I’ve had a question brewing. It’s rather plain that you hold the Tories in no small amount of contempt (past and present), and that you’re at least somewhat disappointed by the Lib Dems. Are you a dyed-in-the-wool Labour man, or is it Plaid all the way? And if the latter, are you a Labour man when it comes to the national government?

It will surprise all my Labour friends that I was actually once a Conservative district councillor. This actually came about by accident as I was active on the local Residents Association and was approached by the local Tory party who asked me to stand for Elmbridge council. I was assured that local politics were the only things that mattered and as I had no political involvement at that point I didn’t see a problem. However, I was very quickly disabused of my naive notion and I am very proud to say that I was the very first person to have the Conservative whip withdrawn from them on the newly formed Elmbridge council. This was during the middle 1970s when Harold Wilson and James Callaghan were Prime Ministers.

My political convictions really started in 1979 when the appalling Margaret Thatcher started her systematic attack on poor and disadvantaged people in the United Kingdom. I was incensed by her insensitivity and pigheadedness and always swore to myself that should we ever meet, I would give her a piece of my mind. The irony is that I met her on two occasions, and both times I was representing an organisation so I remained polite but was seething inside. In the latter days of her tyranny, I attended the Labour Party conference in Blackpool representing the British Tourist Authority for whom I worked at the time. At the fringe meeting I organised, the invited speaker was the then Shadow Minister for employment, Tony Blair and after chatting with him for some time was actually very impressed. Our theme for the reception was seaside holidays and I had some photographs taken of Tony Blair holding a bunch of candyfloss. At the time he said, “I wonder if I will regret having this picture taken” and luckily for him, I destroyed the pictures subsequently and deprived Private Eye of a priceless front page.

From that time, I have been a card-carrying member of the Labour Party and I shared the nations optimism and excitement when Labour was returned in 1997. However, as the Bible so eloquently puts it, “How the mighty have fallen!”. Words don’t express the disappointment and disillusionment I felt over the Iraq war debacle and the despair I felt when a good Chancellor of the Exchequer became a useless Prime Minister.

The subsequent general election and the soap opera that followed created the worst hen’s breakfast of a government that I have ever known. The Tories were cut off at the knees and attempted to tap dance and the Lib Dems were a total embarrassment as they took on the identity of schoolboys shouting from the back of the classroom, “Me, me, Sir, choose me!”. Subsequently we have seen Nick Clegg and various other of his party standing up to defend policies that were the antithesis of those on which they fought the election. There is not a scrap of integrity about this government and the sooner it is defeated, the better.

So what about Plaid Cymru? Living up here in North Wales it is quite adequate to put a green Plaid rosette on a sheep and its election would be assured. However, Plaid is all over the place with its policies and its lack of identity. Originally it had a noble aim of an independent Wales where the heritage and culture would be cherished and promoted, free of the pollution introduced by Edward 1′s conquest of Wales. Basically, the Welsh people do not have an appetite for independence and it took two referendums to vote in the National Assembly by a whisker. Generally speaking, the Assembly has done a good job and now it has law-making powers there is simply no need for Plaid Cymru. It declared itself to be a socialist party in the 1960s but it recognises that it would have no appeal to its core support of the farmers of Anglesey if it were a left-wing party.

So where am I now? I find myself moving further and further left of centre and I continue to support the Labour Party because it is large enough to achieve national change. Once Ed Milliband undergoes his operation to have a backbone inserted, I have hope for that party in the 2015 election, or hopefully, when this government falls before that date.

1. I am a committed Christian and will celebrate 40 wonderful years of marriage in June
2. My younger son is gay and is getting married to his partner in August (more of that later)
3. British Christians have kissed their brains goodbye and have forgotten all Christ’s teaching on compassion in their mindless, vitriolic and fundamentally flawed opposition to gay marriage.

In my last blog I apologised to my very patient Christian friends for any insensitivity displayed in my questioning of attitudes and practises of Christians that fly in the face of Christ’s teaching. However, I’m afraid I may offend you again.

For me to agree with David Cameron is a blue-moon or rarer event, but he said at the Tory Conference,

“I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage. And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment.”

And there he demonstrated that he had got the real point.

Marriage is a wonderful institution and I’m glad I took that step in 1972. Sadly, the Office for National Statistics tells us that 45% of marriages will end in divorce. In the United Kingdom, roughly one in four families with dependent children is a single-parent family. One last statistic: 45% of UK adults support gay marriage compared with 36% who oppose it (source: Daily Telegraph ICM poll).

When my son and his partner publicly express their love and commitment to one another with a Civil Partnership on 17 August, they will be calling it a wedding. They see it as a wedding and will consider themselves a married couple. I recommend the blog of their journey: Gay Wedding Story

Heterosexual couples have had the opportunity of legal marriage since the 1753 Marriage Act (but then only in an Anglican Church) and since 1837 civil marriages have been recognized as a legal alternative to church marriages. In 1994 an Act meant that couples no longer had to marry in church, and could hold services where they liked. Opponents to gay marriage say that there is the provision of Civil Partnerships but heterosexual couples have the luxury of choosing a church or civil ceremony. Gay people want marriage as an option for precisely the same reasons as heterosexual couples.

What makes me furious is the spiteful and vitriolic statements made by Christians who should know better. Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, hit the headlines when he said the “grotesque” plans would “shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world”. A Catholic letter to parishes today says “Roman Catholics have a duty to make sure it [gay marriage]does not happen.” Actually Cardinal, I doubt that any gay person would cross the threshold of your churches if that is indicative of your attitude towards them.

A coalition of Christian groups has a website “Coalition for Marriage” collecting signatures in opposition to gay marriage. It is mirrored by the “Coalition for Equal Marriage” which makes a case for gay marriage. Do look at them. The Coalition for Marriage site makes statements like:

Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there’s no need to redefine marriage.

At least heterosexual couples can choose civil ceremony/marriage ceremony.

Under a heading, Profound Consequences, the following appears:

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People’s careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?

I can’t even bring myself to address such a collection of non-sequiturs, fatuous conclusions and general spherical objects!

Even my good friends at CARE are clutching at straws:

This call to change the basic definition of marriage is not an issue of equality – the legal recognition of civil partnerships covers that need. Changing the law so that marriage can include same-sex couples would be a major step into the unknown that could have serious repercussions affecting generations to come.

How can it be equal when one group has two choices and the other has one? Why would this be such an unknown step and what could really happen? When homosexuality was decriminalised, churches painted an apocalyptic picture of the consequences, which of course never happened.

People, I can confidently say that when gay marriage becomes legal in the UK, no man will say, “Well, now I can choose, I won’t marry a girl, I’ll marry a man”. My advice to people who feel threatened by same-sex marriage is that they should not marry someone of same gender!

Jesus may not have said anything directly on the subject of homosexuality or people with same-sex attraction but he had a lot to say about the way we treat people.

He said ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

He told the story of the Good Samaritan and asked,

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

I believe the grace, love, forgiveness and wonderful compassion of Christ is something that is for everyone, gay or straight. I implore Christians to exercise that same grace and reach out in love and friendship to everyone in the unconditional way that Jesus would.

Yesterday’s provocative blog on Christians whining about the High Court ruling on prayer on Council Meeting agenda provoked a bigger than usual response. The popular part was my encouragement for Christians not to complain but to stand for election and make a difference. The unpopular part was to talk about ‘whining Christians’, leading to complaint that it was reasonable to protest about the ruling. I don’t plan to comment further on that because the issue has rapidly been seen as a storm in a teacup once the ruling was explained.

Two people have caused me to reflect on the blog and I feel I owe them a response. One removed me as a Facebook friend saying with honesty, “I do find your posts difficult not always because of what you want to debate, rather I feel in your attempts to stir up Christians you seem to be consistently pointing out our faults. I find this personally difficult as I am fully aware of my own shortcomings as a Christian. I find that your comments leave me feeling frustrated and at times angry.” I thought about what he said and I realised that I am reflecting the anger I am feeling personally about the behaviour of some people in the name of Christ but my blunt instrument approach was hurting others. Probably my greatest anger is directed towards those Christians who show intolerance and harsh attitudes towards others in society. I believe this needs to be challenged but I will make sure that my future challenges are more accurately targeted. The friend who felt he had to take this difficult step is one of the kindest and most gentle people I know and I must certainly owe him and others I may have offended an apology.

The second was rather different. “Noddfa53″ wrote, “Glad you feel that you are able to freely comment about issues … Unfortunately we do not have a level playing field, … [if] you are against same sex relationships, pro abortion, for marriage. And pro Christian. Try and disagree with any of above and see how much freedom you have. Hiraeth means amongst other things a longing. So what are you longing for hiraeth?. Reply not required.”

Well, I feel I did have respond. Noddfa Is the Welsh word for ‘sanctuary’ which is ironical because I feel that for the first 40 years or so of my Christian life I was in a sanctuary of a Christian subculture and if I had wanted to, I could have conducted every element of my life without moving outside that world. It was hiraeth that drew me back to my roots in Wales and hiraeth caused me to start to examine my Christian faith out of a deep longing for reality.

So, for Noddfa, for me, and for anyone else who is interested, these are the things that I am longing for.

Reality in my Christian life

My favourite hymn is a traditional Welsh hymn known and sung by Welshman everywhere even if they don’t understand the words because it is entirely in Welsh! Two lines in Calon Lân says Gofyn rwyf am calon hapus, Calon onest, calon lân which translates as ‘But I have the best of wishes, For a pure and honest heart’. I’m not prepare to settle for Sunday two-hour Christianity that doesn’t extend to all my life. I want to use the same vocabulary and language seven days a week and to value everyone I encounter equally. I long to treat each person with kindness, justice and dignity. It was kindness that drew me to the Christian faith and I have realised that in expressing my anger it has come in the way of the kindness I would want to demonstrate.

Kingdom values lived out by Christians
That probably need some explanation because I am using some Christian jargon here. Jesus spoke about the Kingdom of God throughout his life and there was a value base implicit that he demonstrated consistently in his every action. He was non-judgemental, he was compassionate, he was kind and he served other people. There are many people selflessly and passionately expressing those values in their Christian service in the United Kingdom and throughout the world. I have not been writing about those people because others are their advocates. My concern is with harsh, unforgiving, judgemental, discriminatory and insensitive attitudes which a minority of Christians express. Unfortunately these are the ones the media likes the best and so bigots like Stephen Green from Christian Voice gain a platform they do not deserve.

Inclusiveness demonstrated by Christians
Although this is implicit in the section above, I feel it needs specific attention because it is the area that causes the greatest offence to people who would say they do not have a Christian faith. I have several friends who have been badly hurt by the judgemental attitudes and overt criticism made to them by Christians. This includes people who have been divorced, people who have taken poor decisions which have damaged both their own and their family’s lives, girls who have become pregnant and had abortions and both men and women who are attracted to the same sex. I respect fully the reservations of people who disagree with such things as same-sex relationships although I do not share their views. However, I do take issue when gay people are treated with discourtesy and harshness by committed Christians.

My sister, of whom I am hugely proud, runs a pregnancy crisis centre. She listens to the stories told by the girls and helps them to understand the alternative courses that they can take and then supports them and walks with them in whatever they choose. Both my sister and I have a personal pro-life position, but our views are immaterial when we are dealing with the lives of people who are confused, terrified and often desperate. My sister meets the needs where the girls are.

A caring society
I am actively involved in left-wing politics and I long to see a society where those at the margins are appropriately supported. I’m not taking a political stance on this, however, when I say that it’s not all down to the State, but to all of us to take responsibility and become involved at the level we feel comfortable.

Wales to be the nation she has the potential to be
Wales has a wonderful culture, language and heritage. I long to see every Welsh man and woman to experience that pride in those wonderful things, for the language to grow and for the same wind that blew in the nation in 1904 to blow again.

So thank you Noddfa, for causing me to do what the Quakers call ‘centre down’ and reassess my priorities and to continue questioning and challenging – not out of anger and always with kindness.

The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a council is not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue.

So actually the ruling was that it was not permissible to put prayers as part of the formal Council agenda.

Several years ago, I was a local Councillor and we went through the excruciating embarrassment of having formal prayers at the beginning of every meeting. They were universally disliked and at least two colleagues who were Mayor at the time tried unsuccessfully to get the process stopped and then had the awkwardness of appointing a chaplain whom they did not know and who often simply had no feeling for what was appropriate to pray at the beginning of a council meeting.

I have just over 300 Facebook friends and roughly half would describe themselves as committed Christians – a description I would also embrace. However, the moment this news emerged several posted status updates about the unfairness towards Christians and described this is more evidence of increased persecution of British Christians. The Bishop of Exeter, told the BBC it was a …

…great shame that a tiny minority are seeking to ban the majority. Every time there is a survey of religious beliefs in this country, around 70 per cent of the population profess a faith and to saying private prayers.

It was just one more example of how Christians get behind issues without having looked into it properly. There is absolutely nothing to stop groups of Councillors who have a Christian faith from meeting together before the meeting to pray for the proceedings. The difference then is that all the participants would have a shared value base and there would be no embarrassment experienced.

What would be far more use was if this energy in making web comments, writing letters, sending e-mails and denouncing from the pulpit could be better channelled. What is needed is people with clear strong convictions to stand for election as local Councillors and to pray with like-minded colleagues as well as ask their churches to be behind them in prayer. Over the years I have simply grown and grown in admiration for the Salvation Army who are the very best expression I know of Christianity with its sleeves rolled up. They are seldom heard complaining about things but are always found at the site of any serious incident, supporting the workers, providing cups of tea and being a calming presence in a stressful environment.

We are not being persecuted in Britain. There are plenty of places in the world where religious, political and tribal persecution and discrimination are very much in evidence. I’m glad to live in a country where I can make statements like this in total freedom – knowing that many of my Christian friends will disagree.

Every person is significant, important and of value and deserves to be treated with dignity, honour and justice

My review of  The Iron Lady ruffled some feathers as I was anything but sympathetic to the frail old lady portrayed in the film. It attracted positive and negative responses – but all friendly. My blog on Why I am a Welshman didn’t upset anyone but I was forced to issue a fatwah on my good friend Luke for his outrageous comments.

So last Saturday I read a claim in the Guardian that a drop in Tesco’s share price was ‘due to an answer to prayer’ for Stephen Green of Christian pressure group Christian Voice who protested outside shops last year after Tesco decided to sponsor the family area at London Gay Pride celebrations. I was angry about this as Stephen Green spouts absolute rubbish at the best of times, but to claim that God would answer such a vindictive prayer was insane and ludicrous.

As a result I posted that Stephen Green’s claims that God had judged Tesco were nonsense and that Green did more damage to Christianity than Hawking, Dawkins, Hitchens and militant Islam combined. What I didn’t expect were flames from my Christian friends quoting Bible verses: ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone…’ and various other personal attacks.

I’m pretty thick-skinned generally but this penetrated all my defences. I have worked hard for some years to build bridges between the Christian community in which I place myself and my many friends who don’t share my faith. Because I live and die by my equal opportunities statement above, I value all my friends equally. The friends who have touched my heart the most are those who formerly were part of a Christian group who have gone through divorces, or have come out as gay, or simply have lost their faith. They have been subjected to cruel, bitter, judgemental criticism by Christians and have been totally rejected. All of which is utterly contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ whom the critics claim to serve. When I read the comments on my status I understood how they felt: despised and rejected of men.

I suspended my Facebook account and have just resurrected it to give this explanation to my friends and to give myself some time to reflect and regroup. And what is the ultimate irony? I received three concerned emails from friends who had noticed I’d disappeared and were checking on me. Two of those people were gay and all three would identify themselves as atheists.

I felt rather out of place with this group, as only one of them was born when Margaret Thatcher came to power, whereas I had already voted in the 1970 General Election before that dark day in 1979 when she became Prime Minister. NB: I didn’t vote for her! My expectation and fear was that this film would sanitise her historical role and leave us feeling sorry for her in her confused state of Alzheimer’s disease. I had read reviews that  she had been portrayed very sympathetically in those autumn years of her life so I steeled myself not to feel any undue compassion.

The film alternates between the present day and flashback throughout and it is the skilful make-up worn by Meryl Streep thet helps the viewer get the chronology correct. From the very start, in her role as the grocer’s daughter, you saw the determination, ambition and sheer bloodymindedness of Margaret Roberts, later Thatcher, in her determination to achieve her political goals.

The portrayal of Margaret Thatcher through her period as Education Secretary and then as Prime Minister was very much as I remembered it –obstinate, insensitive, arrogant and even cruel. It put me very much in mind of a sketch in the vicious satire Spitting Image where she is treating her cabinet to a meal in a restaurant

Waitress: Would you like to order, sir?
Thatcher: Yes. I will have the steak.
Waitress: How would you like it?
Thatcher: Oh, raw, please.
Waitress: And what about the Vegetables?
Thatcher: Oh, they’ll [The Cabinet] have the same as me!

The only thing that caught me out was the scene that portrayed the killing of Airey Neave by a car bomb in the Palace of Westminster. Although the INLA (an Irish terrorist group) claimed responsibility, a Wikipedia article suggests the security services or even the Americans were responsible. I always wondered how the INLA could get into the underground car park at the Housees of Parliament. I remember the incident well and how affected I was at the time, emotions I relived while watching. The film then showed Mrs Thatcher running up the car-park exit ramp seconds later, having just said goodbye to Neave. I suspect that was just poetic licence!

I felt again that same surge of anger that I felt at the time of the events when the film covered probably her most controversial policies during the Miners Strike (1984-85) and the Poll Tax Riots (1990) Seeing again the newsreel scenes of appalling police violence reaffirmed my long-held views of anger and incomprehension of her coldness and brutality.

Ironically, I had always promised myself that if I were ever to meet Margaret Thatcher I would tell her exactly what I thought of her. In fact, I met her on two occasions but both times “on duty” where I was representing another organisation and had a prior obligation directing my conduct. I would not have been discourteous, I would simply have asked her if she was aware of the hurt, damage, pain, distress, hardship, and loss of hope that she had caused to the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. This is probably the closest I’ll ever get to having asked that question.

The portrayal that I struggled with the most in the film was that of Denis Thatcher. He came across as an affable, slightly dotty, harmless old man. The reality is that he was a sharp businessman and from all I have ever heard of him, not a particularly pleasant person to know. There is no doubt that Margaret and Denis had a remarkably close relationship and the film betrayed that well. Meryl Streep’s acting was breathtakingly good and one of the few good things that I can take away from the film that stirred up powerful negative emotions in me.

My passport confirms I am a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As an aside, I have discovered that since 1983 I am no longer a British subject but a British citizen. Concealed in all that complexity is that fact that qualifying people in Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland all have the status of British citizen and there is no mechanism to become a naturalised citizen of just one of those three nations or one province. This is all beginning to get very complicated and I recommend you take five minutes out to watch The United Kingdom Explained. It’s a fun piece but beware of some inaccuracies such as Anglesey, the Isle of Wight and the Scottish islands NOT being part of Great Britain and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being “sovereign nations” with their own “Parliaments”. Ah, that it were so!

Anyway, I digress. This is all about me being Welsh. Was I born in Wales? No, sadly. I entered this world six weeks after the creation of the National Health Service (Architect: Aneurin Bevan – a Welshman) so I was free at the point of delivery which was Battle Hospital, Reading. My father? Born in London to English parents (with Irish and French one generation earlier). My mother, however, was born in Cilfynydd, a coal-mining community in the Rhondda Valley, to proud Welsh parents with many generations of North and South Welsh ancestry.

I loved our visits to South Wales as children and our times with our Welsh family and in the 1980s and early 90s I always felt at home when I travelled in Wales in my role of Wales Liaison Manager for the British Tourist Authority. The tipping point came when our elder son Mark moved to Llanberis in 2002. We visited regularly and both fell in love with North Wales and moved here in January 2007.

I realised almost immediately that for the first time in my life, I felt as if I’d truly come home. Some people scoff at the Welsh concept of hiraeth – a deep sense of longing for, and connectedness with, the land of Wales to its people and to its history. Hiraeth is probably the most tangible and real explanation I can give for my Welshness as it’s nothing to do with the more conventional Welsh icons all of which, other than the Red Dragon, are recent inventions.  It’s only slightly connected with rugby – that’s only been the national sport since December 1905; it certainly has nothing to do with thick woollen shawls and silly tall hats – an invention of Lady Llanover in the 1830s;  daffodils only became a Welsh emblem in  1911, courtesy of David Lloyd-George, and the Welsh flag was only officially recognised in 1959!

No, I’m a Welshman because I know I am. I cry when I sing Calon Lân or Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau. I’m profoundly moved when I hear Katherine Jenkins, Bryn Terfel or Cerys Matthews. I am joyously transported 1400 years into Celtic history when I sit in Penmon Priory and think of St Seriol and St Cybi in their daily meeting at Llanerchymedd after a 20 mile walk. I long for their connectedness with God and with the land.

It’s all summed up in a line from our National Anthem (also found on the edge of Welsh £1 coins) – Pleidiol wyf i’m gwlad – True am I to my country. 

Dw i’n Gymro balch.

Where are Welsh radicals of history like Anaeurin Bevan who single-mindedly fought to establish the National Health Service in July 1948, ensuring my birth seven weeks later was free to my parents at the point of delivery (literally)? Indeed one of his famous quotes could be his verdict on current politicians.

We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run down.

We sadly miss Welsh radicals like David Lloyd-George, who for all his deep flaws, was the architect of educational reform and social benefits. He got to the heart of the matter when debating in Parliament on the new idea of unemployment benefit:

You cannot feed the hungry on statistics

Our lightweight, self-serving and ineffective politicians seem to have had every drop of radical blood removed and simple don’t or won’t recognise the need for radical solutions to the issues faced by today’s society. Indeed, they would shy from the dictionary definition of radical:

…a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods

My passion for justice has been fuelled by many people who were uncompromising in their quests for reform. People like the great Christian reformers such as William, Wilberforce, John Groom, John Newton, Lord Shaftesbury and Elizabeth Fry. Campaigners for equality and social justice like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King.

When I grew up, my teenage years were the 1960s and I drank in every drop of news and information about the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-Vietnam War movement and shaped my musical taste with the protest songs of Pete Seeger, Woodie Guthrie, Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Phil Ochs, Donovan and others. Thank goodness we still have Billy Bragg today carrying the torch – his unaccompanied singing of the Internationale always has me in tears.

Students were at the vanguard of reform in the 1960′s and individuals like Daniel Cohn Bendit and Tariq Ali were young focal points for students and others. Today, the Occupy Movement has adopted the view, misguided in my opinion, that everyone is equal and no individual needs to be a leader or spokesman. They need to learn the lessons of history – battles are fought around a leader and a flag. Wider society can then evaluate the arguments in the way they are familiar with.

I’ve given up on today’s politicians. There are young people out there burning with passion, energy and zeal that need to declare themselves, step up to the plate and be the leaders they are and then change Wales, the UK and the wider world for the greater good of the people.

Gary Speed

In a week when sports fans throughout the UK were saddened by the suicide of Gary Speed, I could not believe what I was hearing on the BBC1 One Show when Jeremy Clarkson made tasteless, insensitive and grossly inappropriate comments about people who chose to end their life on a railway line. For some reason, the media only latched on to the comments he made about strikers, who were demonstrating that day and our newspapers and TV have reported on the huge offence he gave to the trades union movement, generating some 25,000 complaints to the BBC.

In his regular column in the Sun on 3 December, Clarkson continued his whining complaints, describing those who choose to jump in front of trains as “Johnny Suicide”. He went on to make outrageously offensive comments about the bodies of those who had died on the railway Clearly, Clarkson has not experienced the torment of someone whose life is so excruciatingly painful that they see no alternative but to bring it to an end or the pain of the relatives who blame themselves because they did not read the signs of distress.

Last Monday, another man took his life. That man was Roger Crouch from Winchcombe, Gloucestershire, father of a 15-year-old boy. Dominic Crouch, who had six months previously, jumped from the roof of a six storey building because he had been unmercifully bullied at school. Fellow pupils in Dominic’s Gloucestershire school had taunted Dominic, calling him gay. Shortly after Dominic’s death, Roger Crouch was quoted as saying,

“If Dominic had not been the subject of rumours that he was gay it is highly unlikely he would have taken his own life.”

Roger & Dominic Crouch

Roger became a tireless campaigner against teenage suicide and was awarded the Stonewall “Hero of the Year” award earlier this year. At the ceremony, he said,

“I see this as an award for Dom. By choosing us for this award you’ve also chosen to take a stand alongside all the young people whose lives have been ended by bullying.”

His wife Paola posted a moving piece in the Facebook page, Friends of Don Crouch against Bullying,

“I have the saddest news to give you. The love of my life and Giulia and Domi’s beloved Dad, died tonight. The changes you have started, for young people everywhere, the work you have done against bullying will remain as a towering monument to you. Our hearts break Roger, Domi, Giulia and I loved you so much.”

This is the reality of suicide that Clarkson has chosen to trivialise: three lives needlessly ended, two families devastated, many thousands of people who held Gary Speed in regard confused and distressed, the friends and families of Roger and Dominic shattered and distraught.

–oOo–

Useful support organisation related to suicide:

PAPYRUS UK Support organisation for teens thinking of suicide
Samaritans General support line
The Trevor Project USA Support organisation for gay, lesbian youth

Steinbeck was clear about the guilt of the bankers in the Great Depression. As he prepared to write the novel, he said of them,

“I want to put a tag of shame on the greedy bastards who are responsible for this [the Great Depression and its effects].”

He made a statement in chapter 5 of the novel, published in 1939, which is even more true in 2011:

“The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It’s the monster. Men made it, but they can’t control it.”

Then in chapter 14 a passage could have been written for the “We are the 99%” of the Occupy movement:

“This is the beginning—from “I” to “we”. If you who own the things people must have could understand this, you might preserve yourself. If you could separate causes from results, if you could know that Paine, Marx, Jefferson, Lenin were results, not causes, you might survive. But that you cannot know. For the quality of owning freezes you forever into “I”, and cuts you off forever from the “we”. “

In 1962, he won the Nobel Prize for Literature despite the New York Times vilifying the award the day before,

“The Swedes have made a serious error by giving the prize to a writer whose limited talent is in his best books watered down by 10th-rate philosophising”

However, the Nobel Prize committee cited Grapes of Wrath as a “great work” and as one of the committee’s main reasons for granting Steinbeck the prize.

The saddest thing for me as I leafed back through my old copy of The Grapes of Wrath was that we never seem to learn the lessons of history. The Second World War that came hard on the heels of the Great Depression prevented social unrest arising from the poverty and anger from finding expression against the privileged few who prospered. We have fought two world wars and are still embroiled in military action overseas. People are finding expression for their anger and frustration through the Occupy movement. Let’s learn the lessons this time.

Footnote: Three unrelated Steinbeck facts.

• Despite what most people think, “I know this… a man got to do what he got to do” was not said first by John Wayne, it was a quote from The Grapes of Wrath.
• John Steinbeck Toured Wales in 1959 whilst researching The Acts of King Arthur and his Noble Knights which was published posthumously in 1976.
• He used George Borrows’ wonderful book Wild Wales: Its People, Language and scenery for background for his first novel, Cup of Gold, about the Welsh pirate Henry Morgan.