Well, it's all over.
As of this week, bin collections in the Leeds City Council area will - hopefully - be getting back to normal. Great news for all residents, who can expect an end to the piles of rubbish on the city's streets.
And great news for the refuse collectors who will have a few weeks of regular pay before Christmas. They may not all be happy about the terms of their return to work, but with more than two-thirds voting in favour of accepting the council's offer, residents can keep their fingers crossed things will not deteriorate again.
Information on what the agreement means in terms of bin collections is available via the council's website. Apart from some slightly conflicting information released over the past 11 weeks, I have to say the bin strike has had little impact on me. My street has not had the dozens of bin bags spilling their contents onto the floor that have been seen elsewhere. We've had no rats (unless you count the one dead one the cats left in the middle of the floor a couple of weeks ago, but given that they also deposited what looked like the remains of a pigeon in the same spot, I'm not putting that down to bin strikes). I tended to side with the strikers anyway, which perhaps increased my willingness to make a few adaptations during the strike action.
But what struck me the most was what I found out about the attitudes of some residents to waste and recycling. After my green recycling bin filled up, I made several trips to the local tip in Harehills. I spotted quite a few other people doing the same, dropping off cardboard and tins and old newspapers in the clearly-labelled "green bin waste" skips.
The incredible thing was the number of people who simply empties whatever was in the back of their cars into the nearest skip, not even looking at the signs showing what kind of waste went where. During the busiest periods, such as Sunday afternoons, there were council employees on hand to clear full skips and direct people to the correct skip. Despite this, I saw someone pulling up, dragging a three-piece suite out of their van and chucking it into the "green bin waste" skip while a frustrated yellow-jacketed man watched in amazement. He called to them to throw the furniture into a different pile, but by then there were only a couple of cushions left. Cue two yellow jackets half-climbing into a skip to retrieve the sofas as, supervision being momentarily absent, six other people took the opportunity to throw in a broken stepladder, old dog bed, half a tree and what looked like the contents of a fridge.
Perhaps it's just me, but I find behaviour like this incredibly arrogant. It's like people who knock something off a rail in a shop, turn round to look at the crumpled heap on the floor, then walk off, leaving it for a lowly shop assistant to pick up. Having worked in several customer service roles, I might be more sensitive to this kind of thing than others. There are things, for example, which I know people leave in cinemas which would make your stomach turn if I listed them here.
But whatever my reasons, I can't be the only one who thinks dumping your unwanted goods in any old way is rude. The council provides a thorough facility for everyone to get rid of rubbish quickly and easily, and employs people to help anyone who can't read the massive signs at the tip. The least people can do is make the three extra steps to put everything in the right place.
Or perhaps they're just so busy and important, they don't need to bother.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Review: The Men Who Stare at Goats
Welcome to review two, in an irregular series of... well, two so far. Depends how many times I go to the cinema and see something worth writing about.
Anyway, this week's choice of film was The Men Who Stare at Goats, starring Ewan McGregor, George Clooney and Kevin Spacey, among others. I was not particularly enthusiastic about seeing the film in the first place, having not heard a great deal about it, but I was certainly glad I gave in to the nagging and agreed to go.
It begins, as all good films should, with a journalist - in this case, one whose wife has just left him for another man. Faced with sitting in the same office as his ex and the man she fell for, he instead decides to prove his credentials and head for the dangers of reporting in Iraq.
Having seen a plot summary before going to the cinema, I did worry this film might attempt to make some sort of political point about the war, leaving me thinking harder than ought to be allowed on a Saturday evening. But it never came even remotely close to doing so, except through ridiculing the more bizarre approaches of the armed forces.
The Men Who Stare at Goats is a truly silly film - it is pointless, lacking any real climax and does rather labour some of its jokes. But I found it delightfully daft. I even understood some of the Jedi jokes, despite having never seen a Star Wars film. The entire concept is completely bizarre, but if you stick with it, it's well worth the perseverance; I haven't laughed as much at a film in a very long time.
Although it will never be a classic, The Men Who Stare at Goats is an entertaining watch and a fun way to spend 90 minutes (a good length for a film, I always think). Don't go expecting Saving Private Ryan - but do go expecting more than a few Jedi-related jokes as McGregor looks on innocently. And, as you leave, remember - this film is adapted from a book. That book was based on a true story. Scary.
Find out more about the film here.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Seven days on the breadline
Picture the scenario: four celebrities are sent to four families in underprivileged areas of Leeds. Each has to live for a week with their new family, surviving on the normal budget for the household.
On paper, it sounds like a typical reality show - which is probably why I didn't watch it to begin with. But I was prompted to catch up by colleagues who had seen the first episode.
The four celebrities - Mel B, Trinny Woodall, Keith Allen and Austin Healey - were indeed dropped into the lives of four Leeds people living on very low incomes. They had to survive a week on just a few pounds and attempt not to kill their housemates, some of whom were a more challenging prospect than others.
Keith Allen, for example, was living with a family of seven in a three-bedroom house in Lincoln Green. With six new "sons" to deal with, one of whom was distinctly uncooperative, I was expecting him to be among those who failed to see out the week.
Similarly, Trinny Woodall spent her seven days with a pensioner in Harehills more interested in gambling than Gucci, leading me to predict plenty of straight-to-camera pieces about how depressing this kind of life was and how sorry Trinny felt for the woman.
But I was in for a pleasant surprise. Well, 75 per cent of a pleasant surprise, anyway. Three of the four celebrities seemed to take a genuine interest in the futures of their families.
Austin Healey was determined to help the two teenaged boys in the family he was staying with. The eldest already had a tag checking he was obeying his court-imposed curfew - but underneath that, Austin saw a young man who cared for his family and wanted to make them happy. He seemed to be making headway by using sport to encourage the boys to be more positive and pushing them to think of their future.
Keith Allen, meanwhile, was setting about trying to get his enormous family a more suitable home. He was aghast to find that, although mum Michaela had made inquiries about moving, she had done nothing further to make it happen. He used the meagre budget to get new trainers for one of the kids, whose feet were blistered from ill-fitting shoes, and he took the youngest boys to his mate's recording studio for a treat.
Trinny Woodall was probably the biggest surprise. She really got stuck in with the various tasks her pensioner housemate needed done and went above and beyond the call of duty. Among her achievements was helping disabled Christine take advantage of shop mobility and encouraging her to remember the fun she had had as a younger woman. The series ended with Trinny (aided, no doubt, by producers) taking her new friend to a 70th birthday party and putting up some photos of Christine in her younger days.
The only real let-down of the programme was Mel B, which was particularly disappointing because the programme was filmed in her home city. Every time things got tough, she either screamed, shouted and banged doors, or took off to the gym. At one point, following an argument with unemployed 18-year-old Tyrone, she even bagged up a load of clothes and threw them down the stairs - I'm still not quite sure what she thought that would achieve. Similarly, the trip to Asda in a taxi was unrealistic and unproductive for the family in the long-term.
In terms of life lessons, the families in the programme - or some of them, at least - will hopefully have been given some inspiration by the efforts of the celebrities. After months and years of nothing changing, perhaps the programme might be a catalyst for some of the youngsters to make the most of themselves.
But, in reality, seven days is nothing compared to a lifetime of struggling to make ends meet and bring up a family on a tiny income. Although it has highlighted the issues of hopelessness and the vicious circle of poverty, the programme has provided nothing more than a window into their lives.
On paper, it sounds like a typical reality show - which is probably why I didn't watch it to begin with. But I was prompted to catch up by colleagues who had seen the first episode.
The four celebrities - Mel B, Trinny Woodall, Keith Allen and Austin Healey - were indeed dropped into the lives of four Leeds people living on very low incomes. They had to survive a week on just a few pounds and attempt not to kill their housemates, some of whom were a more challenging prospect than others.
Keith Allen, for example, was living with a family of seven in a three-bedroom house in Lincoln Green. With six new "sons" to deal with, one of whom was distinctly uncooperative, I was expecting him to be among those who failed to see out the week.
Similarly, Trinny Woodall spent her seven days with a pensioner in Harehills more interested in gambling than Gucci, leading me to predict plenty of straight-to-camera pieces about how depressing this kind of life was and how sorry Trinny felt for the woman.
But I was in for a pleasant surprise. Well, 75 per cent of a pleasant surprise, anyway. Three of the four celebrities seemed to take a genuine interest in the futures of their families.
Austin Healey was determined to help the two teenaged boys in the family he was staying with. The eldest already had a tag checking he was obeying his court-imposed curfew - but underneath that, Austin saw a young man who cared for his family and wanted to make them happy. He seemed to be making headway by using sport to encourage the boys to be more positive and pushing them to think of their future.
Keith Allen, meanwhile, was setting about trying to get his enormous family a more suitable home. He was aghast to find that, although mum Michaela had made inquiries about moving, she had done nothing further to make it happen. He used the meagre budget to get new trainers for one of the kids, whose feet were blistered from ill-fitting shoes, and he took the youngest boys to his mate's recording studio for a treat.
Trinny Woodall was probably the biggest surprise. She really got stuck in with the various tasks her pensioner housemate needed done and went above and beyond the call of duty. Among her achievements was helping disabled Christine take advantage of shop mobility and encouraging her to remember the fun she had had as a younger woman. The series ended with Trinny (aided, no doubt, by producers) taking her new friend to a 70th birthday party and putting up some photos of Christine in her younger days.
The only real let-down of the programme was Mel B, which was particularly disappointing because the programme was filmed in her home city. Every time things got tough, she either screamed, shouted and banged doors, or took off to the gym. At one point, following an argument with unemployed 18-year-old Tyrone, she even bagged up a load of clothes and threw them down the stairs - I'm still not quite sure what she thought that would achieve. Similarly, the trip to Asda in a taxi was unrealistic and unproductive for the family in the long-term.
In terms of life lessons, the families in the programme - or some of them, at least - will hopefully have been given some inspiration by the efforts of the celebrities. After months and years of nothing changing, perhaps the programme might be a catalyst for some of the youngsters to make the most of themselves.
But, in reality, seven days is nothing compared to a lifetime of struggling to make ends meet and bring up a family on a tiny income. Although it has highlighted the issues of hopelessness and the vicious circle of poverty, the programme has provided nothing more than a window into their lives.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
English pride in Leeds
Two major demonstrations were held in Leeds this weekend.
The first was set up by a fairly new group, the English Defence League, which claims to be protecting the country from Islamification and defending our culture.
The second was a counter-protest by Unite Against Fascism, a group which has come to more prominence in recent months as certain far right groups have made some political gains.
The two were being kept separate by police, who prevented them from marching as planned and instead allowed them to congregate in one area of the city centre each. It meant most shoppers could get on with their day without much disruption, unless you count watching several helicopters hovering overhead.
While UAF was kept to the art gallery area, the EDL was corralled around City Square, right outside the train station. Anyone wishing to catch a train was almost inevitably drawn into the edge of the crowd, while surrounding shops and businesses were forced to close their doors for at least part of the afternoon.
Plush Magazine comments that this is the "ugly face" of English pride, and I couldn't agree more. The EDL was primarily made up of white, young-to-middle-aged, shaven-headed men in varying degrees of intoxication. There was nothing to be proud of in their behaviour on Saturday afternoon - picking fights with bystanders, screaming abuse at anyone who dared to disagree with them and surging through police lines in an attempt to cause further disruption.
The protest has, of course, been allowed in the name of free speech. It is everyone's democratic right to stand up for what they believe in. But there must be a line drawn somewhere.
Saturday's protests required officers from nine police forces to be brought in to Leeds city centre. It is expected to have cost more than the September protest in Manchester, which itself ran up a bill of £800,000. Local businesses - even the ones which were not forced to close - will have lost money as a result of the protest, which acted as a fantastic deterrent to anyone thinking of venturing towards the City square area.
We should, of course, protect the rights of everyone to express their views - but surely only when they do so in a reasonable fashion. Why should ordinary members of the public be subjected to abuse, have their day disrupted, perhaps even fear for their own safety - and then have to foot the bill at the end of it?
Leeds is a multi-cultural, modern and exciting place. That is the kind of Englishness I choose to defend - not the rights of thugs to contaminate our city.
The first was set up by a fairly new group, the English Defence League, which claims to be protecting the country from Islamification and defending our culture.
The second was a counter-protest by Unite Against Fascism, a group which has come to more prominence in recent months as certain far right groups have made some political gains.
The two were being kept separate by police, who prevented them from marching as planned and instead allowed them to congregate in one area of the city centre each. It meant most shoppers could get on with their day without much disruption, unless you count watching several helicopters hovering overhead.
While UAF was kept to the art gallery area, the EDL was corralled around City Square, right outside the train station. Anyone wishing to catch a train was almost inevitably drawn into the edge of the crowd, while surrounding shops and businesses were forced to close their doors for at least part of the afternoon.
Plush Magazine comments that this is the "ugly face" of English pride, and I couldn't agree more. The EDL was primarily made up of white, young-to-middle-aged, shaven-headed men in varying degrees of intoxication. There was nothing to be proud of in their behaviour on Saturday afternoon - picking fights with bystanders, screaming abuse at anyone who dared to disagree with them and surging through police lines in an attempt to cause further disruption.
The protest has, of course, been allowed in the name of free speech. It is everyone's democratic right to stand up for what they believe in. But there must be a line drawn somewhere.
Saturday's protests required officers from nine police forces to be brought in to Leeds city centre. It is expected to have cost more than the September protest in Manchester, which itself ran up a bill of £800,000. Local businesses - even the ones which were not forced to close - will have lost money as a result of the protest, which acted as a fantastic deterrent to anyone thinking of venturing towards the City square area.
We should, of course, protect the rights of everyone to express their views - but surely only when they do so in a reasonable fashion. Why should ordinary members of the public be subjected to abuse, have their day disrupted, perhaps even fear for their own safety - and then have to foot the bill at the end of it?
Leeds is a multi-cultural, modern and exciting place. That is the kind of Englishness I choose to defend - not the rights of thugs to contaminate our city.
Free social media surgery in Leeds
I happened upon a site the other day which will be of enormous interest to a lot of people in Leeds.
Leeds Social Media Group is running an open surgery for all community and charity groups next week, offering advice on using various methods to communicate with the public.
Anyone needing help with a website, blog, Facebook or Twitter group for their organisation can get free support and instruction, which is absolutely brilliant. Companies offering this kind of service would charge by the hour for their advice, which charities and not-for-profit groups just can't afford to pay.
it is increasingly important for community groups to have an online presence and be easily contactable. There will always be those who are happy to just phone up or go along to an organisation's offices and who have no interest in how else it communicates. But there are more and more people, particularly younger generations, who take exactly the opposite view. I know myself if I'm looking for a company offering a particular service - a garage, for example - my first port of call will be the internet. If the company's website has too little information, is difficult to navigate or is badly written - or, worse, if there is no website - I will be very strongly deterred from using that company.
Old school journalists detest this view of life. They constantly argue that finding stories on Facebook or making a story from a trending topic on Twitter is not journalism. To be a real journalist, you have to go out and meet people and speak face-to-face, they argue. I wouldn't dare disagree that getting out on the streets is of huge importance, but it is not always the best approach. Stories involving students, for example, will often require a different approach to those involving pensioners. If you want to contact a 19-year-old about his part in a national news story - perhaps he has commented elsewhere as an eye-witness to a major event - then often, a message on Facebook is the best approach. It is what he is used to and will put him more at ease than a formal approach on the doorstep - and it then leaves room for him to call you and arrange a proper interview.
The same approach is needed by charities and other community groups - they need to make themselves available via every medium, to ensure people of all ages feel comfortable getting in touch.
Leeds Social Media Group is run by volunteers itself, so the whole thing is purely benefiting the community - especially because it promises biscuits, which I feel should always be provided at any kind of meeting or public event.
So get yourself along to the Round Foundry Media Centre next Tuesday evening from 5.30 to 7pm - more details here. And pass the word on. You never know who it might help.
Leeds Social Media Group is running an open surgery for all community and charity groups next week, offering advice on using various methods to communicate with the public.
Anyone needing help with a website, blog, Facebook or Twitter group for their organisation can get free support and instruction, which is absolutely brilliant. Companies offering this kind of service would charge by the hour for their advice, which charities and not-for-profit groups just can't afford to pay.
it is increasingly important for community groups to have an online presence and be easily contactable. There will always be those who are happy to just phone up or go along to an organisation's offices and who have no interest in how else it communicates. But there are more and more people, particularly younger generations, who take exactly the opposite view. I know myself if I'm looking for a company offering a particular service - a garage, for example - my first port of call will be the internet. If the company's website has too little information, is difficult to navigate or is badly written - or, worse, if there is no website - I will be very strongly deterred from using that company.
Old school journalists detest this view of life. They constantly argue that finding stories on Facebook or making a story from a trending topic on Twitter is not journalism. To be a real journalist, you have to go out and meet people and speak face-to-face, they argue. I wouldn't dare disagree that getting out on the streets is of huge importance, but it is not always the best approach. Stories involving students, for example, will often require a different approach to those involving pensioners. If you want to contact a 19-year-old about his part in a national news story - perhaps he has commented elsewhere as an eye-witness to a major event - then often, a message on Facebook is the best approach. It is what he is used to and will put him more at ease than a formal approach on the doorstep - and it then leaves room for him to call you and arrange a proper interview.
The same approach is needed by charities and other community groups - they need to make themselves available via every medium, to ensure people of all ages feel comfortable getting in touch.
Leeds Social Media Group is run by volunteers itself, so the whole thing is purely benefiting the community - especially because it promises biscuits, which I feel should always be provided at any kind of meeting or public event.
So get yourself along to the Round Foundry Media Centre next Tuesday evening from 5.30 to 7pm - more details here. And pass the word on. You never know who it might help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
