#Krakow a weekend visit - the Krakow Half Marathon

I have just got back from my first visit to Poland - to Krakow - Poland's 3rd largest city. It is the weekend of the Krakow Half Marathon - an international event with 15000 runners. I am with my son James who ran in the event and with a large group of his fellow Isle of Wight Road Runners. The run is the centre piece but typical of the Road Runners socialising is as important as is sightseeing in and around Krakow. It made up a full short break.

As usual when I travel I like to do a bit of research and I jot it down here to remind me :

First of all Poland (in no particular order) :

Poland, officially the Republic of Poland, is a country in Central Europe. It extends from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Sudetes and Carpathian Mountains in the south, and borders Lithuania and Russia to the northeast; Belarus and Ukraine to the east; Slovakia and the Czech Republic to the south; and Germany to the west. Therefore it has borders with 7 different countries.

Poland is about 120000 square miles in area and has a population of about 38 million people. The UK is 94000 square miles and our population is just over 68 million. A further comparison England is 50000 square miles and our population is about 56 million. England is therefore much more densely populated than Poland.

It has a 480 mile coastline entirely facing the Baltic Sea.

Poland has one of the largest densities of lakes in the world - over 10000.

Poland is characterised with warm summers (when it has most rain) and moderately cold winters when it averages -1 degree C in December.

Forest covers 31% of Poland.

Poland fought with the Allies in WW2. They were dismayed when the west conceded control of Poland to Stalin and communism after the war.

I do not have the time to write about it now but read the story of Lech Walesa and Solidarity. He broke the back of communism in Poland and set it on the course it is benefitting from today. Among many awards he received The Nobel Peace Prize.

It is a member of the EU and Nato but as yet has not joined the Euro.

Economically Poland has come a long way from its position following the fall of communism in 1989. Extract from Wiki :

Poland is now the 19th largest exporter of goods and services in the world. Exports of goods and services are valued at approximately 58% of GDP, as of 2023. Poland's largest trade partners are Germany, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States. Among its lead exports are motor cars, buses, and vehicle-related accessories, machinery, electronics, electric batteries, home appliances, furniture, cosmetics, military equipment, and tobacco as well as materials such as silver, copper, steel, coal, zinc, tar, and coke. In 2023, the country produced 1300 tonnes of silver and was the 5th largest silver producer globally. As of 2025, Poland holds the world's 12th largest gold reserve, estimated at 509 tonnes.

As a consequence many of the Poles that sought work abroad - many in the UK - are now returning to Poland to take advantage of and help what has become an economic power house.

Poland takes a hard line on economic migrants and asylum seekers and has a physical border with Belarus ( because Poland suspects Russia is behind sending pro Russian Belarussians in order to try and destabilase Poland ). On the other hand Poland has taken in nearly one million Ukrainians and offered them work etc.

Anyway enough of this stuff. Personal impressions of Krakow.

Krakow is Poland's 2nd or 3rd biggest city - 800000 of which 200000 are students attending Krakow's 5 universities.

Well first of all I was not there very long and spent most of my time in the "Old Town" which is no doubt not truly representative of wider Krakow and certainly Poland. The Old Town is a well preserved and up together tourist centre. It is safe, economically buoyant and prides itself on its architecture and many churches and museums. Unlike most of Poland Krakow was not destroyed by the 2nd World War.

Krakow is not a give away but prices are very reasonable. (a quick tip on money. Cards are fully useable. Pay in the local currency. If you want cash you get much better rates at the cash exchanges in the Old Town. They want Euros or even GBP - but they want actual cash - not cards.) It is easy to get to from the airport. I would undoubtably recommended it as a place to visit for a long weekend. However having said that I personally did not find it an inspiring place. Everything is a bit grey including the cuisine. Not easy to get excited by dumplings and Goulash. The buildings in the Old Town are well preserved and attractive. There are large squares and weather permitting a cafe culture. Krakow sits on the banks of the River Vistula - Poland's largest river. (Last year the IOWRR ran in the Budapest Half Marathon - on the R Danube. Without being disrespectful to Krakow - Budapest is a much more engaging city in my opinion.) 

Many tourists come to Krakow to visit Auschwitz (which is possible to visit in a day trip) and guided tours around Krakow that take in the Jewish Quarter - the Oscar Schindler Factory and the area which was the Jewish ghetto. With all this terrible information from a period not really that long ago it is not surprising that at times things feel a touch somber. At this point I will mention that the Krakow Jewish Quarter which was once massive no longer really exist as a place were Jews live. There are now only 150 Jews living in Krakow. Any Jews you identify are likely to be visitors interested in the past.

The way the holocaust played out in Poland is not for here. However I will just write this. As in other places the Nazis decided they wanted to get rid of the Jews. They did so by raiding the Jewish Quarter. I visited "Selection Square" an area now marked by 70 sculpted chairs signifying it was a sit or go arbitrary decision. If you were judged fit you were sent off to forced labour for the conditions and food to kill you. Children, the infirmed and the old were placed in the ghetto to suffer and die in dreadful conditions. When this process was not working quickly or effectively enough the Nazis came up with the Concentration Camp solution of which Auschwitz was one of the most notorious.

We came for the Krakow Half Marathon. Everyone that did it enjoyed it and it is a good one for spectators too. It is a very big event embraced by the city. The route takes runners through the Old Town and for a time, along the R Vistula. It finishes inside the covered Tauron Arena to a lightshow and upbeat music. A special touch.

All in all a fun weekend and great credit to the IOW Road Runners who certainly run hard and play hard. Thank you Krakow too.

Here are some mob pics in all over the place order :

James going well

I did a guided bike tour !

James now tired close to the finish line.

The arena finish to music

Proper black pudding for breakfast.

#Chineseembassy why China says it wants to build a massive new embassy in London and why permission has been delayed?

There is a a contentious issue that our government is currently dealing with relating to China's wish to build themselves a massive new embassy in London. Government permission has been delayed again and has irked the Chinese. I wanted to understand the WHY's so did some quick research using AI which I am now sharing with you.

Why do the Chinese want such a large embassy in London ?

China’s planned new embassy in London, on the site of the former Royal Mint near the Tower of London, has drawn attention because it’s much larger than any other foreign embassy in the UK. There are several reasons why China might want such a large facility:

---

1. Symbol of global status

• China increasingly sees itself as a major global power and wants its diplomatic presence to reflect that.

• Large embassies are part of how countries project prestige and influence — much like the U.S. embassy in Nine Elms, which is also a vast complex.

• The scale sends a message about China’s importance and confidence on the world stage.

---

2. Consolidation of diplomatic functions

• The new site would allow China to bring together all its UK-based operations — consular services, cultural and education offices, visa processing, and possibly intelligence and trade sections — under one roof.

• Currently, these are scattered across several London properties.

---

3. Security and control

• Modern Chinese embassies are designed with tight security and surveillance infrastructure, in part due to concerns about protests, espionage, and dissident activity.

• A larger, purpose-built compound allows for secure internal communications and better management of sensitive information and personnel.

---

4. Growing consular and economic activity

• The UK is home to a large and active Chinese community and student population.

• Managing visas, education, and commercial ties requires significant administrative capacity.

• China also conducts extensive outreach to Chinese nationals abroad through its embassies, sometimes controversially.

---

5. Strategic location

• The Royal Mint site is large, enclosed, and close to central London but still securable — ideal from a defensive and operational perspective.

• Its location near key financial institutions could also serve symbolic or practical diplomatic purposes.

---

6. Soft power and influence

• Modern Chinese embassies often include cultural and media facilities, such as exhibition spaces or event halls.

• These support China’s broader “public diplomacy” and soft-power goals — promoting its culture, language, and worldview.

---

In short:

China’s embassy plans in London are about status, security, and influence. It’s both a practical consolidation of functions and a symbolic statement: that China intends to be seen and treated as a major global power in the UK and beyond.

Why has the UK government, local council, and residents have resisted or delayed China’s plan for a huge new embassy at the Royal Mint site:

---

1. Security and surveillance fears

• Proximity to key sites: The Royal Mint site is close to the Tower of London, Tower Bridge, and other sensitive national landmarks.

• British security services reportedly raised concerns that such a large Chinese complex could be used for intelligence-gathering or surveillance on nearby government and financial institutions.

• Local residents worried about being monitored, given China’s track record of surveillance of dissidents abroad.

---

2. Human rights and political sensitivity

• Since the 2020 crackdown in Hong Kong and concerns about Xinjiang and Tibet, Chinese government activities in London have become politically charged.

• MPs and rights groups warned the embassy could be used to intimidate exiled Hong Kong activists and Chinese dissidents living in the UK.

• There have been previous reports of Chinese “overseas police stations” or informal monitoring networks in Britain, adding to distrust.

---

3. Public opposition from local residents

• Residents of Tower Hamlets (the borough containing the site) mounted a grassroots campaign against the embassy.

• They cited concerns about:

  • Protests and police disruption

  • Heavy traffic and loss of local amenities

  • Security risks (a potential target for demonstrations or even attacks)

• In December 2022, Tower Hamlets Council unanimously rejected China’s planning application, citing “security and community safety” concerns.

---

4. Diplomatic tension and reciprocity

• Some in the UK government view the scale of the Chinese embassy as disproportionate, especially compared to the UK’s small embassy in Beijing, which faces tight restrictions.

• The situation became a symbol of the imbalance in UK–China relations: China demands open access abroad while restricting Western influence at home.

---

5. Timing and politics

• The plan was first announced in 2018, when relations were warmer (“Golden Era” of UK–China ties).

• Since then, relations have cooled sharply — over Huawei, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and espionage allegations.

• Approving the embassy now would look politically tone-deaf, especially with public sentiment in Britain turning wary of China.

---

6. Symbolic resistance

• Blocking or delaying the embassy has become a way for British authorities to signal toughness without directly escalating diplomatically.

• It also aligns with a broader Western reassessment of how much access and influence to grant China within their borders.

---

🔹In summary

The resistance isn’t just about planning rules — it’s a mix of local activism, national security, and geopolitics.
The UK sees the proposed embassy as too large, too close to sensitive areas, and too risky at a time when trust in China’s intentions is low.

It will be interesting to see how the decision goes as successive British governments have been keen to recognise how important good trading relations with China are to the creaking British economy.

#thewisdomofCarson of Downton Abbey and afterthoughts ! Granddads

In the last few weeks I have been binge watching Downton Abbey not having watched it before (on series 4 now - ha!) Certainly it is a page turner and a window into how things used to be - good and bad - not so very long ago. A special mention for Maggie Smith - what a part she plays.)

However it is something that the lugubrious but quite wonderful Mr Carson said in an episode yesterday. I posted it on FB :

From Carson - of Downton Abbey

"The business of life is the acquisition of memories."

Very profound ! Made me smile. xx

This morning on my early morning bike ride his insight (ps I do know he is a fictional character - ha!) was in my mind.

I am not entirely happy with it as a building block or as an approach to life. Surely the essence of life is looking forward. The value of the acquisition of memories is mainly in the form of the acquisition of knowledge and experience to draw on and guide you going forward.

The essence of life is the acquisition of memories, knowledge and experience to guide you into your future.

Having said that I am going to relate to you a bit about my two late granddads. Both were wonderful loving grandparents. Both were significant in my upbringing (and still are) but they were quite different.

Grandad S had lived a colorful life - a Sergeant Major in the Army - 8 years in India. Boxed and played hockey for the Army. I now understand grandad had been a bit reckless in his younger years and caused his family a lot of worries and upheaval - not all good. Liked the horses.

Grandad B - was a bit of a Carson. Ex Fire Service and Railway. Owned and ran a corner shop for years. Loved his football - Exeter City. About the only thing he did without my Nan. Grandad was steady - upstanding - a touch hen pecked. He had a real sense of humour - sardonic is probably the word. I enjoyed his company very much. Now and again I would use his name and call him Fred to tease him. Fred from a 10 year old - ha!

In the latter years both grandads developed heart issues. Grandad S particularly I remember suffered from angina. We regularly visited nan and grandad. They would sit in their armchairs for hours and recount past tales of the fun they had had - the scrapes they had been in - It was enough for them - they were content.

Grandad B however did not fair so well with his latter health issues. He was frustrated by it. It stopped him doing the things he still wanted to do. I guess you would say in some ways he was a little unfulfilled.

I judge neither. I love them both. Uncle Gary told me once when I was a young dad "if you love them Dave and they know you love them - your kids will turn out alright." We have no doubt our granddads loved us. They both died about 50 years ago.

#theworkisbadforyouculture an article by Gordon Rayner. Broken Britain. Welfare benefit claims related to "mental health" out of control.

I have been writing about this issue for several years now. The biggest problem is we have managed to medicalise the normal difficulties of life. Welfare payments are out of control. Here is an article written by Gordon Rayner :

How a ‘work is bad for you’ culture broke Britain

Demonising full-time employment is having a devastating impact on the nation’s psyche – and finances

“Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.” So said Theodore Roosevelt, and for most of the 20th century his sentiment would have struck a chord with workers who believed in the merits of an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.

Not only was employment key to self-respect, they rightly believed it also promoted good mental health. Studies going back as far as the 1930s noted that mental health rapidly declined in those who were unemployed – a glaringly obvious fact, you might think.

Yet in Britain in 2025, work has become demonised as the cause of poor mental health, rather than a protection against it. Increasing numbers of people are being signed off work because of stress, anxiety or other mental health problems. Rather than being encouraged to get back to work, the vast majority of people claiming disability benefits have no requirement to look for work in order to qualify for handouts. The clear message from ministers who dictate the benefits policy seems to be: if you’re struggling with your mental health, don’t even consider going back to the office.

“Never was the road to hell better paved with good intentions,” says Jeremy Hunt who, as a former health secretary and a former chancellor, is better qualified than most to talk about the dangers to both personal health and the economy of keeping people at home on benefits. 

“Every doctor I have ever spoken to says that more social contact is essential for helping people deal with anxiety or depression.

“Instead we sign them off even having to look for work, which leads to more isolation and worse clinical outcomes. Even worse, they get psychologically trapped knowing that if their mental illness improves they could lose their benefits. If we treated the illness rather than parking people on benefits, it would save taxpayers a fortune – and be much more compassionate.”

The benefits doom loop

Today, more than one in 10 of Britain’s 38 million working-age people is in receipt of some kind of benefit for disability or sickness. In some parts of the country the picture is even more startling. Earlier this year, central Grimsby was revealed as Britain’s worklessness capital after it emerged that more than half its working-age population claimed out-of-work benefits.

Mental health disorders have turbocharged this trend. According to the Department for Work and Pensions, a record high of 1.44 million people made Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claims for “psychiatric disorders” as of April this year, up 7.1 per cent on the previous year. That number now accounts for more than a third (38.6 per cent) of total PIP claims, or around £11 billion.

The pandemic undoubtedly plays a big part in these figures, with PIP claims for anxiety and stress both up by 130 per cent between January 2020 (the eve of the pandemic) and January this year.

The issue is particularly prevalent among the young. In the mid-2010s, just 4 per cent of people aged 25 to 39 were recorded as having mental health problems, according to NHS Digital, a figure that has now risen to 23 per cent. Almost one in 30 people in the UK now claim benefits for mental health problems.

Rather than use taxpayers’ money to solve this mental health crisis, however, the Government is funnelling the sick into long-term unemployment. Of those claiming PIP, or its predecessor the Disability Living Allowance, 91.7 per cent have no work requirements attached to their benefit payments.

Work is bad for you

Replacing work with benefits for people experiencing mental health difficulties did not start with the pandemic. During Sir Tony Blair’s premiership of 1997-2007, Labour’s union paymasters waged a relentless campaign to portray workplaces as a threat to mental health.

John Monks, the then-TUC General Secretary, painted a picture of Britain’s workplaces as the most dangerous in Europe, saying in 2002 that “long hours and heavy workloads combine to make a lethal mixture which leads to heart attacks, mental illness and social problems like divorce and alcoholism”.

Far from being “the best prize that life has to offer”, as Roosevelt said, working hard had now become “lethal”.

Monks’ successor Brendan Barber continued the theme in 2005, when a TUC report said that working long hours was “the biggest demon for UK families”, and Barber demanded that employers “prioritise measures to reduce stress”. Barber was given a peerage by Sir Keir Starmer last year and Monks was given a peerage by Gordon Brown in 2010.

Labour ministers paid lip service to pushing back against this idea: work and pensions secretary Peter Hain said in 2007 that “being in work is usually good for people with all types of mental health problems”, while Lord McKenzie of Luton, a junior minister in the same department, said in 2009 that “well-managed work can help to develop people’s mental health, resilience and well-being”.

The problem was that no-one in government was prepared to get tough by restricting the ever-greater flow of benefits to people claiming for mental health problems.

Over time it has become easier and easier for people to claim benefits for mental health conditions, partly because of government policies and partly because of the courts.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, who simplified the welfare system by introducing Universal Credit when he was Lord Cameron’s work and pensions secretary, says: “The biggest problem is that we have managed to medicalise the normal difficulties of life.

“We should be working with the individual to make sure they get talking therapies or other treatment, but that they have to stay in work. The money you save by keeping people in work will pay for those therapies.

“Once you tell everyone you are going to be expected to look for work, take work and stay in work, you will see those claims go down.

“This is not something that is irrecoverable but it does take guts. I have the knife wounds in my back from my work on Universal Credit to show that.”

The British exception

If 21st-century life – or work – was an inevitable cause of depression and anxiety the UK’s mental health crisis would be mirrored in other comparable countries.

Yet it appears to be a uniquely British phenomenon. While the number of working-age people receiving health-related benefits in England and Wales leapt by 38 per cent in the four years to 2024, to 3.9 million people, the figure fell or remained steady in Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the US.

Many of those other countries do not have as generous a benefits regime as the UK. The Centre for Social Justice think tank calculated earlier this year that an unemployed single parent claiming Universal Credit, PIP and a carer’s allowance for looking after a child with mental health problems would receive almost £37,000 a year, or £14,000 more than someone working full time on the minimum wage, and around £6,000 more than the net pay of someone on the average wage.

This is not lost on ministers, but they have so far failed to come up with a solution.

The roots of the mental health benefits boom can be traced back to the Human Rights Act of 1998, introduced at the start of the Blair government. It brought the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, enabling people to sue for discrimination on human rights grounds, such as discrimination over their mental health.

The Equality Act 2010 consolidated anti-discrimination laws, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 formalised in law the parity between mental and physical health, and in 2017, when the DWP tried to distinguish between mental and physical health conditions to keep the welfare bill down, the High Court ruled that doing so was “discriminatory” and they had to be treated the same.

Giving mental health parity of esteem with physical health was a constant theme under the last government, and while it was a laudable aim they never provided the resources to back it up. So while people were being encouraged to seek help if they were struggling, they found that the help simply wasn’t there. Waiting lists for psychiatric assessments and help stretched to months, meaning that people with genuine mental health crises were having to stay at home rather than being helped to recover and get back to work quickly.

Meanwhile, the method of assessing people’s fitness to work has become rudimentary at best – and open to abuse by those who don’t want to work.

Gaming the system

During the pandemic, face-to-face assessments for PIPs – which made it easier to weed out fakers – were abandoned, and to this day many assessments are still carried out over the phone.

Rather than relying on a medical diagnosis, the DWP will ask applicants about their ability to carry out certain tasks, with points awarded for each one. It is a system that is ridiculously easy to game.

Even if the DWP tries to turn down claims, 70 per cent of refusals are overruled by independent tribunals when claimants decide to challenge the DWP’s decision. No government has yet had the gumption to bring the appeals process into the DWP, a move that would allow greater control over it.

Christopher Prinz, a senior labour market analyst at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, who has written a number of books on disability and work, says that offering out-of-work benefits before every in-work avenue has been exhausted is the wrong way around.

“It’s just completely the wrong sequence,” he says. “I told the Government probably 15 times in the last 15 years… they all understood and nodded, but the system remains the same.

“You should not be able to move on to long-term disability payments until all employment support and so forth has been tried. This is a rule that many countries have.

“All the Nordic countries, [as well as] Austria, Switzerland and Germany have such an approach today. You literally cannot offer long-term disability payments until they’ve tried to get you back into employment.”

Prinz says that the Netherlands had a complete overhaul of its benefits system, putting the cost of the first two years of sickness benefits on to the employer. That gave insurance companies the incentive to create an early intervention service that would give people support if they were struggling with their mental health and enable them to carry on working rather than taking time off.

According to the Centre for Social Justice think tank, restricting mental health benefits to the most severe cases could save between £7bn to £9bn per year, which would free up plenty of money to pay for rapid interventions and treatment for people who need it and who would otherwise end up being signed off sick.

Prinz agrees with Sir Iain that unless people are kept in work, giving them support after they have spent months on a waiting list is unlikely to help them back into employment and is usually a waste of time from the point of view of getting the welfare bill down.

He says: “We know from the data that if someone has been out of work for sickness for more than nine months, the likelihood they will ever return to work is quite low. The chance that person will leave the labour market forever is much higher than the chance they will return. So it’s really a relatively short window where policymakers would have to act. 

“You need to have a good policy. If people are away for two to five months and you don’t do anything there, you will lose those people.

“At some point, both an employer and employee need help. But in the UK, the way the system is built, you would eventually end up on long-term sickness, will eventually receive some disability-related payments, and will have been out of work for a year or two before anyone thinks of offering to help you to get back into work. Then you start thinking about that at a time when it’s too late. 

“We can really see from other countries that support offered after [nine months] is often a complete waste of time if people don’t return to work.”

Self-defeating self-diagnosis

Joe Shalam, director of policy at the Centre for Social Justice, says: “The Government’s botched attempt to trim the welfare bill earlier in the year ended in a U-turn because they tried to top-slice across all disability benefits, disproportionately affecting people with conditions like arthritis or cancer.

“Instead they should have focused on the soaring mental health claims and questioned if the system is up to the job of actually providing proper support for those people, rather than parking them at home or facilitating an existence out of work.”

He also believes that too many people are self-diagnosing mental health problems, with recent research suggesting that mental health awareness programmes in schools “end up creating more mental health problems than they solve because ruminating on their challenges and focusing on their difficulties prompts children to become more anxious and worried”. That, in turn, feeds into the workforce when they leave school.

The trend towards companies offering staff “duvet days” or “mental health sick days” has also been unhelpful, he suggests, as they imply that work is inherently bad for mental health.

Gemma Byrne, policy and campaigns manager at the mental health charity Mind, agrees that work is good for mental health and suggests that the workplace cannot be blamed solely for the mental health crisis.

“Good work is often good for our mental health,” she says. “It provides income, purpose, structure and connection. When we’re well supported, paid fairly and are treated with dignity and respect, we can thrive at work.

“However, although poor mental health is framed as the leading cause of long-term sickness, particularly among younger workers, there are significant underlying social causes. Issues such as poor housing, in-work poverty and racism all have an impact.

“We know the likelihood of returning falls sharply the longer someone is out of work, but returning to work when the underlying causes persist can make our mental health problems worse. Early support is critical.”

The shadow chancellor, Sir Mel Stride, is concerned at predictions that the bill for sickness benefits, which stood at just over £50bn in 2020, is forecast to hit more than £85bn by 2029/30.

He said: “Welfare reform can be done, we saw that in the early 2010s when we brought in Universal Credit, brought down the benefits bill and got millions more people into work. But reform requires a government that can get the tough decisions through Parliament. At the moment, Labour seem to be completely failing at that, and in the meantime the bill will only keep climbing.”

In his close ally Pat McFadden, Sir Keir Starmer has at least chosen a new work and pensions secretary with the political heft to attempt change.

Mr McFadden says: “For too long, people with mental health conditions have been denied the support they need to get back to health and back to work.

“We’re determined to change this by shifting our focus from welfare to work, skills and opportunities, and from sickness to prevention, and grow the economy as part of the Plan for Change.”

The Government has set aside £3.8bn for programmes like WorkWell and Connect to Work, which aim to keep people in employment or get them back into work, and has increased spending on mental health services by £688m under its 10-Year Health Plan.

Mr McFadden has only been in the job for a week. But he will need to act quickly if Labour is to have any chance of curing the uniquely British disease of blaming work for poor mental health – rather than seeing it as a vital part of the cure.

#bankruptbritain the Passenger family are heading for the rocks - an analogy.

An analogy - I will try and not make it too contrived.

The Passenger family - dad has a decent job - he earns well. Mrs Passenger and their teenage kids think dad is rolling in it (as dad likes to think he is too). Their extended family think the Passengers are rich. Their material wealth - the house - the cars - their holidays - the house parties. They have an active social life - rich friends - but they are generous to all comers too. They like to be liked - status and reputation is very important to them. They give lots to charities.

However the reality is the Passengers have been living beyond their means for years. Their outgoings have consistently exceeded Mr Passengers income. They have had to borrow. They have no savings. But at the same time they have been in denial - how can they be struggling given Mr Passengers fat salary ? Surely they are entitled to their life style on dad's superior earnings - (much more than the average family). 

But year on year overdrafts have been consolidated as loans, credit cards debt has been built up - from time to time they have remortgaged. All the family have cars - each funded on HP. Put together they have an enormous debt in relation to their income.

Gradually their credit rating has deteriorated. For years the Passenger's were seen as a good credit risk - but  their score is diminishing as a simple credit search reveals the level of their indebtedness - up against all their limits - every year their debt ratio increasing. Lenders are now worrying about the Passenger's.

Their financial adviser explains their position. Yes Mr Passenger you have a good income but look at how many people are taking a slice of the cake. You have two choices or ideally a combination of both. You have to reduce your outgoings and or increase the family income. (why aren't your wife and kids working?). You have to stop your debt increasing - interest payments on the borrowings are going through the roof and your lenders are getting worried. Some credit companies no longer want your business and those that do want a higher interest rate because lending to you is obviously becoming more risky. Pay day lenders might fast become your only option. You will default - if you carry on as you are. Your current lifestyle and position is unsustainable. 

The message should be clear to Mr Passenger - but he is a weak man. He is bullied by his wife - his kids are out of control. They do not take him seriously. They have a sense of entitlement. They are divorced from reality. They cannot make cutbacks. On the subject of work - Mrs Passenger and the kids have various health problems that prevent them from working. Mrs Passenger has ME she thinks. One of the kids has recently acquired an ADHD diagnosis. The other plans to retrain as a You Tube content creator because she wants to be a social influencer. She got bored volunteering at a refugee charity.

Not one of the Passengers are prepared to accept responsibility for the Passenger families dire position and do something about it. 

Bankruptcy looms. Enforced cut backs loom. Misery is coming. A huge dose of reality is coming. What misguided irresponsible fools. You have to earn it before you can spend it and it is not really about how much you earn but how many are living off those earnings and in what style.

 

#whatadviceiscorrect a troubled mind

This is a depressing blog to write - to think about. However I want to face it down. I worry about it because like most people it is potentially close to home and I care about the society we live in and the world we are leaving to our grandchildren.

I will start by putting it this way. Should I be shaping my view and advice based on "striving for a world as it should be - how we want it to be" or should my view and my advice be based "on see the world as it is" ? 

A simple explanation of what I am getting at. You have a right to wear a Rolex at anytime at anywhere. You have a right to to use a cash machine anywhere at night. Anyone that robs you is in the wrong. Why should you curtail your behavior because someone else is a criminal ? Why should we give in to criminals ? It is them that need to change their behavior. It is the law enforcers that need to do their job. It is society that needs to be better - it is not for us to live in our shells - potentially scared. 

This is right of course. This would be the brave thing to do. Don't give in to a shitty world and be complicit in allowing it.

However the problem with this position (very regrettably) is you increase your chances of being robbed - and every additional risk with that - the most concerning of which is of course physical harm. Put another way - you have the moral high ground - but you have been hurt or worse. Surely it would be more sensible - more expedient - to concede the world is not as it should be - as we want it to be - that it is in fact a jungle and you should take precautions ?

Now I am going to cut to the chase. I realize I am touching on very contentious ground. I know there is the potential to provoke frustration - even anger - because I am even raising a dilemma that shouldn't exist or at best - shouldn't need to be acknowledged.

Here goes. Women (girls) should be free to dress and behave in any way they want to without risk of harm from men. Of course they should - apart from anything else - it is a basic human right in a free society.

But - we all know there are predatory men out there. We know there are men out there that do not control their urges. We know there are men out there that believe certain types of dress/behavior makes a women fair game. We are reminded all too often in the news. It is sickening. 

What is to be done ? I have heard the debate - the anguish from women - the frustration - the argument - it is men's behavior that has to change - it is men that have to be educated - it is not a woman problem - it is a man problem - it is men in society that have to learn to respect women.

Of course this argument is right - 100% right. This is the world we want - a world where women can exercise their freedom without judgement or harm. This is what we should all be striving for.

What worries me sick - is we are a long way from the society we should be - in fact depressingly there is evidence we are regressing - that misogyny is increasing and further exacerbated by cultural differences that we are importing. This is the real world.

So what should women do ? Should they behave in accordance with the world as we want it to be - or is it wiser - necessary - essential - for them to be pragmatic - and acknowledge (but not accept) the world is a long way from what we want it to be and shape their lives accordingly.

I wish I felt I did not have to raise this dreadful subject.

#IOWFESTIVAL2025 the chairs issue !

I have always been a big supporter of the IOW Festival and have been to most of them since the John Giddings revival.

Nothing stands still and John Giddings and his team have responded thoughtfully to their target audience and economic realities in a market where there is now a lot of competition from other music festivals. Stating the obvious the overheads of setting up and running a festival must be enormous and the IOW Festival has seen the need to go after the punters who have the money to spend. They can't be blamed for that. The alternative is contraction or failure.

While the IOW Festival has never been as edgy, grungy and diverse as Glastonbury - but as Glastonbury even - the IOW has been moving away from being edgy and grungy. The demographic target has moved away from energetic idealistic youngsters, out and out music fans and old hippies. The demographic target is now middle aged, middle England who have plucked up courage to brave the toilets and the crowds to attend/get their bucket list live festival experience. They have the money to spend. As a consequence the IOW festival has been sanitised - the facilities upgraded and is more a picnic in the park - middle of the road - rather than a full blown real live and let live music festival. 3 or 4 days existing with a cold water stand pipe, wet wipes, pot noodles and booze is no longer for the vast majority.There is more emphasis on families too.

Does any of this matter. Well possibly. If you are clinging on to what festivals used to be you might feel a sense of loss - a sense of lost authenticity. You might feel the line ups lack a bit of edge but that is a matter of opinion although the Sunday line up was very bland and commercial in my view.

However the main change which seemed to really come to the fore at this years IOW is the demand by an increasing number of festival goers for their own personal space and comfort. There has been a year on year increase in the number of people bringing chairs. 2 or 3 years ago the IOW made a rule that chairs could not be used in the front 1/4 / 1/3 of the main arena - there is a designated line (in theory). The reasons for doing this I presume was for safety (crowd movement) and volume (crowd numbers - chairs take up so much space) reasons. There will always be a large element who want to get closer to the stage (it is a totally different atmosphere and experience) for particular acts and it is standing room only when bands are playing. Many come in and go out. This is one of the lovely things I have always felt about festivals - how people can do that and at the same time be nice about it - live and let live - move around - interact - a buzz - often a laugh.

So what happened this year particularly that was different.

Well chairs seemed to totally dominate from the chair line back. More cynically chairs and blankets (and even tables) were being used to achieve a land grab - to make it impossible for other festival goers to move into their space. This was achieved by forming chair circles - at times maybe 20 chairs big. People deliberately set up chair barriers. This was not an isolated phenomenon - sadly - outrageously - it has become commonplace. Worse still, people were territorial - resenting - or worse - anyone who dare disturb their set up or god forbid step on their rug inadvertently or not ! This is not good festival behavior. 

Consequently the limited number of paths (I refer to as motorways) couldn't cope at the end of the main stadium acts because everyone trying to leave had to use them - unlike normally when the crowd would dissipate through the field. Later each day this got even worse because shortage of space meant people were setting up chairs on the paths. People were also using chairs and blankets in the non chair area towards the front.

This became a real issue during the festival on social media and certainly subsequently. Half those commenting referred to "chair wankers" or words to that effect, many complained of inadequate stewarding and were coming at the chair issue from a safety point of view, a lot defended the use of chairs saying the IOW is marketed as a family friendly festival and chairs were needed - and many added the caveat that they were not selfish. A lot bemoaned that the use of chairs especially to form barriers was not music festival behavior - ie it was not the beach or picnic in the park. Some denied the issue and took a get over it stance. 

My take :

• its a  good idea to ban chairs in the front 3rd of the main arena. They get in the way.
• its also mad allowing chairs in the Big Top, Hip Hop and Kashmir tents.
• proper stewarding should stop chairs and blankets being set down on the main paths.
• the really contentious issue is the upper 2/3rds of the main arena - the massive proliferation of chair use and particularly the way chairs and rugs are being used to claim exaggerated(greedy) territory and build barriers. This is both potentially dangerous but mainly it anti social and regrettable. There were a lot of irritated and frustrated people at this years festival and left unchecked will detract massively from what the festival should be as attitudes harden (as they are online). So I 100% back limits being placed on chair use and particularly how they are being used. What those limits should be and how they would be enforced is harder to decide. 
• On enforcement there is a role for stewards but in practice it has to come from people doing the right thing. The organisers have to issue clear directives particularly in advance of the festival opening. 
• On the chairs themselves - I would say no chair circles permitted in the main arena and rows of chairs limited to say 4 or 5. The sad thing is nobody wants rules at festivals but the new breed of festival goers seem to have a different attitude and probably will need to be told how to behave reasonably.

On a practical note I remember at one of the Glasto's the Pyramid arena was getting uncomfortably full. The stewards came around and asked everyone to fold up their chairs and stand. It made an enormous difference to the space available.