[two masters] millet and shishkin

Most know that Jean-François Millet was one of the founders of the Barbizon School, near la forêt de Fontainebleau.


Anyone who has been to Barbizon and walked in Fontainebleau Forest knows the effect that comes over him/her. It is a place which, in a short space of time, burnt itself so far into my soul that my second book, Lemmings, uses this as a recurrent theme which even brings Russians to the place.

If you can call any time in a novel "happy" then those moments in that forest could be called happy and that novel is happy.


Millet was noted for his naturalism and realism - these come out in his famous paintings of the forest and the one below - The Gleaners.

Here is another, celebrating the spring:


This biography of Ivan Ivanovich Shishkin is not going to be of much use to English speakers so Wiki might be better here. Shishkin was known for his magnificent use of light in his rural scenes and these prints show this to a certain extent. His house is open to the public in Yelabuga, Tatarstan and many of his paintings hang on the walls there.

This print above really must be viewed zoomed for best effect - please click.

Yelabuga is also know as the resting place of Anna Akhmatova. That top print [see zoomed] is just so like the Russia I know, even down to the puddles on the track in the forest that Shishkin might have been living in this time.

The delights of rooting around in vintage Hansards, by The Croydonian

I'm delighted to be able to welcome back to posting duties The Croydonian, one of the major bloggers of the Britsphere and his piece on the pleasures of Hansard. Those who know The Croydonian note his to-the-point and sometimes even quirky selection of vignettes from France in particular and of course, at home. He was the Britblogger who kept us up to date during the Segie-Sarko saga.

The Croydonian:

James shares my interest in parliamentary archives, and at his request here is my attempt to justify it.

Some years back I was introduced to the pleasures of raking around in the web edition of the previous day’s Hansard, and have found plenty of things to blog about from reading written answers and so forth.

Apart from a few set piece debates – Iraq, fox hunting etc even the serious newspapers dismiss an entire day's parliamentary proceedings with a parliamentary sketch. Some of those are very good, but it does mean that any sense of what is going on in Parliament, particularly away from PMQs, can only be derived by going to the source oneself.

Presumably this reflects an utter lack of interest in proceedings among the public. Sad nevertheless. Apart from the opportunity to make sarcastic comments in blog posts, I have developed a rather greater appreciation of quite how much activity there is involving the less glamorous aspects of parliament and how very assiduous some MPs are in wheedling out answers from a reluctant executive.

Anyway, the blighters are all in recess and are unlikely to re-appear until the middle of October, having broken up for their hols in July. Doubtless much constituency work will be going on, and I would not deny our parliamentarians a week or two of vacation. However, this had left me rather stumped for daily material, but fortunately some kind souls have digitised the entire run of Hansard going back to 1809, complete with a reasonably efficient search engine.

As such, I have been making hay, starting off with digging up the maiden speeches of sundry noted politicians (Mr Tony's is blogged here), before moving on from Class C to the hard stuff – debates, questions etc from the starting point dates of 1859 and 1909, the attraction of the symmetry being too great.

Here are some jewels dug up from 1909 and 1859 sessions, so as to give a flavour of what is out there:

An 1859 debate on divorce - John Hennessey (Con) “but believing also that the Act thus to be rendered more powerful is the worst Act of Parliament which Her Majesty has ever sanctioned—believing it to be an Act which, on political, social, moral, and religious grounds, should never have been passed".

The generosity of the Daily Mail in 1909: "The "Daily Mail," working in conjunction with the Parliamentary Committee, have made the generous offer of a shed. The War Office has provided, with the assistance of the London County Council, a site at Wormwood Scrubbs, and the shed is in the course of rapid construction". Said shed was an airship hanger.

The same debate on aviation featured this sadly incorrect observation – “Mr Mond (Lib) I do not think that nations in the future are going to conduct their battles by scattering explosives over houses. That is very unlikely to take place. It would be the very reversal of the rules of war which have now existed for a long time".

Quite a quote from an 1859 debate: “The Member for Birmingham expressed fearlessly what he held consistently, and he had a perfect right to believe that there was not a Zouave in the French army who would not prefer a remission of the wine duties to the sack of London".

I am going to continue rooting around in the 1909 Hansard - they had no summer recess that year, by the look of things - although in 1859 they stopped dead in the middle of August and did not resume until 1860. If anyone else fancies regular Hansard trawling, perhaps we could start up a web ring or somesuch.

[late evening listening] hgf presents jazz singing

... and my contribution:

Prisoners and the media (Part 1), by The Jailhouse Lawyer

Below is a post by the Jailhouse Lawyer and I won't go into the content - that's for you, the reader to consider. As well as the issue considered below, there is the issue of whether there are some topics and some bloggers who should or should not get space on this blog. It was suggested by a fellow blogger recently that they shouldn't.

So I'm left with a dilemma. If I restrict this blog to only "respectable" people, as seen by the respectable, then my own reputation is protected and I can be reassimilated into the blogging club but at the cost of this blog's prime directive - to pursue truth with neither fear nor favour.

Or I can let any point of view get an airing - the Imams', the BNP's, the cultists, whoever's - and having been put in writing here, it can then run the gauntlet of you, the readers. Anything put up for consideration can either be embraced or torn down. It's fair game, once posted.

Ad hominem

I'd like to specify more clearly this blog's policy. It's not so much attacking another person that's out but the utilization of incendiary, non-specific phraseology when applied specifically to a reader/blogger. I can call Brown the most gutless, arrogant, incompetent and destructive PM this country has had because there are instances to support that contention but if I say he's a piece of excrement, then that crosses the line, being neither verifiable nor to the point of the political issues. I was once called out by a reader for calling Merkel "vermin". You get the idea.

Thus to the post:

Writing blogs

NOEL ‘RAZOR’ SMITH - HMP
BLANTYRE HOUSE

The prison system has strictly forbidden me to write for publication or have any contact with the media therefore my query for the prison service (or whatever bunch of initials they are calling themselves these days) is this: according to Standing Orders and Prison Rules, convicted prisoners are not allowed to write for publication for payment, however there is no mention reference prisoners writing a blog on the internet; for which there is no payment but merely a chance to express an opinion.

So as a serving prisoner can I write a blog? And if not, can they point out the rule or Standing Order which forbids it? Obviously I do not have direct access to the Internet, but I have someone outside who will convert my typed words for the web, so I am anxious to find out what the objections might be.

I believe this is an important issue which may open up a new avenue for serving prisoners to express their opinions, so I look forward to hearing their reply; though they'll probably draft a new rule forbidding it as soon as they are asked the question. Cynical? Moi?

The Ministry of Justice writes:

There is no specific Prison Service policy on prisoners using or posting blogs, as they do not have direct unregulated access to computers or the Internet. However, in terms of the restrictions placed on the contents of prisoners’ correspondence, PSO 4411 Prisoner Communications Correspondence, paragraphs 7.1 (10) (a) to (e) specifically covers the issue of publishing or broadcasting material by newspaper, radio or television transmission. Whilst the policy does not explicitly mention publication or broadcasting on the Internet, such activities would be viewed similarly to any other form of media outlet, as previously mentioned.

Therefore, if any part of a prisoner’s correspondence on a blog contained material which fell under any of these paragraphs, appropriate disciplinary action could be taken
for breaching these restrictions.

As for the setting up of a blog, by a third party on behalf of a prisoner, paragraph 7.2 of PSO 4411 states that ‘a prisoner may not ask, in writing or otherwise, another person to make on his or her behalf a communication which he or she would not be allowed to make directly, or which would contravene this Prison Service Order’. While this has often been interpreted in the context of one prisoner asking another prisoner to write/send something out illegally on their behalf, this could be applicable to anyone outside of the prison.

"The only blog by a serving British prisoner. Looking stupidity and ignorance in the eye whilst attempting to inject some neurons into the criminological debate. As British prisoners are denied internet access, I post via the Royal Mail and the kind efforts of friends".

Should prisoners be allowed to blog?

By Lifer Ben Gunn

That's the wrong question, really. As long as I don't identify staff or cons, charge money, or rabbit on about guns, bombs or escape plans then the law allows me to inflict myself upon you for as long as I want. Some would find this objectionable.

Whilst I appreciate that view, my response is - tough, deal with it. As a matter of law, my punishment was the loss of my physical liberty; not the loss of anything else. And you need to endure that to appreciate its weight. Having a Blog or a TV doesn't quite make up for loss of liberty. But we are not really talking law here, but more a sense of morality. Should a convicted murderer ever intrude into the public arena?

I blame you that I feel the urge to. I don't write this to feed my giant ego. I write this because there is a total absence of genuine, informed debate around imprisonment. The ether is swamped with trite opinion, fuelled by a mixture of bile, anger and ignorance, and some occasional thoughtful interjection may be useful. Who better to offer that than a serving prisoner, whose life's work has been the study of prisons? On a wider point, don't forget that I remain a part of society.

I may be tucked away in an obscure and dull corner, but nevertheless prisons are part of the whole. Every law, every social obligation and each cultural and politico-economic shift falls as heavily upon me as it does the free person. As a sovereign individual in a liberal democracy I assert an untrammelled right to voice my views. There are those who will instantly argue that my first post should be a profound apology to my victims. And that I should stop at that point. Patience, my enemies, I will of course discuss these things. And my lifetime’s effort to live a non-¬violent life may suggest that I do recoil from my crime and intend to try, no matter how futile it is, to repair some of the social harm that I have caused.

But I refuse to be defined solely in terms of my crime and my past. In the meantime, I hope to inform, provoke and entertain by offering insights into imprisonment that our Glorious Leaders and media fail to deliver. Imprisonment should be a perpetual discussion; the human suffering that follows from crime should be carefully considered, and not relegated to atavistic headlines. Isn't it rather pathetic that it is left to a prisoner to call for this debate, rather than political leaders?

[the instability of canada] yet another election in fall

The beauty of Canada - click to zoom

It's more than a question of definitions:

The first priority for all three of the opposition parties is to define Ignatieff. While he appeared to start strong as a leader, he has been seen to stumble recently. More importantly, he has not clearly established the answer to two critical questions: Why do the Tories need to be defeated now? Why does Michael Ignatieff want to be Prime Minister?

The Conservatives expose Ignatieff's naked greed:

Watch for Harper to suddenly offer Ignatieff a deal on EI. He'll publicly propose a set of reforms that, while not quite what the Liberals sought, are indisputably seen as a compromise. Of course, he would make this gesture knowing that Ignatieff has crossed the political point of no return and will be forced to reject any offer.

And what Ignatieff's about:

The leader's ambition and the ever-present Liberal Party sense of entitlement seem to be the proximate cause of Ignatieff's election fever, rather than any rational plan to break the deadlock that has delivered five years of political turmoil and precious little constructive policy.

So we have a man who has naked ambition to be PM, he is pushing hard for a fall election, quite against the wishes of Canadians and to justify himself and get people onside, he promises this sort of thing:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff pledged Wednesday to erase the projected $50-billion federal deficit if elected into government -- and to do so without raising taxes.

Canadians might like to look at the way the socialists over here sold off our gold at firesale prices and plunged us into debt to finance both the blunders and the policy breakdown. They might like to look at trillion dollar Obama and his plan to cripple the States.

It will be interesting to see how Harper plays Ignatieff. IMHO, Canadians should avoid Ignatieff like the plague.

[cricket short game formula] why not 40-40 in four halves?

This blog is biased towards test cricket over the multi-coloured clowns and always has been. In the days when Yallop led his men against Brearley in that press-on-regardless series of tests at the time of World Series Cricket, when the national teams were deserted in the interests of money by the so-called stars of the time - I was at the test matches, not with the clowns.

However ...

The idea of the 50 over match did grow and it was an"all right" formula for some time as a light counterpoint to the long game.

But ...

There were problems with the formula and circles, fielding restrictions and over restrictions notwithstanding, the 50 over format began to pale a bit. Twenty20 had a much greater chance of success in that it could all be over in an afternoon and didn't suffer quite so much if time was lost to rain. This is also the case with test cricket - there's always tomorrow if one day is rained out.

Having played 20 over cricket, might I posit that it's also too short as a national spectacle. OK for schoolboy matches but the inducement to play rashly within that timeframe is not entertainment, certainly not for those who love the game. I can't see what the pleasure is in seeing blasters and slashers the whole 40 overs. Where's the intrigue, where's the drama?

Tendulkar says 25 x 2 x 2 is the way to go but it lengthens the one day to an awfully long time for the spectators, let alone the players. If it goes to two days, then what's the point? Might as well go the whole hog and have a proper test. 40 over is nice and brings it back to just about the right length.

30? 35?

Why not 40-40 in four halves? Right length for the day in terms of total over numbers but here's my idea - instead of a brand new start in the second innings, it carries on from where you left off at the end of your first twenty. So, if you were 124 for 5 at the end of the first innings, you'd come back for the second at that point and go from there. If you were bundled out during that second half of your innings, that would be the end of it, so spectators would get a shortened entertainment time.

On the other hand, it would encourage teams not to play the slash game, in order to preserve wickets for the second innings, on the basis that the maximization of the number of balls bowled leads to a greater chance of aggregating runs, however slowly [natch]. The emphasis would then be on staying alive for the full overs.