Commentators

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 9° London Hi 9°C / Lo 7°C

Janet Street-Porter: We've lost sight of what bravery really means

Is "brave" the most over-used word in the English language? Jade Goody receives the same kind of gushing tributes that surrounded the death of Princess Diana. Then, psychologist Oliver James was roundly condemned for daring to voice the opinion that the nation was succumbing to a kind of collective hysteria (and not true mourning) about a woman people felt they knew, even though they'd never met or spoken to her.

Writing in this paper at the time he said: "Feelings of shock and regret that she should no longer be with us and sympathy for her relatives would be appropriate. But (for people) to become convinced that they have lost a friend or relative seems out of place ... unlike in a real relationship, this person was never there in the flesh and she had no opportunity to communicate with them personally ... the boundaries between reality and fantasy are becoming seriously blurred."

Earlier this week in The Independent Johann Hari implied that to find Jade an unacceptable role model betrayed snobbery and a lack of humanity. Well, I disagree. Eleven years after Diana's death, will the funeral of Jade Goody turn into the same outpouring of grief that Oliver James found so worrying?

The ubiquitous Max Clifford has already promised us large television screens outside the church in Essex where the ceremony takes place on 4 April, and who knows what celebrity guests he will conjure up to participate? He's divulged that the coffin will be made of oak from the Royal Windsor forest and that there will be a 21-car cortège. It's all beginning to sound like a state funeral.

Jade was partly responsible for her condition – failing to respond to hospital letters telling her that her smear tests were abnormal and she should urgently seek medical help. She should have been on her guard after pre-cancerous cells were removed when she was just 16. Yes, there has been a huge increase in the number of young girls going for check-ups since her condition was made public, with the Government reviewing the age at which the NHS starts screening in England, which is currently 25, as opposed to 20 in the rest of the UK.

Yes, Jade had every right to exploit the media interest in her progress to raise as much money as possible for the upkeep of her young sons. But can we move on and consider other, equally distressing deaths – people born with challenges in life which certainly matched those of Jade.

I cried when I read that Martin Ryan had died in Kingston Hospital at the age of just 43, after a breakdown in communication with staff led to a failure to feed him not for a week, but 26 days. Martin was born with Down's syndrome and epilepsy. He died because he couldn't tell anyone what was happening to him. I hope the staff who were working on that ward never forget the image of Martin dying. Martin was brave. The cause of death was listed as pneumonia, but many would disagree. His parents have been offered just £40,000 compensation – a pittance compared to the deals Max Clifford secured for Jade.

Mark Cannon, an epileptic with learning difficulties, died at the age of 30, in Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS hospital. He was admitted in agony with a broken leg, and it took three days for a pain team to attend to him. He died eight and a half weeks later, having lost 40 per cent of his blood. Mark was brave. A report has said his death was unnecessary but I'm sure that's not a lot of help to his grieving parents.

The Health and Local government Ombudsman has compiled a damning report on the levels of care given to six adults with learning difficulties who died at the hands of the NHS. It finds "distressing failures", and serious deficits in the way complaints were dealt with.

Can we please adjust our values? The avoidable death of just one person is appalling. But when that person has learning difficulties, it's criminal. Needless to say, no one has lost their jobs as a result of the deaths of Mark, and Martin.

Me, Spandau Ballet and an outbreak of flowing scarves

*They're back together, and going on tour – the Eighties band that fell out spectacularly but have finally buried their differences. It seems only yesterday that I made a film with Spandau Ballet, then an unsigned group from Islington, north London.

Back in June 1980 I was producing my first television series, Twentieth-Century Box, and I'd heard about the Spands through a chap called Ollie who worked at my hairdresser's. The boys took themselves very seriously and were deeply pretentious. They must have changed their clothes dozens of times during the day we filmed them, finally opting for kilts, feathered berets and flowing scarves for the secret gig at the Scala cinema in London's Fitzrovia, attended by Steve Strange and all the leading lights of London's New Romantic movement. The band were introduced by a poem from their mate, the writer and DJ Robert Elms, and the crowd included Sara Dallin from Bananarama. She's still a friend, and has worn rather better than the Spands. Sadly, I don't think Tony Hadley, and Martin and Gary Kemp have got enough hair to recreate the quiffs of yesteryear – but that won't stop their loyal fans turning up in droves for their gigs.

Berkoff shows how to do it

*The new trend in theatre is to turn a cult movie into a stage play. In recent years both The 39 Steps and Brief Encounter have been reinvented, with a considerable degree of critical and box-office success.

I've just seen Steven Berkoff's stage version of On The Waterfront, in which he uses a dozen actors as a chorus, playing everything from longshoremen to pigeons. There are moments in the evening when the pace sags, but there is no denying that it's a worthwhile experiment, with brilliant choreography and lighting. Berkoff, as usual, steals the show as the evil gangster boss.

Priscilla, Queen Of The Desert, on the other hand, seems to have fallen flat on its feathers. One critic described the musical, which opened this week, left, as "more costume than content". We'll have to wait and see if it becomes the show of choice for discerning hen parties – in which case, count me out.

More from Janet Street-Porter

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Criminal, indeed!
[info]jinglebunny wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 02:39 am (UTC)
> The avoidable death of just one person is appalling. But when that person has learning
> difficulties, it's criminal.

Quite right, Janet.

Deliberately depriving a person of pain medication is tantamount to torture.
Deliberately depriving a person of food is tantamount to murder.

Why has there been no police action to prosecute those responsible??
Bravery and all that......
[info]bundubasher wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 04:18 am (UTC)
Janet for once I agree with you, on the Jade Goody grief-pornography ,whipped up by press, Jade ,Max and Living. Tasteless to bludgeon the public with emotional blackmail to a point where nobody disproving is allowed to comment that she used her entire life, then sickness, her children, her lovers, and then her death as some commodity for sale to highest bidders and all public welcome. Any cancer awareness resulting is really by default ,not by her hard work.It is so cynical it has left a vile taste in so many of the public.Just visit forums to see.!!

And all this at a time when horrendous tales and reports are coming out about NHS patient neglect right across Britain according to C4 Confessions of Nurses documentary.

Bravery is hardly apt for the sick.Stoic yes.But then when sick one has no option but to be stoic.Nothing to do with bravery at all and I ought to know after 14 operations.
Many words are misused
[info]pete_s wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 06:52 am (UTC)
There are many other words that are constantly misused, a few examples.

Racist: The main part of the definition of this word is the aspect of 'superiority' of one race over another. The accusation of Racism is rarely correct. Xenophobia would be far more accurate, or just a personnel preference not to mix.

Bully: Mostly accused as being done by children, but again most of the time they are taunting. Bullying has a more physical aspect too it.

Gay: This is being happy, not a Homosexual.
Re: Many words are misused
[info]balbkubrox wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 07:54 am (UTC)
Another personal favourite of mine is "cowardly" (as in "unable to face up to the responsibilities of adulthood, a cowardly 17-year old suicide bomber took the easy way out by driving a lorry packed with explosives towards a NATO checkpoint on the outskirts of Kabul under a hail of machine-gun fire and then detonating it.") "Murderous fanatic", yes; "deluded follower of a hate-sodden death cult", yes. But cowardly? I think not, if words still mean anything.

"Gay" is past praying for, I'm afraid: its original meaning so perverted that it's difficult to use it nowadays even in historical novels. As for "racist", I agree that it's often used to describe mere dislike of foreigners rather than any belief that a particular skin pigmentation is superior or inferior to another. You do meet with it occasionally: cf. David Irving's memorable 2000 radio interview with Dr. Oliver James from which it emerged that for Irving the most important thing about any human being is which "race" he chooses to assign them to: also a rooted belief that all members of all "races" other than his own - particularly the Jewish one - will act and think the same way and automatically support one another's interests like a colony of ants. But apart from a few such antediluvians you don't meet with it much these days, so constant use of the word "racism" does rather obscure the issues.
Re: Many words are misused
[info]wormery wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 08:09 am (UTC)
Agreed, the word 'racism' has been utterly devalued and, as most abstract nouns, means whatever you want really. So, you don't like someone's views and want to shut down the debate and claim superiority and the moral high ground? Just call them racist. Making excuses for your bad behaviour or failure? Racism is the cause. Want to get brownie point and a promotion at work? Accuse others of racism. Prove how non-racist you supposedly are? Call others racist.

Ironically of course, we are now living in a soiety more obsessed with race than any since nazi germany. All those boxes to tick on those silly forms, and the positive action and discrimination 'justified' by beancounters and the diversity industry.

Other words that have lost their traditional meanings: 'respect' which is no longer earned (the old British meaning) but must be given to anyone demandingh it with menaces (African american origin I believe); middle class: no longer a social class based on attitudes, lifestyles, decency, culture and education perhaps, as was the British meaning, but now anyone who has a mortgage like the Simpsons (again and American meaning). And so many more: appropriate, community, multi-faith, diversity, equality, fairness, change, manager... etc etc etc blah blah blah.
Re: Many words are misused
[info]magnanimo_65 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 04:37 pm (UTC)
Is this the same "wormery" who referred to me as "a fuckwitted moron" with the "logic is that of a rabid lesbian muffmonster" on another thread discussing the notion of respect? In a discussion on the misuse of words? I wonder................
Re: Many words are misused
[info]wormery wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 09:17 am (UTC)
I do have a way with words, and I'm accurate too - I see as I find - and respond to insults and attacks from the likes of you in my own sweet way sister. You need to earn my respect love - it's not given via threats and demands.
Re: Many words are misused
[info]magnanimo_65 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 11:46 am (UTC)
What on earth makes you think I'm a woman?
Re: Many words are misused
[info]dave_j_l wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 11:19 am (UTC)
Why the sudden vitriol against the word 'gay'? Just another opportunity to have a bit of a bigoted whinge? Meanings of words find their way into the dictionary through common usage, and gay has been a synonym for homosexual for decades, and has had broader connotations of (straight) sexual behaviour for much longer still. There has never been any reason to stop using it to mean 'happy', and that meaning is also still found in the dictionary; the tendency for it not to be used in this sense is entirely the fault of those in society who didn't like its other usage of referring to same-sex attraction.

And why the worry about not using it to mean happy anyway? There are plenty of other synonyms for happy, and it hurt no-one that gay became used as a positive term for a persecuted section of society. This is in marked contrast to a more recent meaning of the term to mean 'rubbish', which, while unfortunately legitimate if it does enter common usage, was derived precisely because it already meant homosexual; its prejudice is inherent in its existence.
Re: Many words are misused
[info]wormery wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 11:49 am (UTC)
Yes, and 'gay' meaning rubbish is another american usage, specifically african-american it seems (that culture is massively conservative and bigoted), like 'respect'. I have no issue with 'gay' not used to mean 'happy' - it never has in my lifetime anyway. And I fear one cannot stop gay to mean rubbish, but schools shoul ban it perhaps - or perhaps kids can use 'black' or 'asian' to mean rubbish too?
Re: Many words are misused
[info]dave_j_l wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 12:05 pm (UTC)
I certainly think schools could do a lot more to discourage the use of 'gay' as synonym for 'rubbish' - as you imply it would be a more obvious problem if kids were using 'black', 'asian', 'jew' etc in the same way. Unfortunately homophobia in schools isn't tackled as much as it should be, and especially not in faith schools where the official religion has lots of moralising things to say about the subject.
Re: Many words are misused
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 02:45 pm (UTC)
I agree with you about the word Gay being used to mean rubbish. It's not acceptable. But as a woman can I say that the word 'girl' is often used to mean rubbish also. And it is equally unacceptable.
Re: Many words are misused
[info]wormery wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 09:14 am (UTC)
The problem there is that lots of women use the word 'girls' - in sport, at work, and I hear women say it all the time - and the word boys in used too don;t forget. Girl means young woman, like mademoiselle in French as opposed to Madam. I think some women get offended when people stop calling them 'girl'...

I think you're being over-sensitive here, as many women find the use of girl OK, so why should you assume your view represents all women? Not the same then with the use of gay to mean rubbish. And girl is not used to mean rubbish either.
Re: Many words are misused
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 10:05 am (UTC)
Hi, Wormery

I don't assume that my view represents all women. And I know what you mean when you say that some women like to be called a 'girl'. That isn't what I meant.

On several occassions I have heard the phrase: 'Don't be such a girl' said to both men and women when they have been perceived to be doing something badly. The first time I heard it was when my son was very small on his first visit to the barber. He was quite nervous (always more nervous of the barber than the dentist for some reason) Because my son kept flinching when the barber went near to his ears with the scissors the barber said to him: 'Don't be such a girl.' It was meant as put down to my son. And I have heard the same put down used quite a lot since then.

That is the context I meant.
Re: Many words are misused
[info]wormery wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 10:32 am (UTC)
Oh sorry I misunderstood you.

You're right - this is something all boys and men learn: that is they complain or express weakness in any way, then people - especially women, but some men too - will insult, demean and belittle them. 'Don't be such a girl' as 'don;t be such a wimp' is said, but just accusations of being weak, wet, or just sneered at and disrespected by men and particularly women is somthing all men have to put up with. Listen to feminists sneering at men, calling them wimps and useless. Insecurity cause that true, but men always have to show they are not weak and wimps, so are under constant stress that women know ntohing about really. Why men die younger perhaps.

I remember when I was 8 this horrid girl in class wenet round pinching the boys - hard - and it hurt. So our mums complained and the male head came to our class. When we said who we were compaining about he just said 'A GIRL!' because he thought we were complaining about a boy and compaining about a girl made us wimps. Humiliation for all us boys of course - but at least the psycho-girl stopped her pinching. I also remember a truly horrible female teacher who used to call any boy who ever got upset at anything 'wet' - so if their father had just disappeared due to divorce or died and were sad and upset, then she just spat the word 'wet' at them. Hope she's dead really. Preferably by drowning...

This is all natural perhaps, evolutionary even, and prepares boys for the life of a man. Men do soldier on - no bad thing - and that pressure is one reason why. But in some ways it's not good - and particluarly when we have a healthcare system that expects patients to visit a clinic and does not cater to men's natural reluctance.
Re: Many words are misused
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 10:55 am (UTC)
My son has been very lucky in having a fantastic father as a role model. My husband is a very strong man in that he is into all kind of outdoor things like rock climbing and absailing to name but a few. But he was not afraid to pick up his son and cuddle him when he was small. And even now, though my son lives away from home my husband will always end a telephone conversation with :Love you', to both him and our daughters. So feelings have never been seen as wrong or out of place by our children of either sex. And it has been hugely benificial for our son but our girls also.

But I have known others frown on our treatment of our son, saying that we are going to make him: 'soft'. We haven't. He has all his father physical courage but is also very caring and open with his feelings.

I do feel sorry for men that they are expected not to cry or show emotion.
Re: Many words are misused
[info]wormery wrote:
Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 02:54 pm (UTC)
Ah yes but human nature means that any male who shows emotionor weakness or vulnerability WILL be looked down on and seen as a weakling and a wimp by others, especially women. That is the sad fact - if a man shows weakness - and emotion is seen as that, as is asking for help, as is complaining, as is working parttime and not in a high status career - then it is women especially who will disrepsct him and see him as a wimp and weak - No matter what women say either: it's all there in the subconscious even if women's conscious mind does not see him as that. Human nature I'm afraid - so your son may find that out the hard way if he is used to a family where men do show emotions and weakness.

I do not think modern touchy-feeling parenting and father-ing is necessarily better than having a father who does not do that at all either. Just having a father there and doping stuff together is enough. In fact I hate the emotionalism of the modern age. How do you know it was beneficial to your kids for their father to be so open with emotions? You cannot compare the alternative.

The real problem is that there is so much divorce and so many single mum families where boys have no father at all. Not PC to say so, but all statistics show this is very bad for boys' wellbeing and health.

I do find it a shame that men who are not violent and rough get seen as weak, and women who are rude arrogent pigs get seen as 'strong' or 'feisty' like La Janet herself. No - bullying others and being an arrogant selfish prat is weak for men and women.
What Bravery really means
[info]saltashgirl wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 08:04 am (UTC)
I completely agree with you Janet. All personal tragedy is terrible, but there are millions who die in much worse circumstances every single second and we don't bat an eye lid. Just because they are out of sight or in a country we have a (media engrained) lesser opinion of.

Your examples of NHS failings are continuing and regular examples of how the 'conventional' medial industry continues to use reductionist and mechanistic theories for treatment. Where patients are seen merely as diseased objects there to be cured. If doctors were taught to take a more holistic approach, even if they do not approve of natural medicine theories, I'm sure there would be less deaths due to neglect, mistakes or down right stupidity.
Bravery
[info]wildmanofborneo wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 08:33 am (UTC)
Janet,

I wonder how you can call the deat hs of Marks and Martin brave and yet not allow this statement to apply to Jade ? They all died through medical conditions and most probably in extreme pain.

You are guilty of snobbery because of the snide comments in your article implying that Jade almost deserved her fate.

I did not have much time for Jade when she was alive but I felt sad when she died. You may ask why ? Well it was because of another young life lost and for her 2 children now without their mother. I also feel sad for the parents of Mark & Martin and should you be basing this article on questioning why on earth they were left to die and why no one has been sacked or even dragged up in front of a judge to explain the facts ?

You are right to question the hysteria but to say Jade was not brave is a sad reflection of what you have become a reactionary person trying to grab the headlines.

So shame on you
Re: Bravery
[info]wormery wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 08:39 am (UTC)
Is there anyone who isn't brave then? People get ill and die. It happens. No-one is brave.

But I think I''m very brave to put up with a dumbed down media that celebrates the ignorance of bimbos like Jade whose illness was cause by promiscuous sex at a young age, and with sanctimonious twerps like you of course.
I hope
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 08:47 am (UTC)
that the staff who failed to feed Mark Ryan and allowed him to starve to death have been sacked. If a landlord doesn't have a boiler serviced in a rented property and his tenants die from carbon monoxide poisoning he faces charges of manslaughter. So at the very least the managers in the hospital trust who, and I use this word lightly 'treated' Mark, should face the same.

I agree whole heartedly about the misuse of words. 'Brave' for footballers and don't even get me started on the word 'Respect'. Respect and courtesy are confused by so many. Whilst I treat everyone with common courtesy I reserve my right to respect those whom I feel have earned it. And we don't all respect the same qualities in others so it is purely subjective. But I know that I don't respect those who are aggressive, intimidating, loud, rude and ignorant.

One favour the education system could do the country at the moment is to teach teenagers the difference between the word respect and the word courtesy.

We've lost sight of what bravery really means
[info]fussydog wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 08:55 am (UTC)
As always, JSP writes a very good article. I just want to say that the comparison made between Jade and Princess Diana is valid in the amount of hysteria surrounding their deaths but in regard to the public thinking they know them when they have never met is not a good comparison. The public could not possibly have known Princess Diana from her appearances on TV. I felt deeply for her boys, of course, and her death shocked me but it didn't touch me like Jade's. The public had every opportunity to get to know Jade through her reality TV appearances and I doubt there is anyone who has been interested enough to follow her progress, that hasn't found her totally endearing, not least because she knew she was ignorant and she was able to laugh at herself. Her legacy to her boys means they will have the chances in life that she was deprived of and she has died a very proud woman.
The greater picture
[info]westbrit wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 09:34 am (UTC)
I agree with you, Janet, on the subject of Jade Goody. I feel quietly sorry for her family and children, and I think that there are lessons to be learned beyond the urgency to lower the age limit for smear tests. The message that recklessly promiscuous behaviour in women is bad for their health is not a 'cool' one. Peer pressure, ladette culture, ever earlier sexualisation of children and so on has left us with the highest teen pregnancy rates and STD rates in Europe. The financial footprint of this is enormous, let alone the social cost to us all. I for one find the sight of teenage lone mums pushing prams (yes, of course there are exceptions..) depressing. Schools must do better in passing the message that true empowerment for women lies in self-respect and dignity. I realize that I've left out the male perspective here. Boys need to be taught that one loving partner will fill their soul as well as just their bodily needs. I see a role for educators here, since parents all too often fail their children in setting boundaries.
Re: The greater picture
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 10:50 am (UTC)
I was irked until I reached the part of your comment: "I realize that I've left out the male perspective here. "

Which I very much aree with!

I'm not saying that I don't agree with your comments about female promiscuity, however, HPV is transmitted through sex. i.e. a woman (or a man) who catches it must have caught it from someone.

Additionally, it is not necessary for a woman to have contracted HPV to develop cervical cancer, it is one of the many factors (including smoking, multiple pregnancies, and so on) and it is not an STI, but can result from STIs.

And with respect to the lone teenage mums, they're alone because someone's walked out on them, it takes two adults to raise a child, not one person who's a child themselves!

To summarise - it takes two to have sex, so lets *all* take responsibilty for our own protection.

My sentiments for Jade and her faily are the same as yours: quiet pity for the children and I do agree with Janet when she says it has all gone a bit OTT (courtesy of a certain Mr. Clifford, no doubt), but after reading Jahann Hari's article yesterday there was many truths in that too. I think the media have made her a parody of herself and she's not as bad or good as they make out, she's just one of the normal folk out there who didn't have the best start and used what she had to make the best out of her situation.

But for her death to be marked as more important than, in particular, the 5 avoidable deaths (including Mark Cannon and Martin Ryan or, for that matter, anyone else who has dies of cervical cancer) is absurd.

This is sad, but it's all part of life's rich tapestry.
wow
[info]bowesy wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 09:41 am (UTC)
I actually agree with you.

Generally Hari's articles are so absurd and contrived they are not worth comment, but in this case I am pleased you did. We have all seen Jade as a nasty gobby bully, something Hari's sugar coated one sided nonsense failed to address, and frankly she epitomised what is wrong in this country.

The death of one of these poor guys is worth a hundred Jade Goodys, whilst her death, like Diana's, is a great tragedy for her kids, I have to say good riddance to old rubbish.
[info]peersrogue wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 11:29 am (UTC)
Criminal, indeed @ 02.39 is absolutely spot on.

There should be prosecuted in all these heartbreaking cases. Sad thing is these cases are probably only the tip of the iceberg. What a state as a nation we have come to.
Jade was no more responsible
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 11:30 am (UTC)
for her type of cancer than smokers are for theirs, or drinkers for theirs, or obese people. Very, very few of us live perfect lifestyles free from risk. We are just human beings and have our weaknesses which often lead to serious types of ill health or injury. Are we all going to start living risk free lives? Stop motor racing, mountain climbing, jogging, crossing the road?

Jade buried her head in the sand regarding the letters which came to warn her that she needed to seek urgent treatment. Again, we all do it. How many of us try and hide and don't confront the truth about health issues? Hoping that they will go away or that the worse won't happen to us?

Sleeping around only 'increases' the chance of developing cervical cancer. You can in fact get it from sleeping with just one person if that one person happens to carry the virus.

I didn't take much notice of Jade when she was alive and I don't particularly want to take much notice of her now she is dead, though my sympathies are with her family, as they would be with anyone's family in these circumstances. But I think it unfair that she is seen as culpable in her own death. She is no more culpable than any of us, except that one perfect human being who doesn't really exist.
Jade Goody and false sympathy
[info]nickthelight wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 11:39 am (UTC)
Well said Janet. As tragic an event as Jades death is for her family, she, for the vast majority of the Brirtish public, is just another name on a long list of people we don't know who've die this week.
The missing message
[info]mel_seiger88 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 11:55 am (UTC)
So glad you mentioned that Jade Goody failed to respond to call back letters. This is the important message to be highlighted - ignoring follow ups after abnormal screening results puts your life in danger. As with Princess Diana - failing to wear your seat belt puts your life in danger. You could be forgiven for missing this in the overall media hype and other speculation.
Instead of sheding light, you have shed darknes...
[info]lefalcon wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 12:35 pm (UTC)
What a remarkable ball of confusion. As an observer of British culture from the outside I am sometimes quite appalled at what I see. It is either that I am located too far to be able to discern the truth or British society has gone entirely mad. Perhaps it is a mixture of the two. Of the many person mentioned in the article I only know of two- Princess Diana and Jane Goody. Of the others I will not comment except to say that they suffered a lot, were unable, because of their disability to communicate about their suffering to others, and died painful and horrible deaths. Does that mean that they were brave? I don't honestly think so. I mean the most we can say is that we just don't know. We may feel pity for them and hope that something like that never happens to us, or anyone we love.

The case for Princess Dianna is interesting. At first she seemed like a pleasant but somewhat naive young woman, who was chosen by others, and who did not understand the ramifications of the, for lack of a better word, 'job' that she for which she was chosen. Then due to the exuberance of the media, she learned to enjoy her celebrity status. However in the end she proved to be a victim of the same media, and its insatiable appetite for sensation. I am sure that there were moments in her life when she was brave, but all in all she should be pitied just like those mentioned above, although, to a large extent, she lacked their innocence. She did however do her job by helping provide the heir and the spare.

Jade Goody on the other hand was doomed from the start. There are many people, the talented and the ingenious, who accomplish great things in life in spite of tremendous odds. Believing in their gift, they overcame great odds in order to fulfill their destiny. This is a form of bravery but it does not mean that they necessarily were good or even balanced individuals. Jane Goody was not one such individual. Her talents remained unobserved till the end. Yet she had the courage and determination, to live her life to the fullest, to acknowledge her obvious flaws and faults, and to see things through to the end. Unlike the case of Dianna, hers was a conscious decision that required guts and true grit. She may not have been wise, neither cultured, nor good most of the times, but if one were attribute to her one positive quality, it would have to be bravery or courage. There may be several reasons not to like her but cowardice is not one of them. Please tell me if I am wrong.
Re: Instead of sheding light, you have shed darknes...
[info]whiterabbi7 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 01:38 pm (UTC)
I don't think you are located too far from Britain, this country is insane.

Who was Jade Goody? I'm not wishing to seem heartless here, but seriously, who was she? I attended my grandmother's funeral recently and it upset me to realise I will never enjoy her company again, but Jade? Who was she? I do not possess a TV, but every time I walked into a shop, there on the newspaper stand was this face constantly gawping out of the front pages under headlines such as "Jade Goes to Tesco", "Jade wears a green dress", "Jade is ill", then "Jade is dead", but does it stop there? No, it just gets sicker.

I ask again, WHO WAS JADE GOODY?

Perhaps more importantly, why is she important to anyone outside her family / immediate friends? To my mind, a person is important / significant to me if they have some direct influence over my life. Does this apply to Jade? Is she some roll model for modern Britain? I'm with Oliver James all the way on this matter, the Jade culture is just sick, puerile, train crash voyeurism, I know 12 year olds who can see this.

And Janet is right, the word "brave" does not apply here: bravery implies choice and, in the face of a terminal illness, choice is removed. Almost everyone who dies publicly these days is deemed "brave", the word seems to have lost its original meaning and become a synonym for anyone who suffers. Can someone tell me the difference between a "brave cancer sufferer" and a "cowardly cancer sufferer"? I guess if Myra Hindley got cancer she would be the latter, right? "HURRAH JADE!", "BOO MYRA"

"Yet she had the courage and determination, to live her life to the fullest, to acknowledge her obvious flaws and faults, and to see things through to the end."

Really? And what choice was she given? Also, can you separate her own words from those of Max Clifford, etc?

No, lefalcon, you are not misjudging from afar, modern Britain is fast becoming a disgusting place to live, a place where millions of people are so utterly devoid of any real sense of self-worth and responsibility that they look to media morons / celebrities for inspiration and guidance, anyone will do. This place is becoming so crap that people try to find someone worse off than themselves in order that they might compare their positions and feel better about themselves, Britain is becoming a cynical, nasty place to live: I have even stopped listening to national radio because listening to it makes my feel like I am being programmed more than informed.

I'm ashamed of my nation, I truly am.

Can someone please pass a law making it not merely legal, but compulsory to shoot that scummy, gossiping little slimeball Max Clifford and anyone else like him? That would be a step in the right direction. People like him just perpetuate the moron mentality that modern Britain seems to aspire to.

I am always sad to hear of someone dying, especially a young person with children, but this happens daily perhaps thousands of times - what makes Jade more special than some 16 year old mother with her dead infant baby beside her, sat begging at the roadside, desperately trying to raise enough money to bury her child? If British people need appalling real life stories to make them feel better about their own position, then I know plenty of charity workers who will satiate that appetite with far more heart rending tales than they could imagine.

Nah, Celeb Big Brother is where it's at. Then if you fancy feeling angry you can switch over to Eastenders. But we're all nice people really, see how much we care for Jade?
Re: Instead of sheding light, you have shed darknes...
[info]lefalcon wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 02:31 pm (UTC)
I agree with many of your sentiments. I also understand to a large extent, your outrage. However I think that every cloud has a silver lining. In this case is that Jade may not have done much with her life by any justifiable standard, but she did accomplish something by being more than another sad statistic. She did stir the conciousness of the nation. Whether she intended to or not it was like if she held a mirror up to the wider society. Many people of course, did not like what they saw. Some became angry and yet others were compassionate.
Re: Instead of sheding light, you have shed darknes...
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 02:50 pm (UTC)
For someone who considers themselves so removed from British society, you seem to have a very astute awareness of Jade's effects. I guess people are the same everywhere, though.

Did you read Johann Hari's article on Jade? He discusses how she has reflected society.
Re: Instead of sheding light, you have shed darknes...
[info]whiterabbi7 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 03:18 pm (UTC)
I disagree, what I am seeing here in the British papers at the moment has no silver lining: Jade is a product now, her death is a product, an advertising commodity to be bought and sold by that anything-for-money vulture sh!t, Max Clifford and others like him.

Jade, as far as I can see it, achieved nothing- here's my take from the outside. Jade was TV gold: in a society in which the most popular TV program is "The Apprentice", she was exactly what BB needed, some controversy, someone for people to laugh at and feel superior to. In many important ways, she is more of a statistic than the rest of us.I don't think this woman had much choice in what happened to her, I reckon she wanted to be a star, but those behind BB saw something better for their ratings - a disaster just waiting to happen and when it did happen, the tabloids would have some great sounding splashes about a total non entity. No-news become news.They created Jade as a little filler for their own agendas.

If Jade had lived a longer life, she would have become an object of tabloid readers' hate making regular headlines whenever The Scum, etc was short of a story (which probably means daily). The media machine changed from vilifying her to glorifying her in a heartbeat when it became apparent she was terminally ill because it was realised that this is the best way to sell more papers.

So what next? Shall we get someone with learning difficulties on BB so that we can laugh at them too? A Downs sufferer? Perhaps someone with Parkinson's would make good TV too.

Nothing good will come of this. Now she will probably become a pin-up for cervical cancer which might draw more money into that charity ("industry"?) at the detriment of other charities. The illusion will be that this is good.
Re: Bravery
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 01:08 pm (UTC)
To be brave, there has to be a element of risk. There was no risk in Jades cicumstance. The best word to describe an individual who suffers before death is`dignified`.

Unfortuanately, I can't ascribe that word to Jade for fairly obvious reasons. You can't be brave, if there is no choice (and hence risk) in the outcome. Jade was terminally ill, and nature took it's course. Hence, no bravery, no dignity (the media circus that it was) and some sadness for her family, friends, and some commentators, myself not included.
Re: Bravery
[info]lefalcon wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 02:17 pm (UTC)
to kodak321

Jane Goody took the tremendous risk of not being liked...I don't think that she took pleasure in being cast as a villain...and who among us does not in the end want to be loved. The fact that many people would not be positively disposed towards her did not prevent her from being herself. This for me is courage...this is being brave.
Brave:
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 01:46 pm (UTC)
According to my dictionary: 1 adjective: Bold, courageous, daring, dauntless, fearless, gallant, heroic, intrepid, plucky, resolute, undaunted, valiant, valorous. 2. Verb: Challenge, confront, dare, defy, endure, face, stand up to, suffer, withstand.

Probably something in there for everyone of us. Looking at BRAVE as a verb, then Jade did suffer, so in verb form she was brave.
Bravery
[info]mwangi_githahu wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 02:58 pm (UTC)
Finally some balance on the Jane Goody thing. Thank you
Re: Bravery
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 03:54 pm (UTC)
Yes in the verb form but, not in the context. Jade died under the glare of the camera for substantial pecuniary gain. Ah, it was for her sons, some might say. It was undignified, characteristic of the type of person she was. Nothing dignified. Nothing brave. Her death was inevitable and she turned it into a media `event`.
We've lost sight of what bravery really means
[info]ewanwatson wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 04:37 pm (UTC)
No more so than you JSP. Neither Martin nor Mark were "brave". Abused, let down, treated with criminal negligence, certainly, possibly stoic even but hardly brave. Bravery implies to me a rational assessment of risk (physical or mental) coupled with the will to substantially ignore that risk, for altruistic purpose. A one year old cancer victim for instance cannot be brave as they do not have the mental development to know what is occurring and therefore there is no capacity to assess and then ignore risk. Jade Goody was hardly altruistic (read The Selfish Gene if you think she was). Private Johnson Beharry isbrave, Violette Szabo was brave, Philip Lawrence was brave, Ghandi was brave, Rosa Parks was undoubtedly brave, Harvey Milk was brave, Morgan Tsvangiri is brave, I could go on but I think you get the idea. Bravery is based on actions in response to your situation not on the situation itself.
Is the word brave used too freely?
[info]panchoangry wrote:
Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 07:38 pm (UTC)
Writing fom the 'Home of the Brave' -- yes, absolutely.
Is Janet Street Porter Brave?
[info]gs100 wrote:
Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
'Jade was partly responsible for her condition'

Janet who do you think you are?!! The cause of cervical cancer is not entirely known. 8/10 people are said to carry to HPV virus and in fact most women with abnormal cells do not get cervical cancer. Jade had smears, maybe the authorities should have been educating women more about this. But to blame Jade is absurd!!

And to say that a woman who has faced the certian death under the public spotlight is not Brave? Then who is brave Janet? She smiled at death's door, made sure her kids were all right and accepted she was going to die rather than hiding away and feeling sorry for herself.

Janet - I love the decription of your memoirs "Baggage, My childhood"
It's descibed by your publishers as "Brilliant, brave, controversial, combative, intellectual - just how do you become Janet Street-Porter?". Maybe you should get that changed

Columnist Comments

andrew_grice

Andrew Grice: Enough of the philosophy, Mr Cameron.

Think-tanks play an important role in politics. But they have their limits.

christina_patterson

Christina Patterson: Very nice - but forgiveness is overrated

Sometimes, as Lydon sang, in his post Sex Pistols band, 'anger is an energy.'

mary_dejevsky

Mary Dejevsky: Why not call Blair now and wrap it up?

The enquiry already seems like a sideline as the queues dwindle.


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion