Money for old iron

They are, yet again, debating whether this country should update its nuclear deterrent. So the obvious question is, do we need such a deterrent. Now before anyone does a knee jerk response of an answer to that you clearly need to ask the question of who would we be deterring from doing what. The fact we have long had the ability to kill vast numbers of people by using nuclear weapons, and use that as a deterrent to stop them doing the same to us, begs the same question. 

To that there used to be the traditional answer of, those on the other side of the cold war iron curtain. That has long gone though the weapons and prejudices remain. So who or what have we been deterring since the fall of the old enemies, if that is what they were. I would suggest no one and I do not think we ever did deter anyone who might have attacked us. Either those old "foes" or any other more recent foe. In the wars we have fought since the end of WW2 I am not aware that our possession of a nuclear deterrent had any impact on any of those we were fighting. So much for the theory of deterrence. Did that power ever get us any of the advantages in other parts of the world we had interests in, no. It seems like it was effectively useless for its supposed role, all it amounted to was a waved boast of alleged, and now only historically meaningless, prestige. Of those countries who, by their apparent policies and behavior, pose a threat to others would/does our nuclear weapons have any impact on them, seemingly only in them wanting to be the same as countries like us in having them. They want to join a club with some very unwelcome implications, a club we should never have got into, with some terrible responsibilities, and one that we should get out of right now and use the money saved to some better and constructive ends.

Why do we need what we have? Why do we need to replace what we don't need?  

Nationalism

I suppose I am in the right place, Belfast, to talk about nationalism and why I detest it so much. Clearly I know we all desire and probably need some sense of identity and belonging, but this so often is enlarged and perverted to a definition of boundaries and a consequent exclusion to all those not of your "type." Of course "type" definitions can mean all sorts of classifications, from class, colour, religion, to more ethereal categories such as lifestyle, expectations, outlook, sexual orientation, background. But my more immediate distaste is with this dreadful division of people into national identities and hence mobs of prejudice and aggression. In some respects just as raw and stupid as rivalries between supporters of football teams. Right now we have the Scots, or at least Alec Salmond, wanting independence for Scotland from the UK, Cornwall romanticizes about it on occasion, but we also have the dreadful lessons over Northern Ireland, part of the population wanting unification with the south, another wanting to be held close to the bosom of the UK and many just wanting to get on with their lives. Belfast being Belfast it is spoken with flags on almost every lamppost in the more entrenched areas, parades, bonfires, religions and reference to way too much history of conflict. Even if you sit down with the quiet ones here there is barely concealed resentment arising from the troubles and before.

In many ways these stresses are no different to what we see in the alleged British resentment of being part of Europe and supposedly controlled and limited by Europe. An association of people is a very desirable entity when it is designed and intended to foster cooperation between people for the greater good. So why, as most of us want to live good fulfilling lives, do we not get on with the cooperation and understanding part of the concept and do our best to eliminate the suspicions and prejudices of nationalism, and the desire to prove we are better, brighter, more entitled than that other group over there.    

Evidence of an architectual education mess

Just a matter of days ago one of my posts was on education and opportunity and how a series of happy accidents, dogged determination and luck managed to combine to give me a good career in architecture. I mentioned in it that the initial course I was on was what was called a sandwich course which meant doing alternatively six months in college and 6 months working in and architects office. It gave me a very grounded education in the profession and the skills I needed to develop. Half way through the RIBA refused to recognise that type of course, essentially saying a full time course was the only appropriate way of doing it.

Now because of that sort of entrenched mind set, and the frankly ludicrous concept that design should not be hampered by the realities of construction techniques, they are finding the profession has gone up a conceptual dead end. Give me strength. I grew up at a time when the mantra was still "form follows function," where the appropriateness and efficiency of the building to its purpose should be the main generator of its design. I have, in recent years, been known to complain bitterly when architects, who should know better, suggested that practical considerations should not be allowed to hamper the design flair of the architect. To my mind design flair is only truly demonstrated when the architect can design a building that meets all the often conflicting needs of use, location, materials, cost, and still produce an end product that delights. 

Now the business world has moved on substantially since those days, and the opportunities for the architect to be fully engaged in the depth and complexities of the design and construction process have been seriously eroded. The architectural education format needs to not only reflect those business changes but ensure that the the students, the cost and structure of their education, fits them for the profession they will be stepping into on qualification.

I recommend you to the article that appeared in today' Guardian newspaper on the subject.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/jun/27/pressure-builds-change-schools-architecture

A different Bletchley Park story

In two previous blogs I have agonised about what was happening at a museum near to where I live without actually saying which one I was talking about. This was for two reasons. Firstly I wanted to expose and criticise the management of the place without hurting the visitor relationship with the museums subject, and secondly we had been told not to talk to the outside world about this, so I felt constrained. Me being me, I tried to dance around those obstacles to straight talking and just got myself in a wordy maze of reasoning. Time, distance and the continuing damage being done to the place by misguided management perceptions and decisions, has made such sensitivities seem meaningless as well as the growing body of rage has become more publicly obvious. 

The museum is Bletchley Park, the wartime code-breaking centre and, by dint of people like Alan Turing and so many other independently gifted people, also seen as the focus of the early development of the computer.

The restoration of some more of the old iconic buildings, as well as development of new facilities there is now well under way, but the attack on, and resultant damage, to the reputation and value of the saving and establishment of the museum in its early years also continues. 

This current management inspired crisis is such a sad and unnecessary story and so at odds with the fascination, pleasure and enjoyment that I have seen so many people get out of visiting the place. All, especially the visitors, will make up their own minds about the exhibition, stories told, and the fascination of the place. All of us who have a more direct and lasting relationship with the place will be hoping for a good future for it, we just wish that it could be done with more understanding for the totality of the story, the side history of those who saved it and built it up to today's recognition, and the need to entertain as well as inform.

For another view of this you may like to look at another blog on the subject that, more elegantly and directly, identifies the concerns many of us have. It can be found at http://pedalling-backwards.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/bletchley-parks-unsocial-era.html

Education and opportunity

I go back a bit in terms of years and educational hurdles and so left Junior School in 1955 when the 11 plus exam reigned supreme. Because of my birthday falling in the gap between academic years I was able to take the 11 plus twice. Why twice, well I failed it the first time and, having the quirky opportunity to take it again, I did. Unfortunately I failed it again. This meant the difference between going to a Grammar School or a Secondary Modern. Now my mother was horrified, she believed rightly or wrongly that the local secondary modern schools were not the sort of places she wanted her son to go to, I am not sure whether dad went along with this view or not, but on this topic what mum wanted was the default setting. So they looked at their finances and despite being on a very tight budget they could just about afford to send me to a fee paying college some 5 miles away. It was an odd place as it was one of Pitman's Colleges, that mainly ran commercial courses such as typing and shorthand, but had branched out to run what they called a grammar school course. But the course was very minimal in terms of the subjects it covered as there was no arts or science subjects of any sort. It was intended to get you to GCE level and take the exams in the limited number of subjects you might have the chance of passing.

Towards the end of my time there I was gradually put in for an "O" Level GCE exam or two at a time and got pass marks, just, in English, English Literature, History, Geography and Maths. Not much of an achievement although a great struggle for me, and pathetic by today's standards. By now I had decided I wanted to become an Architect. Why is an open to question as it was just an ambition and hardly based on the subjects I had studied or what I had taken exams in. But despite that I pursued the ambition, went to Art School for two years to boost that side of my skills and knowledge, and studied at night-school to take "A" levels in Maths and Geography. I failed completely to get "A" Levels in either subject though I tried many times at maths, failing each time by just a few marks. I should have been discouraged but doggedness kept pushing me on. I did get an "A" level in Art but the conventional entrance requirements to Architectural College at the time were two "A" levels and those to be Maths and Art. 

Despite this falling short of the basic requirements this was a time when rules could be circumvented if you showed promise in the college's eyes. Several colleges I applied to did not think me suitable material, but I did find one that would take me. It was the quaintly and obviously named Brixton School of Building. Its architectural courses, or more correctly its exams, were not formally recognised by the examining body at the time though getting the necessary approvals were actively being sought. I was signed up for the Sandwich Course. Conventionally in architectural courses at that time you would do three full time college years, take your intermediate exams, do a year out working in an office before doing a further two full time college years before getting your diploma. This was followed by another year in an office before taking the professional practice exam and qualifying as an architect. The sandwich course was the same basic structure but the college time, after the first year, was divided into 6 month stints so that for the bulk of the college years you would do 6 months in college followed by 6 months in an office and so on.

While I and the others were concentrating on our college or office periods the negotiations for recognition continued. Those of us on the sandwich course felt we were getting the best of both worlds with that format, theory and practice bound together if not always integrated. It was up to the student to find work placements and some were better than others. There was a full time course at the college but we felt ourselves more grounded in our studies than them. But to our horror, when the college got its formal recognition just after we had taken our intermediate exams at the RIBA, we found it was only the full time course that was recognised and the sandwich course was required to be closed down. Apparently the RIBA thought that architecture could not be adequately taught part time. Fools. We all transferred to the full time course and I eventually qualified as an architect in 1973.

There were times when I felt severely challenged during my architectural college years especially when I needed to cope with the science of materials, technology and the construction industry, as without that school science I had no base level knowledge to call on. Then there was one college tutor who, when he found out I had only one "A" level, said he would not have let me in and I should be thrown out. His reasoning was a little tarnished by me regularly getting top commendations for my work and designs. Now I am no Richard Rogers or Norman Foster but I have had a successful career in architecture eventually becoming Associate Technical Director at one of the biggest and most successful architectural practices in the country. So those unpromising beginnings were no clue to my future.

My point about this story is that what you can achieve is not judged by what you were capable of as a child especially in terms of exams, or by what college you could or could not get into, especially by whether you went to college, did an apprenticeship, or just plain worked your way up. It is all about you, understanding and pushing yourself, opportunity, and yes sometimes just plain dumb luck of being in the right place at the right time and having some sort of faith in yourself.  

I hope with all this discussion going on at the moment about universities, fees, loans, apprenticeships, etc, we end up with something open enough to allow people like me to achieve something quite extraordinary when you look back at how I started with so apparently little.

Who is listening to who about what, some tips

Given the news about GCHQ listening in to all our communications I thought I would send out an email to friends and family that might make the dour listeners break into a healthy laugh. So the email tacked on to some signs watchers might like to use to work out our/my political affiliations, to give them a few clues as to what to look for re spy in the sky monitoring.

It ran something like the following, and please remember this was written in the UK so the party affiliation colours are only really related to what we are familiar with, other countries and colours are available.
Have you noticed the colour combinations and predominances in your garden and the plant world generally. Yellow tends to be predominate not because it attracts pollinators but because it expresses our Lib-Dem political affiliations. But also have you noticed how our political affiliations vary with the season an early expanse of yellow daffodils and we favour the Lib-Dems, followed by a swing to the blue of bluebells hence the Conservatives then, when the roses get into full flower and the red of Labour or Communist tends to be our preference. So check your gardens for your political affiliations, others will and be making their decisions about you.

What colour is UKIP? Must find out and rip up those plants. Better not google it, someone will be watching and making notes. There is no way I want anyone to associate me with that lot of small minded little Englanders.

After that I realised there are more clues to be garnered from analysing the colour in your garden. Most of the garden proving (and sorry about this) that at grass roots we are favour the green environmentally friendly political parties. At the moment my garden is mostly Green with large splashes of White for pacifism (now that really is true about me) with one area seeming to display the colours of the Suffragette movement.

As yet I have had no rude comments, any comments, in response to my email about my silly joke on GCHQ listening in, but I live in hope and excited anticipation. As one civil rights campaigner put it over here today, there was a vote in parliament recently about a 'snoopers charter' which was lost, and yet they were doing all the time. We are meant to be a democracy, so it would be nice to have a bit of openness, say and accountability, or are we all fodder/sheep/peasants to be used, manipulated and sacrificed to suit some grander and likely very dubious agenda?
Its not the worst thing in the world but it is something we should be able to do something about if the word democracy means anything to anyone.

Behaviour, cause and effect

Following my earlier post on the traumas for volunteers and collection owners at a certain museum I feel I need to explain myself a little. The message was a bit to obscure for those who do not know me or the place and a bit too coy for those who do. So this is by way of an explanation for my coded message and my reasoning. I still do not feel free to fully explain the detail, complexities, and unpleasantness’s of some people’s behaviour at the museum, or identify the museum concerned, though I realise these items may be discerned from the detail and my location, but here goes in terms of trying better to explain/justify myself and my point of view. In terms of the identity of the museum, and so as to avoid my concerns being thought focused on the wrong one, the one in question is concerned with specialist activities during the last war. In fact that background of wartime activities seems to encourage in management and trustees an overly serious and military style attitude which fights against the need for a more digestible story telling format that would better fit the visitor expectation.Just because a museum has a military connection does not mean it needs to be run on military lines, far from it. A museum is a museum, is a museum and, as such, should be run to display well the objects and tell the story effectively that relates to the objects and activities displayed. Good communication is not isolated to the efficiency of the transmission but by the ability of the recipient to clearly understand the intent of the message.

First let me say that I find it very difficult to criticise those aspects of the situation that deserve to be exposed, the behaviour and policies of management staff, without feeling I am doing damage to the place itself, the museum and its contents, and the visitor’s expectations of the place.  I want to be precise in my attack but to use some unpleasant military jargon, there is likely to be collateral damage. There are also aspects of the history of the problems, at the root of some of the current conflicts, which are so convoluted that they almost defy explanation by me especially as my understanding of the twists and turns through the years is insufficient to be a reliable witness statement.

So all of this is at heart why I wanted to speak out but was fearful, and still am, of doing more harm than good. But then silence will not be effective at calling those responsible to account and will also seem to be tacitly accepting the situation, which I and many others most emphatically do not wish to do.

Next I need to say that I am not against progress, change, new starts or lottery funding for big changes and developments, they just need to be well thought out, effective, justifiable in terms of the end objective, well-handled in implementation and respect what has gone before and the efforts of those involved in creating the museum in the first place. That is quite an ask, but not unreasonable nor should it be. During my career I have been involved in a lot of projects big and small but have always endeavoured to get as close as I could to those ideals. In fact I would have thought I had failed if my endeavours had generated as much bad feeling and strife for the others involved as the changes at this museum have.

So why does it matter and why am I so stirred up by what is in essence the clumsy stupidity of some minor bureaucrats? Well first there is the wanton, some think connived, flaunting of the opinions and interests of those who have spent a large chunk of their lives rescuing, fighting for, assembling and explaining the significance of the place and what went on there. Then there is the flagrant disregard for anything but the core message of the place. The pre and post history of the place and its people has either been set aside, junked or suppressed, completely against the advice and recommendations of organizations who are there to monitor standards and the interconnectivity of the history of places and people. How can you refuse to talk about aspects of the history of the place because management wants to suppress those periods/relationships or fight those who hold that knowledge. Then we have the faintly ludicrous and self defeating arrogance of an imposed regime that is not only not what the customers (visitors) say they want, but flies in the face of creating a ‘must visit’ place for the increasing number of visitors that are needed to justify the expense and disruption and subsequent running costs. Days out for the majority of people are not a cramming session on a particular subject or period of history, they are entertainment and the gentle and hopefully the joyful experience of finding out new insights and surprises. What is the point of creating what they say will be a ‘world class museum’, if it fails to attract more than just the specialist visitors. What happens if you employ more staff but have fewer visitors? Have greater demands in terms of numbers of stewards and guides but have fewer of them to do the job? Getting a little more down to the small print there is also the apparent flaunting of the well-being and safety interests of visitors, staff and volunteers with initiatives being introduced that make the situation worse not better. That is just clear ignorance and bad management and completely against all advice and legislation on the subject.

I frankly am astonished at what has happened, continues to happen, and horrified at what it could mean for the future of the place. At a time when there is a much increased need for more volunteers to help do those things that otherwise can’t afford to be paid for, when the volunteers are normally described as being a cherished and vital part of our endeavours, it seems particularly perverse to find a place that, by the actions and attitudes of its management, makes a lie of such concepts. The only benefit to come out of it might be that other charitable endeavours and museums in the area are benefiting from the volunteers finding other outlets for their energies, time and commitment.