracted to Cedric, he is unlikely to be a good match for her. As an artist in Ibiza, perhaps. The island wasn't in those days the clubbing hotspot it is now but the burgeoning package tourism industry would have fitted with her "taste for people, all sorts of people - and not the same people the whole time" (p. 28). She might well have applied herself to getting her husband's art recognised and / or sold. Of course, she had no idea what his art was like - it may have been truly dire!

'He makes me fighting mad sometimes,' said Lucy.

'Yes,' said Miss Marple, 'and you enjoy that, don't you? You're a girl with a lot of spirit and you enjoy a battle.' (p. 208)

But would she have enjoyed that in the longer term? I am unconvinced. Life with Cedric might be exciting but it may well not be pleasant. That particular exchange moves into Lucy noting that Cedric is completely unmoved by his brothers' murders and is making indecently gleeful plans for when he inherits Rutherford Hall - it is perhaps natural to think ahead but two brothers have been killed and he's practically wishing his (admittedly disagreeable) dad dead. The callous attitude and the greed seem to be distinct turn-offs for Lucy.

No, I can't see it being Cedric Crackenthorpe.

Which leaves us with two options: Bryan Eastley or remaining single. There's certainly an argument for remaining single. Lucy doesn't need a husband and doesn't seem to have been hankering after one.

The 1987 Joan Hickson adaptation is decidedly pro- Bryan Eastley and, of course, Joan Hickson is *my* Miss Marple - the ones I grew up on. so I am well aware I am biased from that version. John Hallam's Cedric was kind of smarmy, sleazy and David Beames' Bryan was far more appealing. I am trying to lay that aside and judge from the text.

I don't think the following can be understated in its significance:

She took up once more her restless, almost aimless prowl round the room. Miss Marple sat watching her. This was a very different Lucy Eyelesbarrow from the one she knew. p. 205

'Yes, go on,' said Miss Marple. 'Tell me. Something has upset you very badly, hasn't it?' p. 206

What has upset Lucy is the possibility of Bryan being the murderer. She has been well aware the killer could be Cedric - he after all stands to gain directly whereas Bryan only benefits as Alexander's father. 

There is an argument to be made that Lucy is more concerned for Bryan because he is somewhat immature - that living under a cloud of suspicion will harm him more than the tough Cedric.

It's not the done thing here in 2022 to think about what a woman can do for a man but considering 4.50 is copyright 1957 and that Lucy, with her First in Mathematics from Oxford (p. 28), became a specialist in the field of domestic service because she likes helping people it is, I feel, relevant. Cedric doesn't need Lucy, she might be pro-active in getting recognition for / revenue from his art career but she could be really useful to Bryan:

'He's always full of schemes of one kind or another, isn't he?'

'Yes, I think he is. They all sound rather wonderful - but I've got an uneasy feeling that they'd never really work. I mean, they're not practical. the idea sounds alright - but I don't think he ever considers the actual working difficulties.'

'They are up in the air, so to speak?'

'Yes, in more ways than one. I mean they are usually quite literally up in the air. They are all air schemes. Perhaps a really good fighter pilot never does quite come down to earth again...' p. 209

A sharp mind like Lucy's could, I feel sure, help Bryan make something of one of his schemes; he has ideas and ambition and courage (and a certain specialist skill set) - none of which applies particularly to Cedric, I might add - he may have no head for the practicalities but if Lucy is anything she's immensely practical. I definitely believe they'd complement each other that way.

Yes, I actually do think that one of Bryan's main things he has going for him is that he's a bit hopeless. Remember, 1957... a married woman had next to no autonomy. A wife needed her husband's CONSENT to buy a kitchen appliance (I know this cos in the late 60s my mum was refused the sale of a washing machine for this very reason). It's my belief that an amiable chap like Bryan would be willing to defer to his intelligent, capable wife; he wouldn't be threatened by her, he'd be proud of her. 

Perhaps I am being unfair to Cedric but if he did inherit Rutherford Hall and a large amount of money (increased but the deaths of his brothers) I think he would (a) consider it 'his' not 'ours' and (b) I think he would lose all motivation to make anything of himself. Lucy admits she likes money (p. 28) but enough to settle for living on a husband's inherited wealth? 

Bryan in contrast is a 'doer' which I feel fits Lucy's character better. Cedric seems the sort to throw his weight about a bit - not to say he'd be controlling but I think it would make for a more unequal partnership whereas Bryan would give her more freedom, more control.

So that's my verdict. Team Bryan all the way. He's a bit of a fixer-upper but he's got less attitude than Cedric and would, I strongly believe, be the more agreeable partner in the long term. And he's got a nice kid. If you're gonna date / marry a parent liking their crotch goblins is a really key thing but also it tells you something about the parent: Bryan has been raising Alexander by himself for quite some time and the boy is kind, polite, etc. Definitely a good sign.

EDIT

Blinkin' typical, I stared at it so long I forgot the most important bit!

On p. 214 Miss Marple does her traditional party piece and finds a village parallel for Bryan:

'Ronnie Wells, the solicitor's son. Couldn't seem to settle somehow when he went into his father's business. He went out to East Africa and started a series of cargo boats on the lake out there. Victoria Nyanza, or is it Albert, I mean? Anyway, I'm sorry to say that it wasn't a success, and he lost all his capital.'

Assuming what I read about Christie being Team Cedric was correct this is the big red flag to Lucy that Bryan is a bad bet, and is warning her off; but Miss Marple isn't quite done...

'He was engaged to a very nice girl,' said Miss Marple. 'Very sensible. She tried to disuade him, but he wouldn't listen to her. He was wrong of course. Women have a lot of sense, you know, when it comes to money matters.'

That is a cautionary tale for both of them. It's implied Ronnie Wells lost his girl as well as his capital (engaged only you notice) because he didn't listen. If Bryan listens to Lucy, if he will take advice and allow himself to trust her judgement he might not suffer the same fate.

I suspect if Bryan and Lucy had gone off to Africa or Australia he could have started an air courier business or flown an air taxi, something of that sort it would most likely have been a success... so long at Bryan stuck to the flying and Lucy kept the books!

Earlier, on p. 116 of my copy, Miss Marple had done the same thing on Cedric:

'Do you know who you remind me of? Young Thomas Eade, our bank manager's son. Always out to shock people. It didn't do in banking circles, of course, so he went to the West Indies... He came home when his father died and inherited quite a lot of money. So nice for him. He was always better at spending money than making it.'

And, in my humble opinion that's game, set, and match to Eastley.


Thursday, 11 August 2022

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU BELIEVE - Main Stream Media f*cking up again!

This has been all over the news and social media today, with #DeleteFacebook trending on Twitter. As usual, I am furious.

The ONLY sane article I have seen on the subject is this one from The Daily Wire: https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-allegedly-aborted-burned-and-buried-her-baby-heres-how-media-covered-it

"Authorities — unaware that the baby had been illegally aborted — reportedly charged the women in early June with removing, concealing, or abandoning a dead human body, as well as concealing the death of another person and false reporting."
However, on further investigation Direct Messages on Facebook came to light, indicating that an illegal late-term abortion had been committed and not a grossly mishandled miscarriage or stillbirth as they had at first believed:
"The messages led Madison County Attorney Joseph Smith to add two more felonies, performing or attempting an abortion on a baby older than 20 weeks, as well as performing an abortion as a non-licensed doctor, to the charges against the mother."

You'd think this would be enough to have the general public up in arms about two women - women we're constantly being told are innately innocent, nurturing creatures - conspiring to kill a viable foetus and then burning and burying its body... Nope. They've spun it into a pro-choice story making Facebook's COOPERATION WITH A LEGAL ORDER the point of outrage. 
In my opinion THIS IS MISOGYNY - women aren't responsible for their crimes, the big bad patriarchy (FB must be masculine because its logo is blue, right?!) is responsible for betraying them.

FORBES HEADLINE: "Facebook Gave Nebraska Cops A Teen's DMs So They Could Prosecute Her For Having An Abortion" (has since been edited to read: "Facebook Gave Nebraska Cops A Teen's DMs. They Used Them To Prosecute Her For Having An Abortion.")
  • FB did not 'give' anything and the original version reads like FB were the ones wanting the girl prosecuted.
  • The teen in question also did not simply 'have an abortion' in the usual sense - she was an active participant in an act that is illegal just about everywhere
FIRST SENTENCE: "authorities obtained her Facebook messages using a search warrant"
  • all legal and above board - and, as it turns out, for a damn good reason - whether you like it or not
ACTUAL CASE: "court documents indicate that police at the time were investigating the case of a stillborn baby who was burned and buried, not a decision to have an abortion"
  • This is nothing to do with a decision to end a pregnancy but performing a medical procedure without qualifications, licenses, access to resources etc etc. If you performed an appendectomy on your kid it'd be much the same kind of illegal!
  • The girl is believed to have been at least 23 weeks pregnant, well over the Nebraska state limit of 20 weeks - which in itself is one of the more generous limits - this is NOT a matter of a girl being denied options
  • This also dates to BEFORE the overturning of Roe Vs Wade - she'd had at least five, or more likely six months to procure a legal, safe abortion. Possibly she didn't know she was expecting until way too late and that sucks but that still doesn't make the DIY approach okay
  • I am pro choice all the way but fastening on to a case featuring the desecration of a corpse and the illegal disposal of human remains is faux outrage
  • Abortion, where legal, is regulated for a reason - this girl could have DIED and her mother would be facing whatever the American equivalent of murder or manslaughter charges are
  • There is another really important consideration here: what if the young woman had been coerced or forced into an illegal and dangerous termination? What if she had not consented to this?! Abortion is legal in the UK but a married man was recently jailed for trying to abort his girlfriend's pregnancy without her consent (link: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/darren-burke-home-office-boss-induce-miscarriage-partner-b2102580.html) yet today's narrative suggests we should turn a blind eye to the red flags
  • If a teenage girl is pregnant one day and not the next it merits investigation; if a foetus is found burned and buried it merits investigation. The media is approaching it like she went and had a regular abortion procedure and is now facing jail for it - THIS IS NOT THE SAME
Forbes link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/08/08/facebook-abortion-teen-dms/?sh=30efb86e579c&fbclid=IwAR3U4FkASeBUohxdGCAlpoP4uk97ZLgPEXBdmtSiXBLfKDxR6JVVOWaLPUs

This is NOT an isolated incident with this story. The Guardian led with "Facebook gave police their private data. Now, this duo face abortion charges"
  • Again, data not 'given' - nothing is 'private' in a criminal investigation - Facebook DMs can be and are demanded to be turned over in other criminal investigations. Are the media really trying to argue a right to privacy where it relates to crime - murder, terrorism, child abuse?!
  • The duo were always facing charges - they were up to their unmentionables in implication of illegal acts!
Guardian link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/10/facebook-user-data-abortion-nebraska-police

The Independent led with a marginally less click-bait title and admittedly was a more nuanced article. However, it still focused on the irrelevant Roe vs Wade issue and missed several key points, such as not disputing this comment from former candidate for Congress Brianna Wu:
"The difference in abortion being made illegal before Roe and now
is today we have a surveillance state.
If the tech industry were anything like what they pretend to be
- they’d fight this tooth and nail,”
Fight what?! The legal collecting of evidence to prosecute criminals?! This is NOTHING to do with surveillance. FB did not flag any concern and you can bet that if Al Qaida was plotting terrorist atrocities via social media everyone and their auntie would be up in arms that the platform hadn't monitored and reported it.
Indeed, if they'd fought a legally obtained search warrant there'd be hell to pay - what are they hiding etc etc.

Independent link: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/nebraska-abortion-case-facebook-privacy-b2142024.html


Wednesday, 15 June 2022

Dissing Amber Heard again cos it's fun and I loathe her for the damage she's wrought on *real* victims / survivors

DISCLAIMER: everyone has been doing the dog/bee thing so no claims any of the following is an original thought


Note: This is for the lols


For anyone who missed the memo and this sounds entirely too ludicrous to be true...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7TX_W1nC6s

[Time stamp 0:48-0:50 Amber says UNDER OATH that her dog stepped on a bee and pulls a stupid face. For the record the owner of the 'trashed' trailer testified the 'damages' consisted of one (1) broken light fitting valued at $62]

"My dog stepped on a bee"

and got bit by a flea

Puff the Magic Dragon lived by the sea

Johnny Depp hit me

but I didn't flee

my nose was broken but I didn't take a selfie

got r*ped with a bottle but didn't go to A&E

or a GP 

I sh*t on the bed but didn't wee

I'm the princess and the pea

gave me a bruise on the knee

but no you can't see...

He lost one but I lost three

sux no one believes me

I rate the jury D

why am I even free?

A great vegan scrambled egg alternative is ackee


For anyone who missed the memo and this sounds entirely too ludicrous to be true...

https://twitter.com/todayshow/status/1536677940213297155

[Amber Heard claims in an interview that Johnny Depp 'convinced the world' he was, like, ACTUALLY Edward Scissorhands (1990)?! He's a great actor but that is seriously pushing it...]

"Says ... the lawyer ... for the man who convinced the world he had scissors for fingers?"

...the man who convinced the world he was eaten by a bed (Nightmare on Elm Street, 1984)

Given this was his FIRST ROLE I want an explanation as to how he was alive enough the rest of his career?

...the man who convinced the world the film-maker Ed Wood (1994; 1824-1978), policeman Frederick Abberline (From Hell, 2001; 1843-1929), author J. M. Barrie (Finding Neverland, 2004; 1860-1937), John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester (The Libertine, 2004; 1647-1680), gangsters John Dillinger (Public Enemies, 2009; 1903-1934) and Whitey Bulger (Black Mass, 2015; 1929-2018) and POTUS Donald Trump (Donald Trump's The Art Of The Teal: The Movie, 2016; b. 1946) ARE ALL THE SAME PERSON

I'm sure I've left out other biographical characters but this lil list would make him (a) 375 years old and counting (b) at least 4 different people simultaneously in the 1920s.

...the man who convinced the world he runs a candy factory full of slaves (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, 2005)

the man who convinced the world he was a throat-slitting barber (Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, 2007)

OMG is THAT why she gifted him the engraved knife???

...the man who convinced the world he was a CGI chameleon (Rango, 2011)

...the man who convinced the world he was a vampire (Dark Shadows, 2012)

...the man who convinced the world he was a wizard (Fantastic Beasts, 2016 & 2018)

...the man who convinced the world he was a pirate (POTC, 2003-2017)

Actually, scrub that one. He IS Captain Jack Sparrow.

Thursday, 2 June 2022

#JusticeForJohnnyDepp

An open letter to Johnny Depp


"Tell the world, Johnny, tell them, Johnny Depp,
I, Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence,
and see how many people believe or side with you." - Amber Heard

Well, sir... you did. And they did.

A lot of people believed you from the start. People called them Deppford Wives and misogynists.

A lot of people came to believe you over time. The media wrote them off as fans and trolls.

A lot of people came to believe you during the trial, hearing your story properly, and with all the facts finally available to us. Still the media wrote articles about 'the internet' siding with you. Like we're not all individual human beings with eyes and ears and the ability to think for ourselves. They tried to paint it as a war of words rather than of evidence, and the public as idiot sheep who'd huddle together without discernment.

What it came down to was what seven people on a Virginia jury thought.

They believed you.

They sided with you.

Unanimously.


Sorry, I'm British. I had to.

I can't begin to imagine what it has cost you - physically, emotionally, psychologically - to do this. To lay yourself bare before the world. To have all the lowest points of your life scrutinised, dissected... I imagine you feared the world would judge you harshly, but you did it anyway. 

I am so proud of you.

Not to suggest that you were in any way selfish but I know you told your truth for yourself, for your kids, for the people who matter to you... but this has done so much GOOD. I have seen so many people, men and women, opening up about the DV / SA  / false allegations they have suffered. Men especially are often talking about it for the first time because of you. Whether they were fans before is irrelevant, you're a fucking HERO now.

I really hope you've made inroads to changing the dialogue. Everything has been skewed in favour of women for far too long. A lot of people couldn't even imagine that being the wrong mindset before this. People have seen for themselves how messed up it is that she was believed on her word alone; her word that didn't ring true and a lot of times lacked even basic logic. I suspect there's a long wad to go before there's any real change toward true equality but that's not your battle.

You've fought so long and so hard for this I really hope this is the end of your nightmare.

I wish you healing, rebuilding... I hope your ability to love and trust will recover in time because you truly do deserve all the very best.

With the greatest of respect,

Heggie


Wednesday, 1 June 2022

JDvsAH

IF YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT THE TRIGGER WARNINGS ARE FROM THE TITLE DO NOT READ


THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE. AN EXPLANATION OF WHY I TOOK A PRO-JOHNNY STANCE LONG BEFORE THIS CASE WENT TO TRIAL AND WHY THAT STANCE HAS REMAINED UNCHANGED


I have been #TeamJohnny from the get-go. Not because I am a fan, but because it was, for me, the logical stance.

I am a female of the species but I identify as agender and I am egalitarian. Oppression, violence, victimhood... these things can be caused or exacerbated by gender but it's not all one way, and the Depp Vs Heard case is a prime example.

Amber Heard was believed because she is a woman. That's it. Not because her claims were proven true, supported by evidence or even plausible. Because of her sex-slash-gender-identity. Like women can't / don't / won't lie. Like they wouldn't lie about THAT.

Can you hear the eyeroll as I typed?!

Anyone can lie. Some more effectively than others. But believing a lie because of the sex of the person telling it? Beyond stupid.

I've had rows on social media with feminazis (so shall I call them if so shall they act) who would believe ANY woman, regardless. They would literally throw their fathers, brothers, partners and sons under the bus on the word of a stranger who just happens to be female. Zero loyalty, zero faith in the men in their lives. Nice.

So yeah, that's my starting point.

I do not #BelieveAllWomen or even #BelieveAllVictims as a default setting. Which is not to say I disbelieve them, of course. But it's this little thing called critical thinking: the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.

I can at least start at the chronological beginning.

When Johnny married Amber my knee-jerk reaction was OMFG he's got himself a gold-digger, she's gonna bring him down. Call it a premonition. I knew NOTHING about this woman.

When Amber first made her claims my knee-jerk reaction was OMFG she went THAT FAR???

First Allegations

In the first instance I don't know either of these people, obviously. However there's always unconscious bias - this is where gender is a very strong factor, along with race. Most people will lean toward the female, especially a pretty blonde one (see Missing White Woman Syndrome) whether they are overtly sexist or racist or not; it's almost a learned behaviour as the news more heavily reports missing white women / children creating the idea that men and women or children of colour are less vulnerable. Meanwhile, there are others who will default in favour of men, wealth, fame, or perceived power.

I defaulted in favour of Johnny Depp. Why? Because I am a misogynist who respects fame & wealth? I certainly hope not. I certainly believe it's because I know OF Johnny (whereas I only knew of Amber as his Mrs), and had been aware of him / his career for decades. I knew the man had substance abuse issues but from the outset it seemed curious that there had never been a sniff of violent or sexual scandal around his name.

Of course you never *know* but the fact he'd worked repeatedly with certain directors (eg. Tim Burton) and actresses (eg. Helena Bonham Carter, Keira Knightly) suggested that he wasn't a monster to work with.

This was a very short time later amplified by two of his highest profile exes (Vanessa Paradis and Winona Ryder) saying publicly NOT me too. Along with a number of co-stars (inc. Penelope Cruz and Kate Winslet) speaking of him positively. Of course, being an abuser in one relationship does not mean you will be in all of them. But, for me, it was telling that a number of high profile women said 'he wasn't like this with ME'. Naturally some of that might have been their fans asking them to say #MeToo or offering sympathy for their presumed past suffering at JDs hands. But again, respect for saying openly that it didn't happen.

Even more telling has been the distinct lack of anyone coming forward to say #MeToo. For a man now 58 that seems pretty solid. The only ex who spoke against him was Ellen Barkin who recalled him once throwing a bottle at a wall, had no idea of the context, and couldn't even remember how long their relationship lasted.


Honestly, at this point I've lost the plot as to when exactly which photos / statements came into the public eye so I'm just gonna look at the salient points individually.


The Photos

The newspapers carried photos of a 'bruised' Amber Heard coming out of court having applied for a restraining order. Even in grainy newsprint it looked like nothing. Looking at the photos presented in court with the 'bruises' supposedly shown in the 'best light' of the apartment and ignoring, for the moment, the idea of filters, resolution discrepancies etc etc I looked at the pics... is that a pimple? is that a mosquito bite? is it blusher? why can't we see her OTHER cheek for comparison?!

That's not to say she didn't have a bruise. *I* don't bruise well, especially on the face for some reason. *I* have tried to photograph injuries and failed. But then *I* have never tried to use my inadequate photos as 'evidence' in the press or in a court room.

Then there's the black eyes, broken nose, split lip that she supposedly had on the James Corden show. Yeah, not believing that either. Makeup on a split lip? I don't think so. Also, where's the show's make up artist testimony? And the mouth stretched wide photos? Lord, give me strength...

The Cabinet Video

When the cabinet video first came out several things were obvious:

  • Amber was recording Johnny without his knowledge in his own home which is pretty gross
  • He's clearly distressed
  • She's clearly goading him
  • The video was clearly edited
Did I believe it proved anything? Hell no.
Is violence against cabinetry illegal? Not if you own it. Criminal damage at most if you don't.

If fact, I felt it proved the opposite - he's upset, he's goaded... he slams a cabinet door? Fair amount of restraint there. If that's the most damning video you can leak there's a problem with the claim. And before anyone starts with the 'imperfect victim' argument as stated in the summing up:

“If you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen.
If you did take pictures, they’re fake.
If you didn’t tell your friends, you’re lying.
If you did tell your friends, they’re part of the hoax.
If you didn’t seek medical treatment, you weren’t injured.
If you did seek medical treatment, you’re crazy,” - Benjamin Rottenborn

She did take photos - but they don't fit with her testimony. We can SEE they're filtered, so yeah, FAKE. She also took videos - none of which managed to capture what she claims was happening. All the way up to this case she's been saying she has copious amounts of damning evidence. The evidence we've now seen, extensively, is 'meh' at best. If she'd made these claims on her WORD alone it would have looked better!

The Bottle Incident

This really needs its own headline but most of my reaction to this is the same as in testimony... it doesn't ring true. It's implausible in the extreme that she could have been assaulted in the way she described.

Sadly there are a LOT of comments online calling this out BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUFFERED IT.

There is NO WAY you can be raped with a bottle and 'not know' if it broke. If you were bleeding and in pain to the point you thought it was broken EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE is not an optional extra. Ms Heard was in no way prevented from seeking medical care - she didn't. She was in no way unable to access medical care due to poverty or location either.

I've seen repeated claims she made and was photographed THE NEXT DAY walking and acting and dressed normally. Things many victims says is simply not possible.

I can't speak for whether those photos were taken the next day but every victim of this kind of assault, bottles broken or intact, says of her account THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. Why do I believe these self-confessed survivors over Ms Heard? Because IT MAKES SENSE. The very idea of being violated with a potentially broken bottle is enough to make most females, if not most people, wince and cross their legs.

We're supposed to believe that Ms Heard was vulnerable, intimidated, trapped in an abusive relationship but where many / most DV survivors are separated and isolated by their abusers - she was surrounded by her employees, her friends, her sister. Many / most DV / SA survivors (in the US) don't have medical insurance or can't access healthcare due to cost, or fear that it'll be reported back to their abuser. That was never her situation and a lot of survivors are pretty angry that a woman with her wealth and privilege is claiming their level of disadvantage.

As with the Rottenborn statement above it's hard to imagine anyone being assaulted the way Ms Heard describes and deliberately NOT seeking help. If she had sought help she certainly wouldn't be 'crazy' for it - there'd be records, PROOFS of what did or did not happen.

The same is true of her alleged broken nose. I got my nose broken. It was on straight, it was not bleeding profusely, so I followed the NHS advice to just let it heal. Therefore it's not on record. It's perfectly possible Ms Heard did the same... but HER FACE IS HER LIVELIHOOD. It stretches credulity that she wouldn't have at least called a professional for advice or get it checked.

The Testimony

I have said it over and over throughout the trial... I expected acting. Both parties are professional, Hollywood actors for heaven's sake. Despite having the above detailed pre-conceived ideas I still expected to have to watch closely for tells and inconsistencies.

Boy, was I wrong.

If Johnny was acting it was immaculate. There are those who criticise his smiling in court but y'all expect stoic, stone-faced for six solid weeks?! He smiled at his team, with whom he clearly had a good rapport. He smiled at certain things that were said on the stand. There was context.

Amber on the other hand... What the HECKAMAJIG was all THAT about?! On the stand she was over-acting in the style of a dramatic five year old. Only most five year olds are more convincing. Fake tears (and I do think she had something untoward in that tissue - not least cos every damn time she wiped her nose on the back of her hand anyway). All the wrong facial expressions. The borderline rage when she was interrupted or corrected. Y'all don't need to be an expert in acting or body language to see that was dodgy AF.

Off the stand she was the epitome of a cold fish. Example: if Dr Curry had been saying such things about me I'd have been in floods of tears, bright red. Telling the world I'm totally unbalanced? There should be emotion. Nothing. Nose in air, perfect Ice Queen. It's not normal, it's not natural, and no power on this earth can convince me it's genuine.

I've seen commentary that Johnny presented badly on the witness stand. I disagree. It's not about 'performance'. A person can be low IQ, mentally impaired, struggle to express themselves and still they deserve to be heard. Johnny was not eloquent, he was not reciting a script; he was hesitant, nervous, embarrassed. 

Aside from expert witnesses, many of Johnny's were friends & employees of long-standing. And an ex girlfriend calling BS on one of Amber's lies about her.

Amber's witnesses included her sister. And a bunch of friends who admitted they'd been freeloading off Johnny.

Johnny's account gelled with what the experts set, what his other witnesses said. At times, even with the opposition testimony!

Amber's made no sense in and of itself and did not match with anyone else's. How can you ever reconcile that? Her testimony didn't gel with the people she and her team *chose* to back her up.


So, I was working on this opinion piece explaining my personal stance between summing up and verdict. I am literally typing this waiting as the clock ticks down and the courtroom filling up... I think I better leave my reaction for another blog. YIKES!