Guide to Skiing – Learning to Ski with a chance of The Great Escape
In this installment of our guide to skiing we look at learning to ski…
Standing up, turning, and stopping, are the three basic skills you will need to master if you want to ski.
Start by standing, placing your feet even with the width of your shoulders and making your feet “pigeon-toed” with the tips of your skis pointing inward and forming a “V” – this is called a ‘snow plough.’ The following three steps are next – (1) create a more stable stance by slightly bending your knees; (2) increase your balance by spreading your arms out widely; and (3) help your turning and stopping by leaning forward.
Moving forward / down is no problem as your skis will automatically do so on even the slightest slope. To go faster, make the triangle / V shape of your skis smaller at the back (i.e. move your heels closer together) and, to slow down or stop, turn your toes more inwards and push your heels further apart. Doing the latter will work on small slopes, but for steeper slopes, to slow down or stop you’ll need to gradually turn your skis so they face horizontally across the slope, instead of vertically down it.
Turning is really not much more complicated than moving forward on skis (simply point your skis in the direction you want them to take you), except that it will require that you find your comfort zone with balance and timing before you will be able to do it well.
For sharper turns, you’ll need to move your weight from foot to foot (i.e. to turn sharply to the right, put more weight on your left foot and, to turn sharply to the left, put more weight on your right foot) as well as pointing your skis in the direction that you want to go. You will master sharp turns more quickly if you will remember to move nothing but your feet while turning, as moving body parts like your arms and shoulders is not necessary and can decrease your focus on the body part that’s actually effecting the turn.
Want to know more? Click here to continue reading our guide to skiing: Learn To Ski
Features:Off plan detached chalet
Ski in and out to Megeve
5 en-suite bedrooms
Use of large volumes of glass
Large open plan living floor
Fireplace in living room
Fully fitted kitchen
Just 1 hour from Geneva
Stunning viewsThis superb project of 4 luxury high specification detached off plan ski in and out South facing chalets will be perfectly positioned directly on the slopes of Combloux. Only 4km by car from the year round Mecca of Megeve, offering magnificent uninterupted views and just 55 minutes from Geneva owners will be able to ski from their doorstep to Megeve and back while the greater Megeve 325km network awaits.
Utilising large volumes of glass to capture the stunning views while providing copious amounts of light in the chalets, each property with its own access by car during winter to their own integral garage will be constructed with old wood typical of the architecture of the area.
Chalet 1 itself of 231sqmhabitable surface and sitting in its own 349sqmparcel will be split over 4 floors and provides accomodation of 5 en – suite bedrooms (option for 6th bedroom).
The chalet will comprise:
2 double en-suite bedrooms, 1 en-suite twin bedroom both with access onto shared balcony, cellar and local technical area.
2 double en-suite bedrooms both with reading area, laundry room, and ski room.
large open plan living floor with panoramic windows, fireplace, access onto large balcony for entertaining or relaxing, spacious dining area, fully fitted kitchen with breakfast bar, WC and double car garage.
Option of either 6th ensuite master bedroom or secondary tv room and study dependant on client wishes.
Offering a great selection of restaurants, shops and entertainment of its own, Megeve itself with its golf course is just 4km away making this a great opportunitiy to own your own luxury chalet on the slopes in one of France's most famous ski networks.
For more information, plans and to arrange a visitplease contact us.
Video Rating: 0 / 5
The Great Escape
Image by Julian Partridge
* If it feels right, it is [and vise versa]
Johanna didn’t like my first drawing.
I was sat there, having placed myself deliberately out in the open in the lounge of my mum’s flat instead of at my usual spot tucked away in my mum’s little cubby room working on this computer.
I was sat there at my mum’s timeless old oak dining table, enjoying catching a glimpse of Johanna as she flitted about, beguilingly shoving my mother’s ancient hoover around the flat ahead of her, smiling beguilingly whenever our paths crossed [as she always does].[Johanna calls me You-liun, whenever she says hello to me.]
Noticing me drawing at the table, Johanna – Yo-hanna – had come away from her hoover for a moment and had walked over to be beside me at the head of the dining table to look at what I was doing.
"I don’t like your drawing", she’d said to me immediately, instinctively repulsed.
"It has bad energy!" she’d said. "You must be positive!!" she’d then coaxed in a caring, correcting-motherly sort of a way [she has a teenage son back in Poland she goes back to be with every 6 weeks after her 6-week intensive, money-gathering work stint here in the UK).
Johanna had clearly thought that I was dwelling on the negative far too much.
"It’s a poster for economics", I’d appealed, trying to shed the responsibility for the nasty grey image I’d just created.[I’m smiling now as I write this – I’m back there, drawing at the dining table on Johanna-Friday, watching Johanna flit about, the kitchen radio playing happily in the background…. She really makes my mum’s flat an extra special happy place to live in – I love her for it.]
That grey, obnoxious image of absurd expectations and cruel threats given one’s certain failure to perform, had been inspired from notes I’d just made about performance management, and those emerged from me reflecting and trying to unpack that bloody JCP’s shoddy treatment of me and people like me, and the callous control regime that it is all born out of – born out of pure, black, negative force and hate.
You see I had just sketched out a menu of alternative decision-behaviour-control-return performance management patterns the other night.
There were the positive, loving-parent and responsible adult, happier kinds.
But there were also a couple that had made me feel sick to the core [I’d labelled them Abusive and the worst one, Psychopathic].
And then there was the one I’d labelled Autistic – I realised that was relevant here, too.
Drawing that horrible grey image to illustrate this idea on the following day, I’d subconsciously fallen on the unpleasant, negative scenario as my focus [I am bitter and angry at what this all means to me when I remind myself of it all. Writing that letter to David Cameron was intense for me. And current events on the news and the barrage of gutter politics spewing forth, and my endless inappropriate treatment, and the prolonged …. suffering of my family and close friends…with no end yet in sight — I am ashamed to admit it, but it *is* hard for me to lighten up sometimes! But I need to get all this out.]
Johanna had seen straight thru Julian’s playful little mask.
She’d seen my residual distress in her very first glimpse of my face and in that horrible grey image that I was busily drawing [although she had no idea at that moment why I was drawing it and what lay behind it all].
You see: Johanna has *insight*.
I had been intending to make that nasty grey picture my visual summary of how NOT to let things work, here in our little community of Great Britain.
But Johanna is just what the doctor ordered.
Just bellowing hellfire and damnation from your pulpit, pretending to be the scariest control freak in the valley – attempting to control by fear and force – is never the best way: it’s just too damned negative!!
And now, look: here I was about to do it myself!![don’t bitch and blame – focus on the positive and empower, Julian!]
I always have the Before plus the After visions both in mind when trying to make it clear to myself what good looks like and what I want to move away from, so [and, as if by black magic, to invisibly please Johanna and thus to make myself feel good about myself in this work in knowing that this would have pleased her] I threw myself into the latter – that’s where that sunny image of a happily messy yet industrious childhood bedroom and its always-open door to its exciting adult world beckoning beyond the maternal threshold all came from.[lego together was our thing, in the House of Julian].
And so I’d drawn that happier picture this day, Sunday, full of colour and sunlight, very proudly and happily sat again there at my mum’s old dining table over breakfast this morning – driven as I then was by my vision of something clearly much, much better; wanting urgently to make it real.
I see good performance management – a form organised behaviour control – as A Good Thing.
However I know you need to fit the right performance management regime to the right performance management problem.
Done right, the value of good performance management to us is in the power that it affords us to give ourselves a substantially better chance of realising our own vision of our own success.
Done it wrong – as some kind of lopsided dogma monster – and everyone suffers.
So performance management must be a well-engineered, measured solution.
Where a person or group feel that there’s a real chance of losing something of importance to them, thru their would-be neglect of effective control, then there is a need to implement that precise degree of control to ensure that everything performs happily in the end. In this case, more [ie more effective] control is A VERY GOOD THING.
I’m labouring this point because control has a bad rap in some circles.
You blunder in and unwittingly just so much as utter the first syllable of the word "CON-TR…" and some people [like my beloved sister for instance] explode into hellfire, as a fire-breathing dragon with very bad indigestion.
And look at me: I’m whingeing-on here about feeling over-controlled and under-served to the point of ruin by Big Dave’s "back to work or no benefits" regime!?
I now see this matter quite clearly:
The word ‘control’ is a poor relic of a word from our usually quite trusty English language – it has vastly different meanings in different contexts for different people.
My sister rightly puts leads on her dogs when she goes out for her daily dog walks; and even with their tangible leads taken off once all are safely situated at her local dog-running park, her dog menagerie still just sit there obediently, loyally wagging their tails, waiting with great excitement [daring to not so much as fart] unless and until my sister – their undisputed leader – has given them that now very well-rehearsed twitch of their mistress’s eyebrow – the signal that means they are now let off their invisible psychological leashes and are set free to play as they might [in a controlled manner].
An elaborate and kind-hearted system of performance management and control, skillfully implemented and maintained. Yes?
Er, No: Big Sis will never accept her Little Brother calling what she does that! Responsible dogmanship, sis might wish to call it [maybe!?…]
You see, I think my sister has a conceptual sunburn issue with the whole "control" idea – means something very stupid and hurtful to her I think.
I agree: it often can.
In a toxic relationship, when a mean partner might cruelly deny you basic human nourishment unless and until you perform some degrading act to their own self-satisfaction, for instance.
That would certainly be regarded by most as "controlling" ie "nasty" – but in this scenario the oppressor is being mean to his/her partner into the bargain.
So, yes: it’s not healthy control. It’s over-control. Bad control. Cruel!
However, particularly in formal project management circles, the systematised use of the word "control" is also very positively regarded.
Control is seen here as the whole point of all your investment in an elaborate system to support your entire enterprise – it’s the necessary business function that’s tasked with capturing your family’s inspiring vision of the future; with making solid plans to achieve that vision; with delegating a sufficiency of effort to implement that plan; with ensuring that it is efficiently applied within an organised environment of serious and yet joyful industry; and with the monitoring and steerage of all that to secure your ultimate success.[very much like the 2012 London Olympics!! – brilliant example of positive control.]
For project managers, control is a no-brainer: if there’s value then there’s risk and if there’s risk then there’s a need for effective control.
And to deliver that effective control there needs to be a fit performance management regime underpinning it all – starting with a competent plan. Otherwise forget it.
Ie forget about the whole enterprise, I mean!
For without the right form of performance management and control, THE ENTERPRISE SHALL FAIL.
So all enterprises [note: taking one’s family of 26 dogs, 14 cats and the moulting budgerigar out into the local community for its daily walk is also a kind of "enterprise"] all enterprises benefit from a solid control regime of some description.
But there is always the yin and the yang to them; the fuzzy and the concrete; the duties and the freedoms; the unconditional nourishment and the bonuses for extra effort and high achievement.
The formal performance management system shall secure our essential hierarchy of must-haves, but it must also deliver us a plenty of built-in liberal spaces for all our unavoidable unknowns; for new discoveries, and for all our nice-to-get optional extras.
In social settings, sure, there’s the need for the occasional strong arm around the shoulder when appropriate, but this must necessarily come with an abundance of the I-trust-you-Julian-carry-ons very prominently in the mix.
And vitally, all enterprises and their formalised administration systems must be born out of a good heart.[Otherwise what are we all here for!?]
But this is not news to anyone these days.
So why does it go wrong?
Well, one reason is that the bigger an organisation gets, the more you need to de-skill to afford its size, and the more you use low-skilled staff to keep costs down, the more you need to orchestrate the simplest of tasks. And the more you try to pin down everyone to just these tasks, the worse it all behaves.
This is bad enough in "safe" environments like engineering – the source of much industrial misery and unrest for us for decades. But when there are people being "processed" instead of nuts and bolts – watch out!!
Another undesirable effect with size is chinese whispers.
Massive government organisations based on billion-pound service-provider pyramids delivering immature service designs will suffer from the mother of all chinese-whisper syndromes [even if they manage to get their service design and staffing right at the coalface – big if!!] A harsh voice at the top of the pyramid unavoidably becomes the brutalising regime at the bottom.
My work programme provider office manager was just lapping-up the use of his favourite word "brutal" to describe his conception of the government’s new back-to-work regime now being rushed down his tubes. But he clearly was lacking the insight to realise and acknowledge the truth: that he was part of the evil. He and his bottom-tier government welfare agency [a social charity] – hastily set-up to capture the huge pot of profit being doled out from above – are psychologically one step removed from feeling morally obligated to take care.
* In this fuzzy dysfunctional pyramid of our own design, no one is to blame for their own immorality.
And this too has just occurred to me: Law.
The legal system itself is the greatest chinese-whisper machine ever conceived by man or beast!
Through the time-honoured machinery of Justice and Good Government, humanity and economic sanity get elaborated and transmuted into some of the worst kind of community toxins Civilisation has ever seen, via this HUMONGOUS chinese-whisper merry-go-round:
But of course it all starts very well, mind, with…
GENUINE HUMAN AND PROFESSIONAL CONCERN for the most important and pressing social and economic matters of the day.
For instance: A man struggles to keep his job, fails, then he and his whole family becomes distressed, economically and emotionally. His friends fall next and then the neighbours and his business contacts [whom he never really got on with but now needs to "network" to seek work, as all the conventional vacancy boards are barren] and so now public concern is rightly recognised by those in a position to take the necessary corrective measures to assist.
Now this is then beautifully morphed, thru time-honoured and delicately honed civil practice into:
ORIGINAL LAW [where a lot of genuine MP and Civil Servant effort is spent on dotting all the civil liberties and crossing all the cost-effective system-building powers… and whilst the heady concoction of media and election brownie points for the most vocal advocates is seriously at stake]
Like that Original Law the Jobseekers Act 1995 [ I know: that’s not the original law either, but allow me], which starts: "An Act to provide for a jobseeker’s allowance and to make other provision to promote the employment of the unemployed and the assistance of persons without a settled way of life. Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:"…. Sound’s all jolly good! Yes? Should be: Look! The Queen’s even put her Good hand upon it!…]
Now the chinese-whisper dry rot attacks, as the first layers of this glimmering legal iceberg, invisible just below the frozen media waterline start to kick in, morphing that Original Law into:
AMENDED LAW [where no one cares and all manner of cruel twists can get put in on the nod – this is where Georgie Boy gets to ply his evil, along with his best buddy, Mr Silent Death, that other welfare reforming Saint; you know the one; that leadership failure; that socio-political luminary possessing all the warm-hearted intellect and charisma of Dr Shipman…. wait a minute!… It *is* Doctor Shipman! Well I never!?]
Eg we find this: Shipman’s Welfare Reform Act 2012: "…The amount of an award of universal credit is to be reduced … if a claimant … fails for no good reason to comply with a requirement imposed by the Secretary of State… [for a period] not exceeding three years…"
THREE YEARS!! No food for 3 whole years!!! Shipman himself got less, didn’t he!??
Just imagine.. if the Great British welfare pyramid, by some random statistical anomaly, had just a few chinks in its implementation, and if some poor souls became sanctioned by mistake…
Gosh! Imagine. No money for three years!… I better do a cashflow spreadsheet to see if this has any impact on my winter skiing trip this year… Three years! oh well – the guy who’d get a sanction probably deserved it – not worth delaying the legal instrument for that! After all, we’ve got a whole raft of Queen’s speech stuff to deliver this parliament. Must press on.
But then there’s more, much more.
Because this then silently and sneakily, deep below the frozen waterline, out of all media interest, gets cunningly morphed into:
GOVERNMENT AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS [where Big Brother Frankenstein is bolted together – including Doctor Shipman’s personal precise and favourite definition of what "one bowl of warmish soup" shall mean [at most]]
which morphs into:
DWP SYSTEM DESIGNS [no "design" at all here in fact – just throw out change after change and lash it all together with big dollops of the welfare IT budget to make it at least appear "professional"]
And CRITICALLY: this is where the good top man – that Secretary of State – gets dehumanised and cost-effectively systematised into the form of any mean and moronic robot that the DWP or any one of it’s 1000 parasitical agencies deem as fit to put into her most honourable shoes.
That "Advisor" facing you now has all the powers of the Queen’s Government over you.
The powers to feel pleased; or to sanction you at will.
But powers are not enough. Abstract systems need routinised human procedures to deploy their power and apply real social force. For, in a democratic society, all persons [whether he be a good’n or bad’n] shall require Due Process.
And in a huge pyramid system like this one, where complexity abounds and where operator skills are very hard to find, key [life and death] Decision Makers shall always require clear rules and informative guides if they are to have any chance of knowing how to play their small part in the whole.
And so, through this careful implementation, we might genuinely hope to deliver the overall system competence that the voting public truly deserve.
So then, our glorious system designs now get further morphed into:
JCP DECISION-MAKER GUIDES.
These are quite well written now, actually, but totally ignored by the front line operators who have neither read them nor passed any multiple-choice test on their content, and who feel compelled to misquote them gaily [to protect their power bluff over the claimant] in a sick welfare centre game of Trivial Pursuit![They are immense documents buried in immense DWP websites]
And thus we find, buried in these quality management marvels [carrying the full, transparent legal weight of Clause 42.3 Part a. 1 Amendment 4 Part B Item 3c of "The Act"] a little inconspicuous annex; a simple table which briefly informs the Decision Maker [and the "customer" too, if only they had bothered to write a claimant guide] how these justly measured sanctions are now to be fairly and proportionately metered out:
"… failure to participate with work programme… missed appointment… immediate sanction… 26 weeks…. pregnant girl… cut benefit to £6 per 24 hours… healthy adult male…. cut benefit to………. Nil – no claim to hardship; no interim survival payments during appeal……… [I wonder how long the appeal is???… prob only a couple of days… hmmm….] ….. Ah! Appeal…. delay unspecified….. Access to legal aid?……………. Nil. Crisis loans?……………. barred if sanctioned."
Oh dear.[so when that JCP welcome desk lady said everyone get 60% at least, she was not speaking the… errrr….. Truth!!?]
Oh gosh: do hope my work programme advisor likes people like me!!
And then these beautifully crafted quality management guides get morphed into:
JCP FRONT LINE CUSTOMER SERVICE PROCEDURES [including those warm-hearted Customer Service quality posters flanked by all those gently smiling security guards with in-ear walkie talkies…]
DWP Customer Service Procedure.
Document Number: 14-1234-16.b-2013-rev107.46.23-Beta.
Title: JCP Advisor "actively jobseeking" customer review meeting.
1. Make meeting [stonewall all customer requests for personal choice]. In the event customer declines Advisor’s first convenience,
a. press F7 [block payment for previous 2-weeks + report a doubt as "available for work" to line manager for customer interrogation]. ** note to keyboard operator: take care to not press F9 by mistake
b. inform customer that all his benefit payments are now suspended indefinitely; that his benefits may be reduced or cancelled going forwards; and DO NOT promise any time for the next tortured process to complete it’s grim course
c. deploy stonewall "tough love" face
2. Require written evidence [in a form to satisfy the Advisor, not the customer].
3. Presume customer’s guilt and the DWP’s 100% infallibility of its entire system.
4. Challenge veracity of all evidence presented aggressively ["tough love" policy review, November 5th, 2012].
5. Read secret information links to customer’s work programme provider case folder for any reports of the customer’s failure to participate. [do not disclose WPP reports to customer – even if he begs]
6. Upon first failure noted:
a. press F9 [block payment for previous 2-weeks + submit to decision maker queue for initial review].
b. inform customer that all his benefit payments are now suspended indefinitely; that his benefits may be reduced or cancelled going forwards; and DO NOT promise any time for the next tortured process to complete it’s grim course
c. deploy stonewall "tough love" face
7. Be sure to frustrate any attempts our valued customer makes to complain [eg give him the wrong form].
Which at last, deep, deep in the blackness of the icy depths, all morphs into
THAT MEAN DAILY MAIL-READING OLD BAT, PICKING ON THAT POOR DEFENCELESS NOT-SO-OLD TRAMP TRYING TO ASK FOR THAT NEXT BOWL OF SOUP THAT HE’S SURE HE’S LEGALLY DUE.
But of course – let’s be fair here! – MPs were not remiss in putting in that brilliant provision for that rapier-like wrong-righting mechanism, The JCP Customer Complaint Process; imposing the absolute minimum of inconvenience upon our plucky British Law Protected homeless citizen, should he so choose to call upon it’s perfect assistance….. didn’t they!?
So that grey old bitch will never see the light of day… A 1-in-a-million chance!
In passing, I note there is something else potentially dysfunctional about our legal system that we should be mindful of: The concept of the written-in-time Law has become invalid. Its tablets-of-stone quality has evaporated.
Due to too many laws and to too frequent law amendments – as seen today with Herr Cameronz unt Herr Oswald’s red hot machine gun releaze of zee Velfare Reformz – the typical would-be law breaker hasn’t a hope in Hell of knowing ahead of his crime what the law actually is! [The same goes for that would-be honest and striving MP squeezing every personal benefit out of his "lawful" Westminster expenses; or the Tramp, to know what he IS rightfully entitled to claim for!]
I guess that, for the law to work, laws need to propagate thru the grape vine to embed over time and thru years of cultural inseminations. That way the law is mainly effective as a natural deterrent – sort of tacit brain training for the community as a whole – sort of a gradual redefinition of the meaning of Society and Sociable [or anti-sociable] behaviour; so young Julian gets taught by his goodly mummy Right from Wrong as soon as he chooses to leave the womb…
Change it every fortnight as Georgie Boy likes to do and the deterrent value of The Law – it’s scary and numinous reputation on the street – drops to nil; so weakened until all there is left to do is to beef-up Big Brother Frankenstein to have any shred of a chance of making the controlled behaviour happen in practice…
And that will require a whole extra raft of lawmaking and system bastardising…..
And a few more billions of your taxes…
And another reason performance control can go badly wrong is when tunnel vision is allowed to happen.
A hospital culture seeking to protect it’s cherished ranking for 100% appointment success, for example, will systemically falsify its admission stats to show any bed double-booking it does [the only way to achieve this 100% myth without incurring unsupportable excess costs] as the patient’s fault (as a DNA) instead of as the honest and organisationally mature assessment of WFU.
But in doing so, the hospital [a deeply social charity] has then neglected the essential wellbeing of its patients: it’s now systemically "happy" to fail in its primary moral duty![happened to me]
Organisations of any kind are not intrinsically capable of *insight*. Tho human powered, the humanity is all stripped out when people work to a highly time-managed system.
I think all organisations are best seen as psychopaths. To be regarded with wise and careful professional scepticism from their inception.
But this is the opposite of what our newly elected parties would wish us to believe. The incoming government’s massive organisational transformations are always beacons of certain achievement; while the outgoing institution-bastardising government’s white elephants are always the product of their own evil ways.
Another blunder is to allow organisations to become separatist from the communities that they are expected to serve.
When we are allowed to regard whole classes of people as "outsiders" – "foreigners" – we are psychologically primed to allow ourselves permission to dehumanise them – relieving ourselves of all natural empathy and guilt in harming others. In a war setting for instance, bombing the Hun and all his children was tough titty for "it". It’s a natural uneducated homo sapien social thing, I fear.
But this cultural phenomenon creeps insidiously into modern daily life all too readily as well.
Controlling agencies working for the government are naturally obsessed with how they perceive themselves – as keepers of the crown jewels; as defenders against the hoards of "scroungers" banging on their smart office windows from outside. They become oblivious to the reality that they only have a carer’s job due to your plight, their unfortunate care-ee!
Quality "Our Customer is King" posters in this setting are just so much wasted paper.
There is no possibility of a true customer concern here.
It’s you against them. Those "scroungers" are the enemy; scum to be exterminated.
This, I now see, is the root cause of pervasive mistreatment in British welfare centres today.
AND then there’s that positive take on desirable social discipline and effective control, "tough love". What about that?
Tough Love – Julian’s natural family way [sorry, me kiddlees!!] – is good control, but only in tough and loving settings; in work hard and play hard team settings when performance really counts.
As in the military, where one’s life depends on one’s faith in the certain competences of his peers. Delinquency here is not an option.
Sport is another. And within masculine-dominated groups [not to exclude tomboyish females in this mix too] – boys thrive in this tough performance culture.
But tough performance management without the presence of a genuine overriding concern for ALL the members of your unit, team, community or family – without the "love" – is not tough love. It’s just mean.
AND SO, we combine an apparently good precept of something like "tough love" with an entrenched, pyramid-like separatist, rushed-through, mean-spirited, key performance factor-optimised, austerity-cut, anti-social Government "service" and we get?…..
Back to the point then: what about jobs and the economy and all that?
What shall Good Control look like, here?
At the very minute I write this [after faultlessly completing my daily dose of JCP-required pointless job ad flogging, please note] I am hearing that young muppet, Adolf Osborne, bellowing down at me, as he quaffs his benefactor’s high wines and fine cheeses, in his usual affectation of the fury of the self-righteous rich man: "NO HANDOUTS FOR NOTHING!!"
"TAKE JULIAN’S BENEFITS AWAY!!!"
"TAKE AWAY HIS CHILDREN’S BENEFITS TOO!!!", he screams.
And then there’s that mean JCP girl – deliberately withholding Julian-the-tirelessly-carrying-on’s sorely needed money, just so she could keep him wastefully pinned-down for another whole hour, unilaterally bastardising Julian-the-actively-seeking-employment-no-hoper’s jobseekers’ "agreement" he is obliged to make with Adolf for his "money for nothing" food allowance. For he is trapped into submission.
And there’s that other JCP supervisor young lady, flanked by her pet security guards, cruelly denying his last legal access to food until Julian-on-the-breadline jumps thru her mean little office-power-hoop, just to pleasure herself.
And that other young girl, throwing Brighton housing info scraps of paper at Julian-the-streetsleeper, screwing her whole body up at him in a bellow of disgust that he’d dare ask her for her help.
And that The-Computer-Says-No A&E receptionist in Bury hospital, smiling and then turning her back on Julian-the-got-no-money-to-get-home-again-scrounger, jealously guarding what she thinks is *her* NHS patient transport budget.
And the Work Programme coach who plays power games and keeps Julian the job-seeker waiting. And who summons Julian to his desk by remaining seated whilst calling out Julian by his first name across the open plan office, for all to see. And then pointedly omits to apologise for the [avoidable] disservice in keeping his customer waiting. And who snarls, when Julian – naturally somewhat offended, enquires indirectly what the time of the meeting was – deliberately demeaning him: "WHY!? Have you got somewhere else to be."
And that JCP "advisor" person – tasked with changing Mr Partridge’s sign-on time to convenience her office brood but who is now strategically conditioned to not invite a discussion on the matter with "clients" – when Julian [impossibly overloaded yet very tightly time organised these days; an admirable achievement without question, considering] say’s politely: "I’d rather not – it will inconvenience me." – says bluntly: "I have a concern that you are not available for work; I am reporting you to the manager."
And EVERY piece of paper they give you has YOU WILL BE SANCTIONED IF YOU DO NOT COOPERATE daubed all over it. With nothing more informative than that to empower you to claim your fair dues and rightful treatment…
….. do I need to give more examples!?
I think my point here is obvious.
You inject hateful ideas at the top of our national social pyramid as Osbourne and co are continually doing now, and you can expect the most spiteful and sinful cultural exaggerations to immediately appear, as if by black magic, down at the very bottom.
And it’s here, at the bottom, where the outrage really gets metered out; by the thickest and the greyest ones; behind all their closed doors and systematic blind alleys, in a cruel conspiracy of lawful and deadly silence.
Thanks Georgie Boy, mate! Remind me to vote for you and your buddies again next time!
And Georgina has got another couple of concepts tits-up here too [probably deliberately]:
1. Welfare for the poor is not pudding. It is oxygen.
2. The phenomenon of unemployment exists precisely because there is a scarcity in the system of productive work to do. So survival aid during periods of unemployment is always going to be for "nothing" – economically speaking [in the eyes of the myopic bean-counter, that is!].
3. The chronic unemployed mass of under-25s is not substantially due to their "lifestyle choice" to survive on his kindness – it’s due to George’s own ineffectiveness at delivering the easy conveyor from school into work to make it all natural and easy for all those young "scroungers" to succeed by themselves.[morals of the psychopath]
So we have it:
Unfortunate relative poverty becomes godly civil willingness to assist becomes economic aid becomes disastrously expensive means-tested benefit becomes suspicious demeaning and error-prone regime becomes intermittent cash flow for essentials paid in arrears becomes constant atmosphere of threat becomes medical anxiety becomes hostile welfare centre experience becomes wrongful punishment becomes massive personal distress and inconvenience becomes refusal of all help becomes family breakdown becomes blighted communities becomes absolute poverty becomes injury to every aspect of a man’s independent capacity to self-rescue becomes….
NOW, faced with the situation in the picture above, unlucky as you are to find yourself in the hostile "welfare" environment to the far right of the image [to be clear: the one on the far right I have labelled as "WRONG"] what is the sane man in this unfortunate predicament to do?
Well, Number 1: you do the controlled task to perfection, of course! [and usually in a forgiveable state of high anxiety]
But the *SMART* thing to do is not this.
The smart strategy is to do your oppressor’s task just sufficiently enough to buy yourself the necessary time for you to plan and deliver your next, Great, Escape.
The picture Johanna didn’t like www.flickr.com/photos/julianpartridge/10089345416/
Johanna’s way www.flickr.com/photos/julianpartridge/10089340855/
Why good nurses turn bad www.flickr.com/photos/julianpartridge/8310449657/
The letter I had written to Mr Cameron that had upset me so much www.flickr.com/photos/julianpartridge/9873117766/
I suspect that Johanna has insight, not only as a naturally gifted mother but also as she has grown up under Communist Oppression, and had escaped that with millions of others 20-odd years ago: I doubt she wants to see anything remotely like that appear ever again.
Dr Shipman is actually the Secretary of State for all this stuff!
View More 5 Bedroom Ski In Ski Out Articles