How close is your family?

The Simmons family, three generations of whom live on Bardon Road, remains defiant in the face of claims their antisocial behaviour was partly responsible for the deaths of Fiona Pilkington and her mentally disabled teenage daughter, Francecca Hardwick, after years of taunts and physical attacks.

(Independent: "They were so evil towards Francecca" 29/09/09)

Wait a minute, three generations? Three generations of one family lived on the same street?

Maybe it's just my family, but I can't understand how it is that one family - three generations! - can live on the same street. My family doesn't even live in the same state, and if that, rarely in the same town. How is it possible that people don't move?

Part of this is historical. At the Glasgow Science Centre, there was a display where you could see which counties your surname was popular in the UK in 1881 and 1998. This was reported in the BBC in 2006. You can view the National Trust Names surname GB search here.

If you put in lesser known names, you'll see that people just don't move. For example, the name "Brankin" (thanks to Rhona Brankin MSP Midlothian) was only in a handful of sparse counties in 1881: Paisley, Motherwell, Preston and Oldham. In 1998 the name had spread, but not too far from the original four counties. In particular, they really stayed in Scotland, as evidenced by the fact that there's an MSP with that surname. (An English surname, ironically enough.)

It's this way with lots of names. And I even have anecdotal evidence of a family in Glasgow where, while not all are on the same street, all pretty much live in the same suburb of Glasgow -- one that if you put that surname in, comes up as the number 1 place in the UK for that name.

There was even a newspaper article talking about one family that all lived on one street. This is not a random isolated event -- it genuinely happens!

Maybe it's a bit rich coming from an American living in Scotland, but I just don't understand how a person can live a few doors down from their parents, siblings, cousins, etc.

But then, it does explain the fear of inbreeding in this country. You have to provide a birth certificate to get married here. Why? According to the clerk down at the Edinburgh courthouse, to prove you don't have the same parents.

All I want for Christmas...

Is John Kampfner's "Freedom for Sale: How we Made Money and Lost Our Liberty". Why?

My new book tackles the issue head on. I look at eight countries, four notionally authoritarian – Singapore, China, Russia and the UAE – and four notionally democratic, India, Italy, the UK and the United States. My central thesis is that people around the world, whatever their different cultures or circumstances, have been willing over the past 20 years of globalised glut to trade certain freedoms in return for the promise of either prosperity or security. We have elevated private freedoms, especially the freedom to earn and spend money, over public freedoms, such as democratic participation and accountability and free expression. I call the thirst for material comfort the ultimate anaesthetic for the brain.

(John Kampfner: Independent "Liberal values have never been more important - or less popular")

I've always said the difference between the British govenment and the Chinese government is that the Chinese government is more honest about its goals. I suppose we'll see what Mr. Kampfner thinks about it.

The Forgotten Child of the North

It's always confused me, British geography, especially their concepts of "north" and "south". I admit that the US, with its "Mid-west" is a little deceiving, but it's not nearly so bad as Londoners' idea of "the North". (That's how it's marked on the highways: "The North", "The South".)

Look at this map.
For those without a familiarity of British geography, the little circle in the bottom is London. The big section at the top is Scotland. Underneath Scotland is "the North of England". Just under that is "Central North England". The little moon on the Ireland-side of the country is Wales. The little bit touching Wales, Central North England and London is "Central South England". Basically anything touching London is "South".

On this other map, the area called the "Midlands" is highlighted.
This roughly corresponds with the "Central" sections above.

What these two maps have in common is that the line by which everything is North is not halfway up the country. Ok, sure, it's halfway up ENGLAND, but then we are left with Scotland (and Northern Ireland, boy, they must have it rough, being separated by water and all) as being WAY north. Scotland may as well be another country (I know there's debate on this, but please, accept it is part of the UK) for how it's treated by most British (by which I mean English - particularly the government).

People constantly forget about Scotland. Take Liberty, the UK civil liberties group.

Liberty is also known as the National Council for Civil Liberties. Founded in 1934, we are a cross party, non-party membership organisation at the heart of the movement for fundamental rights and freedoms in England and Wales.

In Scotland, we instead have the SACC. You can't even find a Northern Ireland civil liberties-specific group!

The media just brings it home even more. When I first got to the UK, I tried to find a source for local news, both globally and nationally. I always like reading local news, especially the stuff that tells me what's going on around town. I tried the BBC, but their Scotland news sucks. I then switched to the Scotsman Newspaper for my Scottish news and the Independent and Guardian for my UK national news, but neither of those two really mention Scotland very much.

Case in point:

Independent: Is Leeds rubbish war a sign of things to come for Britain? (18 Sept 2009) Regarding the strike by bin men in Leeds.

Scotsman: Bin dispute will be long and dirty struggle (21 Aug 2009) Regarding the strike by bin men in Edinburgh.

"Sign of things to come" my ASS! Pompous twits. Yeah, because the Leeds strike was the first to happen this year in the UK. Uh-huh. Right.

Irritating Name Mash-ups

They're not acronyms, and they're not abbreviations. Apparently it's called a Portmanteau, more of a mash-up, or an odd nickname given to celebrities by the media. (Not real people, mind you, but the media. These are cold, calculated misuses of language.) We've seen it with Brangelina, Bennifer, J-Lo, and a whole mess of other "celebs" (Ed: SHOOT ME NOW!!).


The latest victim to dicocide (murder of names) is Susan Boyle, or, as she's more familiarly known: SuBo. I noticed this in today's Metro newspaper. The on-line article uses Susan's full name in the headline, while the printed newspaper read: "SuBo wows 25m in US".

A quick look on google showed that the use of SuBo as a term peaked in roughly June 2009.

Susan Boyle debuted in April 2009, and has over 1000 articles from April, Mary and June. The number dropped significantly in July, for whatever reason. Google only lists 96 articles mentioning SuBo, but over 4000 for Susan Boyle.

Poor woman. I feel bad that the only reason she's famous is because she's old, fat and ugly. Really, that's it. She's unattractive, and the fact that she can sing shocks people so much that she is given freak-show status as an artist. I've never heard her, myself, but I know they do occasionally get some real singers on these shows, so I don't doubt her talent. It's kinda like those kids who can do math really well: FREAK!! Not that Britain isn't known for its modern-day freak shows.

But now Susan's made the rank of pet celebrities. She is no longer her own person, Susan Boyle, she is a two-syllable title given to sub-humans who are hunted by the paparazzi and then displayed in magazines as a trophy. She is no longer part of the race of human, she is an object, like so many have been before her, and like so many will be after her.

Self-Responsibility

I'm not the only one saying it. My friend in the US complained about the nanny state; I told her "you have no idea". Americans may think that the government is a nanny state because of speed cameras, signs warning people against gridlock, and CAUTION HOT on coffee cups, but they honestly have no idea how bad it could be.

One of my old flatmates (Scottish) once told a story about a neighbour she had that would call the council for everything. Crack in the pavement? Call the council. Bag of rubbish on the curb? Call the council. Snow? Ice? Call the council. Apparently she had the best-looking sidewalk on the entire street. Shame they had to waste their time fixing every little thing for her, though.

But as Hamish McRae points out in the Independent, this difference between self-sufficiency and responsibility can even be seen in how politicians communicate. Would a modern British politician ever ask people to take more responsibility in their lives? They ask us to wash our hands to prevent swine flu, and stop smoking to prevent cancer, but a general "take responsibility!" is absent.