Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād

Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād was a 15th/16th century Persian painter, living and working in the tiny city of Herat. A Great Artist in the Civilization VI computer game, we learn:

Behzad lived his life primarily in the city of Herat, in what is today Afghanistan. His miniatures were exceptional in the way that human figures and architecture were arranged on the page, creating a sense of flow that draws viewers’ eyes around the page. These miniatures were testaments to the cosmopolitanism of the time – they drew inspiration from Chinese art, portrayed individuals of all of the different peoples that lived their lives in the globally-connected empire, and focused as much on everyday moments of humanity as well as those of conquering kings. While Persian art did not forbid showing human figures (as much Muslim art did), Behzad also excelled in incorporating Persian love for architecture and geometry, creating dizzying patterns with tiles, roof gables, staircases, etc (as in the miniature Yusef and Zuleykha).

Behzad remains thought of as one of the most notable Muslim artists of the medieval period.

I thought I'd share some images of works attributed to Behzad. Let me know if, like me, you like them.

The construction of castle Khavarnaq

Battleground of Timur and the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt.

Timur granting audience on the occasion of his accession

Credibility Stretch

Man turns up at his wife's memorial and makes a speech in which he accuses her of selfishness in committing suicide.

Man (same man, let's call him Our Man for brevity), a surgeon, hooks up with a dodgy cockney (we'll call him Lee, because that's his name), who is an eco-eccentric and survivalist with a whole suite of 'rooms' deep underground beneath Temple [remember that, you'll need it later] tube station. They run a business providing medical services to those who are unwilling to go through the usual medical channels. Patching up gunshot wounds, for instance.

We discover that Our Man's wife isn't actually dead. She is in a 'hospital ward' in the underground complex, next to a laboratory in which he is continuing her research into a possible cure for her illness.

Lee brings in a mate (we'll call him Jamie) with a gunshot wound. Jamie arrives with £2 million in a brown paper bag (actually a sports bag). He ran away with the cash from a robbery, leaving his fellow robbers at the mercy of the police. Who are now looking for him. The robbers that is. And the police of course.

Jamie needs a blood transfusion but they have run out of the universal O negative. Our Man phones the only person he knows with that blood type - Anna, his wife's co-researcher and his ex lover - and 'invites' her to see his new home, where she is knocked out with chloroform and her blood used on Jamie.

Anna finds Our Man's wife and agrees to help the research.

Jamie's pregnant wife is given a 'burner' phone with which to communicate with Jamie - the underground complex has full WiFi, obviously - and not surprisingly she gets interrogated. By the police. And the mates of the by now incarcerated robbers.

Our Man discovers that his wife is suffering renal failure and needs a kidney transplant. He makes contact with an underworld supplier of kidneys and needs £100,000 to buy one. So he steals the money from Jamie's stash.

Sounds a promising plot for a TV show? It. Does. Not. Unless it's a comedy. Which Sky's Temple is not, being presented as a 'medical crime drama'.

I've watched some dross in my time as an armchair TV critic but this takes the proverbial biscuit. Want a recommendation? Avoid it like the plague. The above summary covers five episodes of this ludicrous show. There are many more but I won't be watching.

Government by Panic

The Parliamentary Standards Committee recommended that the House of Commons suspend Conservative MP Owen Paterson for 30 days for a number of 'cash for questions' offences outlined by the Standards Commissioner.

Maybe the Prime Minister was worried that the Parliamentary Standards Committee might unearth more unpalatable truths about his fellow Tories.

So he panicked, whipping his MPs to vote against the motion - normally approved unanimously - to suspend Paterson. 13 of them voted in favour of the motion to suspend, i.e.  against the Government and 38 (shamefully - do you not care about this important issue?) abstained. A Minister was sacked.

Today the government reversed its stance and promised a repeat of the suspension vote. The Minister was un-sacked.

Later Owen Paterson resigned as an MP. So there will no longer be a re-vote.

Could the government have handled this any worse?

Cornelis Gert Jan

The Cornelis Gert Jan is a British trawler that was impounded by the French authorities in the UK-France fishing dispute, part of the residual outcome of issues in the Brexit trade deal with the EU which were "kicked down the road" for future resolution in order to get the deal done in time for 31 December 2020.

But the most important part of this dispute is not Brexit. The ship is a scallop dredger, an irresponsible and destructive type of "fishing" which scoops up layers of the sea bed, destroying habitat and ruining fishing for years to come. You can see the heavy metal [no! not Black Sabbath, my musical friends] scoops used here:

openseas.org.uk tells us "Scallop dredging is known to have the most severe ecological effect of all UK marine fisheries because of the damage and mortality it causes to the seabed habitat and species that live there." These effects are known to governments and they typically designate a limited number of areas where bottom dredging is allowed. A 2014 report for the University of York states "The king scallop fishery is the fastest growing fishery in the UK and currently the second most valuable. The UK is also home to the largest queen scallop fishery out of all of Europe ... the majority of scallop landings (95%) are made by vessels towing scallop dredges."

I tried reasonably hard to find out in what proportion of the coastal waters of the UK dredging is allowed but, unable to raise enough enough enthusiasm to wade through academic reports, I suggest we all get someone to submit a Freedom of Information request to answer the question.

Responsibility

 

We’ve recently acquired a new hybrid car which has a speed limiter on it. It automatically reads the speed signs and slows down to prevent you from exceeding the limit.  

We were driving along the A2 to the GC and suddenly the car slowed from 50 to 20 mph. There was a 20 sign which hadn’t been removed after roadworks.  I immediately contacted Highways England explaining how dangerous it was and that if anyone had been travelling behind there would have been a very nasty accident.  

The reply was ‘it’s not our responsibility, at this point the A2 becomes part of TfL’s responsibility’.

I found it so hard to believe that they wouldn’t even bother to inform TfL about such a dangerous sign.   

I then contacted TfL, it took three emails and eventually a very sharp Twitter message before it was finally removed. And no acknowledgement whatsoever.

Another friend  had a similar thing on the boat going from Leeds to Mirfield. A lorry had come off the M62 & part of a safety barrier was blocking the Navigation. (Miraculously lorry driver not injured). But Canal & River Trust said Navigation would be closed for a week! When her husband protested, they said it was Highways England responsibility. Highways England referred them back to C&R Trust!

Fortunately her husband’s 40 years as a bridge engineer came in handy & he knew which words would trigger action, and the Navigation was re-opened the next day. 

So why is this such a common experience and is it new or was it always the case that jobsworths were in the majority. 

It’s not so much people sticking to their defined roles that’s the problem (working within your competency matters) but the unwillingness to think beyond their own remit and help a customer/client/ patient find the person or department who can actually do something to help.  

“I’m sorry I can’t help you, but I know someone who can” & then acting on that goes a very long way to counteracting a negative impression and making things run smoothly.

But I think that unwillingness to deal with an issue and even pass a message on is an aspect of modern day service that still takes me by surprise though it is so commonly encountered now. People have to feel valued in their role and they just don’t. 

I hear lots of stories of staff leaving the NHS for example because they are not listened to, or bullied by managers or senior staff, this inevitably affects how they interact with patients who then behave negatively towards the staff and it becomes a vicious circle. 

People’s perception of the NHS in particular is changing and largely they no longer feel grateful, but let down  by a system that should be doing better for them. 

Experiences like these just shouldn’t happen & lack of funding isn’t an excuse or reason for swerving responsibility. 

All of it is demoralising for those who work in the system & leads to a couldn’t care less attitude. If you see the system not working on a daily basis, and you personally can’t do anything about it, is a grim situation to be in. 

Everything,  it seems,  is done on a shoestring, often by employees who are poorly trained/ not equipped to handle non- standard situations helpfully/ usefully/ sensibly.  It is so often someone else who's responsible although there are a few exceptions who need to be treasured and affirmed. 

I've got my trumpet ready

I never liked the sound of bagpipes. So miserable and whiney. I was intrigued by the news that a "man with a Scottish accent and wearing Hibernian Football Club shorts took [his bagpipes] out of his car and knelt down to play loudly in the faces of the [Insulate Britain] protesters. According to telegraph.co.uk 'He said: “They are holding up ambulances, fire trucks. Disgraceful. You're damaging your cause. What I was doing, obnoxiously, bagpiping in your face, is what you're doing to all this traffic - you're obnoxiously holding up people's lives."'

Rumours that the man was Alistair Campbell were denied by friends of the New Labour spin doctor who said "Alistair would never kneel to anyone".

The protesters were blocking the A40 but started their campaign by doing so on and around the M25. Which is why, when I next go to Kent, I shall be taking my trumpet with me. I reckon I can make more frightening noise than a bagpiper although, given it will be more pleasant, I might just gain a rapt audience.

I felt I should at least find out what Insulate Britain's aims are. They have two simple "demands":

1. That the UK government immediately promises to fully fund and take responsibility for the insulation of all social housing in Britain by 2025;

2. That the UK government immediately promises to produce within four months a legally binding national plan to fully fund and take responsibility for the full low-energy and low-carbon whole-house retrofit, with no externalised costs, of all homes in Britain by 2030 as part of a just transition to full decarbonisation of all parts of society and the economy.

On the face of it these seem entirely reasonable. IB's analysis is robust:

The UK has some 29 million homes and they are the oldest and least energy efficient housing stock in Europe. Every year vast amounts of precious energy are wasted in heating and, increasingly, cooling our buildings. 

In order to meet UK commitments under the Paris Agreement to stay below 1.5C, and legal obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008, as amended in 2019, emissions from heating and powering homes must be reduced by 78% in less than 15 years and then to zero by 2050. 

Nearly 15% of the UK’s total emissions comes from heating homes: an overhaul of the energy performance of the UK’s housing stock is needed to reduce the energy demand.

So is the government not interested in this issue? I guess it's the sheer scale and cost of it. The Green Homes Grant scheme was discontinued after just six months but there are still home energy grants such as the Warm Home Discount but this is applied as a rebate to your electricity bills - unless, of course, your supplier has recently gone bust. Reasonably, the discount prioritises vulnerable people and others in need. I think the government is committed to home insulation as one of the means of moving towards carbon neutrality, but there is a vast space between the government's fiscal means, its pace of change and Insulate Britain's "do it sooner" demands.

As with many protest movements, the drastic tactics of Insulate Britain - an offshoot of Extinction Rebellion - are designed to draw attention to the cause (surely a worthy one) at the risk of alienating the public opinion that is eventually necessary to give the government a shot in the arm. Guerrilla tactics are no substitute for a mass movement; indeed, they may hinder that very swelling of public opinion that should be the ultimate goal.

Early next month I'll probably be in my (diesel😠 sorry IB!) car on the M25. If I meet them, I'll get my trumpet out and attempt a deal with the protesters: "I'll play you the whole of the Trumpet Voluntary if you let me (oh and maybe my fellow drivers) go on our merry way".

Think it'll work?