Saturday, 23 July 2011
White middle class Guardian sniggers at white middle class poets.
As expected The Guardian has its little snigger at middle aged white poets and at the end quotes a trustee as saying: "I feel I will be well shot of it. Quite a lot of poets seem to be rather bloody unbalanced." I wonder if they extend the same snigger to both Houses of Parliament and much of the press? I say, 'as expected', but actually the snigger - very much a white middle-class snigger come to think of it, in fact bang on white middle-class - is exactly what I expect of The Guardian now.
It is as well to point out that neither the Director, Judith Palmer, nor the Acting Chair, Laura Bamford is a poet, and that of the board members present on the platform only two were poets. This fearful cockup was the product of that entire board.
I for my part as a fully paid up part-Anglicised, part-Hungarian member of the nondescript classes think the board was bloody unbalanced and I personally am very glad to be shot of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Yes, but we're not shot of it. There's a while to go with this board doing whatever.
In the meantime, we have until Monday to either move on behalf of Judith Palmer, who resigned on principle and got the Poetry Society its grant and she has until they leave to take a case to protect herself but at the expense of he Society, who said they were in "discussions" to bring her back that is: back to the situation that had her leave in the first place.
Then she can be blamed for downfall of Society and by then I guess everyone will have forgotten to wonder about and chase up the 24,000. Or she can just walk away (where are the apologies and conditions to suit her entirely?) and then they can appoint somebody less principled and frankly that she is so decent and fair made her prime bullying material as that his definitely not what's wanted these days.
I understand she has until Monday to decide whether to return and so I wonder who's moving on her behalf. What about Ranford? Ah, who cares. I understand it was quoted at meeting "they were in negotations" which I guess we'll have to take their word for it, which I'm sure is as dependable as it's always. been. Does this mean an apology and some change in circumstances so she doesn't return to same scenario that prompted resignation in the first place?
I assume the Trustees wil be liable for money spent? Is anyone else outraged by this?
I thought it nice the Board's names were protected through anonymity and the blame put on a cat-fight between Fiona and Judith, accorded no such anonymity. Thinking of 24,000 and Ranford's detailed report fwhy was none of this addressed as per Board members' responsible? It's grotesque.
So now we know. It's all the fault of a cat-fight between the two women. This is why you hire Murdoch lawyers (they own TLS, yes?,) PR and facilitators so that the Guardian can help establish this story as fact, this story bought from the very council who couldn't be trusted in any possible respect. Tey spent their money well. As you can see, I'm disgusted and hope some others feel equally so who have the impetus and desire to be proactive and act on those things not addressed.
Eva - where has the term 'catfight' come from? I see you have used it elsewhere. I am not aware of anyone but you using it, but you may be responding to someone else's use of it.
Of course we are all disgusted and outraged. That is precisely why the EGM was called. That was being proactive. Kate Clanchy deserves great credit for that.
I wish we had been able to get the board to resign there and then but that could not be done for legal reasons apparently.
Isn't "Poetry Society" somewhat of an oxymoron anyway?
I think you have something there, Snoopy. Time to found The Oxymoron Society. Groucho Marx for president-in-perpetuity. What do you mean he's dead? Do you think The Oxymoron Society cares about things like that?
I wish the Guardian had allowed comments on that lazy, ill-written article. It is, I think, possible to submit articles to Sarah Crown for the books blog and it might be worth trying, but I've never had any luck; don't have the right touch.
dead right George, it was a horrible final line on the Guardian article, shows they think poets are just good for a laugh. they have written a lot of trash about poets in the last year and in terms of reputational whateveritwas they should lose their ACE grant. - oh they havent got one.
Sally Evans
I do think it'd be a Good Plan if someone who was at the meeting responded to them, but an conscious those folk have endured enough for general good already!
I'll have a go, Sheenagh. I'll try Sarah Crown.
Yes, I am the only person to use it although others seem to agree that it rather comes across like this what with the two named women and no one else named as per people mentioned in Ranford's letter who luckily enjoy a protective anonymity. Yes I do find it's rather demeaning and no accident that it appears like this. Many pounds were spent on publicity because it works.
Forgive me, Eva, but I did not use the names of either director or editor in my post and I don't think anyone has remotely suggested dismissing the affair as a 'catfight'. So why introduce 'catfight' as a term at all?
As for protecting the names of the trustees, the members who attended, and those who didn't, already have a list of them and will receive minutes of the meeting with a list of board members present.
1) Has anyone asked Judith if she wants the job back, and if she does, under what conditions?
2) Given that a shower of Distrustees are still running the show, how shall re-instatement be achieved?
Just askin'.
Excuse me but I'm not sure you understood me or I wasn't clear. At the EGM, it was presented very clearly that the problem was Palmer and Sampson. They were named. In the meantime, those on Board mentioned in Ranford's letter were not. The Guardian and all commentary likewise takes this up. It's clearly unfair and scapegoating as it stands not to know who on Board was responsibile for unconscionable actions IF this naming of Sampson/Palmer was acceptable. Anyway, the point now is not to argue about this disparity but act positively as regards those who acted with great integrity and did so much for Society: the point is to redress what looks to be an injustice. At this rate, I'm guessing this current Board may end up APPOINTING a new Director and I'd find THAT grotesque. I'm sure others would too.
She has said that she would want it back, though she may have changed her mind since. I have made a suggestion - over here: http://thepoetrysocietyuk.wordpress.com/discussion/ - that the new board be elected on the condition that they guarantee to offer to reinstate her. That might be one way. As to whether that is feasible, I don't know. But it is worth throwing a few ideas around.
Sheenagh - Sarah Crown is away so I have written to Claire Armitstead.
My last posting was responding to George but Christo46, yes, exactly my point. This has to come directly and unmistakably from Board, I'd have thought, but it'd have to be stated how things are different and how she'd be protected. As I said, if regrets were genuine then surely apology and invite would have been issued but I'd suggested going through who's co-opted onto board now. Laurie Smith?
Eva, you weren't at the EGM, I was. I know who was named. Some members of the board were sitting opposite us. They were named because Paul Ranford read out his letter.
Peter Carpenter was named, Laura Bamford was named, both as the chief agents of the embargo. Also mentioned were the board members that Ranford considered had acted honestly and honourably.
Anne Marie Fyfe also named Peter Carpenter.
Christo 46,
I'm sorry to hog so much space but there's a posting on Raw Light from Martina Evans and according to her and Kate Clanchy Judith has until MONDAY to decide. Don't know what this means and George's idea is good one: invite back in Sept with new board but I'd suggest contacting Kate and Judith and co-oped board members immediately to get clarity and action asap. I will be quiet now that I've more than said my piece. I'm pretty angry and upset by so many aspects of this case as can be seen...
Thanks, George for that clarification. I'm responding to how it's been reported and perceptions from bloggers, and some detailed reports from friends and colleagues. Tt does seem, nevertheless, that this point of mine HAS rung bells elsewhere but regardless this is less urgent than other matters now under discussion....
possibly if JP went back now ACAS could help with the way she's reinstated, or alternatively she could probably stick anything for a few weeks knowing there has been the vote of no confidence in this board and that there will be a new one by a specified date. I hope she does go back but it is obviously for her to decide.
Sally Evans
Hard to know anything yet, Sally. What JP must be going through is anybody's guess. I, for one, will support whatever she does. ACAS possibly, if it gets that far.
just to clarify: I have not been in contact with Judith Palmer over this. However, JP has publically stated that she is willing to resume her post on the contract of April 1st 2011. Suits for constructive dismissal have to be lodged within 3 months of the resignation concerned.
Sadly, today's Times has sunk to a similarly low level, not only repeating the "rather bloody unblanced" quote under the heading "Hacked off: the dead beat poets' society loses balance" but also saying, of the increase in Arts Council funding: "But now, the idea of putting extra public cash into the hands of such a bunch of petty, small-minded, incompetent bickering fanatic seems bonkers." Where, oh where, have good newspapers gone and how, oh how, is this all going so wrong? Incidentally, who invited the press to Friday's meeting and for what purpose?
I don't know who invited them, Nicky. Repulsive coverage, but who precisely is 'petty, small-minded and incompetent'? Do they mean everyone present?
Apologies to all as as I'd understood mistakenly that there had been contact between Kate Clancy and Judith Palmer which is not the case, and is something I should have verified. I do hope the right thing is done all around in the end. I doubt we'll be able to change the nature of journalism though.
To repeat my comments to another witty (and poetic) take on this dispute (see The Lyre blog)
Stating the bleeding obvious:
"Quite a lot of poets seem to be rather bloody unbalanced." (Poetry Society trustee)
Bleeding obvious Part 2:
What bloody man is that? He can report,
As seemeth by his plight, of the revolt
The newest state.
Very good Anon. [Side splits. Dies.]
I have written to The Times about that disgraceful article, Nicky. If they don't publish it, I'll put it up here.
Thank you, George.
PS. See Indie Article too, only one I think to take comments
I have commented there, Eva.
Great. Katy Evans Bush too and hope more do.
Returning to your remark about Judith Palmer returning which I certainly hope she does (as we need people like her though who could blame her if not): you suggest "a new board be elected on the condition that they guarantee to offer to reinstate her" I was wondering if this could be initiated/pursued even now, perhaps via co-opted Board members, especially considering the time limit on constructive dismissal case? It seems unfair to force anyone's hand as regards this in the interim.
Post a Comment