River of Life - The Cunliffe Report & Us

Adults should drink 2 - 2.5 litres of water a day. Afraid I don't, but I do probably drink that much tea, with a coffee thrown in first thing. On the other hand approximately 2.2 billion people worldwide lack access to safe drinking water. 115 million people rely on surface water. 3.5 billion people lack safely managed sanitation, and 419 million practice open defecation. 

No river in England is free from pollution, with only 14% of England's rivers in good ecological health, and 83% show high levels of sewage and agricultural pollution. The Cunliffe Review, published in June this year, exposes just how bad things are in England & Wales & just how Ofwat, the Environment Agency, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, Natural England and Natural Resources Wales have let us all down, 36 years after privatisation by the conservatives under Mrs Thatcher. A privatised system needs strong regulators, but that hasn't happened, not just in the water industry. Cunliffe makes 88 recommendations. That shows just how bad things have been allowed to get. 

 

We have made the mistake of taking plentiful clean water for granted. We waste huge amounts, as do the water companies in leaks, because the infrastructure hasn't been maintained properly. But in comparison to much of the world we are so lucky. We have allowed our rivers, lakes & seas to be polluted to the point where it is unsafe to swim in them & some are effectively dead. 

We have all taken our eye off the ball, but the regulators & the politicians are culpable. What the hell have they been doing for 36 years? Basically they have allowed privatisation to run down what was a profitable, reasonably well run, industry to drain away vital income into the pockets of hugely well paid senior managers & shareholders. I actually think it is criminal. 

Now the public will have to pay. Again. 

  

 

Empty phrases - "How Are You"?

The art of conversation seems to be becoming very formulaic. I am really fed up with listening to radio 4 programmes where interviewees monotonously say "thank you for having me" & "how are you"? to the interviewer. Neither party is there for a friendly conversation. They are there because something is newsworthy enough to be on radio 4 & there are questions that need to be answered. Hopefully both parties are well informed & have something worthwhile to say.

If you say "how are you" to someone I feel you should actually be interested in the answer & be prepared to give it the attention it deserves. It shouldn't simply be a glib, not expecting a proper answer, conversational gambit. We all play the game. We all respond, "I'm fine how are you"? & don't expect any real information. It's like Brits conversations about the weather, utterly pointless.

Similarly "thank you for having me". What on earth does that actually mean? How can you "have" a person? Both parties are in the interview in order to convey information. The phrase is transactional, facile, superficial. They need eachother & are there for a specific purpose. Generally the BBC does not pay members of the public for interviews. There can be exceptions for experts, consultants, or those involved in high-profile news stories, but the standard practice is not to compensate individuals for participating in news interviews.  

Conversation should, of course, be polite. There is nothing worse than interviewer & interviewees speaking, or even shouting, over eachother, although it does happen more often than it should. It defeats the object of the listener being informed & getting information & is extremely irritating. Personally it makes me turn the radio off. 

The most empty phrase of all time has got to be "like". It's a filler word like um & er, it's how we make time to formulate a thought or word. Goodness knows how it has become so prevalent. People don't seem to be able to tolerate silence any more. Silence allows us to think. But I feel we have lost the art of thinking before we speak or act. Some people just want to be the one speaking, even when they actually don't have much to say.

 

Lifestyle

I'm not at all sure that I have a "lifestyle". What exactly does it mean? It's such a nebulous term. Does it mean that there are rules or patterns of behaviour? Wikipedia says it is the interests, opinions, behaviours, and behavioural orientations of an individual, group, or culture. So I have to wonder how you become a member. How you find out the rules that apply.

More importantly, why do individuals want to join a particular "lifestyle club". 

I suppose that a lot of it is dictated by social media, advertising & influencers. That puts me off for a start.

The key to my unease is the word dictated. Where is individuality in all of this? Where is the value in being different, following your own beliefs & interests. Why don't we value our individuality, our difference? Why are we determined to be a member of a group, without being able to diverge from the behaviours or mores of that group? Why should we allow ourselves to be so influenced by someone else. Often someone that we don't even know?

I'm trying to work out what my lifestyle is. I'm old, I live alone, I have a house, but no pets, I have an interesting & busy life, I don't have a big family, but I have lots of friends, I have a routine, but I do like unplanned things, I enjoy doing lots of things, I'm never bored....

What group does that put me in? A granny, A retiree, A pensioner? Well no, I don't think I conform to the image any of those names conjours up. I hope not, because I think those names categorize & are dismissive & I don't want to belong to a homogenous group.

I want to be me far more than I want to "belong". I don't want to wear what old people are "supposed " to wear, or do what old people are "supposed" to do. I wish I had realised that when I was young & did try to fit in with others & their expectations. Now I really don't think that is the way to be. 

 

It is important to know what matters to you, not try to conform to what matters to other people. 

My Territory

Some Bolshie idiot. (I use the term advisedly, you'll soon get why), parks his car in my driveway. I don't know him & I certainly haven't given him permisson to invade my space. I'm both surprised & annoyed. It's very inconvenient. What right has he got to do that - none whatsoever. 

So I remonstrate. Strongly. But he is very aggressive & belligerent. Its a war - of words. But he is a bully.

All the neighbours can see what is happening & in various ways most support me. I need help from an organisation with clout to enforce the rules - the police. But the police sympathise & just monitor the situation. They don't forcibly remove him or charge him.

So I ask Citizens Advice what to do. They just advise mediation. But the mediation will be just the mediator & the man who has parked in my drive. I will not be invited to attend my own mediation.

It's ridiculous right? It would never happen. There are laws & people have rights that can be enforced.

Well, think again, because that is exactly what is happening between Russia, (the agressor parking his tanks unlawfully) & Ukraine (the landowner trying to defend himself).

If anyone had asked me whether this could happen when I was young I would have simply laughed. But the Jugoslavian war opened my eyes to how ineffectual enforcement of international law is. We have not prepared any better for dictator bullies. We have many leaders who appease rather than confront. We do not act together as a proper international force. 

What is happening shames us all. Ukraine is not perfect. But it is a sovereign state that has defended itself bravely in the face of terrible cost in destruction, injury & death against a very wealthy & powerful aggressor. 

If we are not able to stop this without the aggressor benefitting from his aggression we are all not only shamed but we will open Pandoras Box for future generations.

 

Reality TV

There is more than one kind of reality TV. The obvious one is programmes like "The Apprentice", "The Traitors", "Dragons Den", "Race Around the World" - all BBC. On ITV there is "Big brother", "Love Island", "Britains Got Talent", "TOWIE". 

The other kind is the reality we see in daily news & documentary programmes. 

Then there is the reality of our own individual lives. How do we process reality tv & real events we can see at a safe distance? 

I seriously wonder if we truly understand what reality is. We are bombarded with the "reality" of social media & "influencers" as well as reality tv. What we see is carefully curated & edited. The people we see present a persona & we have no way of knowing how real that is. I suspect in many cases it is worlds away from the reality most of us experience.

The reality of disaster & war is removed from us. We watch, but do we really process & empathise? When people are actually involved in traumatic events that is light years away from watching it on a screen. Distance allows us to see it almost like a drama, because it is too hard to fully engage with what is happening.

I am concerned that we are becoming inured to events that should motivate us to action. Our own lives are so complex & busy that we cannot allow ourselves to become too involved in the lives of others. The daily grind, whatever that is, occupies our minds & energy to the extent that we possibly tolerate things that are intolerable. In fact it is all to easy to "other" people so that we don't feel personal responsibility to take action. This is evident in the way refugees & migrants are portrayed. If we were to acknowledge their equal humanity to ourselves, how could we describe them as illegal, a flood, an influx, an onslaught, mass migration......The language we use risks dehumanizing individuals and conflating legal status with identity. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/02/language-on-immigration-in-uk-news-and-politics-found-to-have-shaped-backlash-against-antiracism

https://www.runnymedetrust.org/publications/a-hostile-environment-language-race-surveillance-and-the-media

 

Today we have the ability to know more of what the reality of living in other places is. We cannot say that we didn't know. If you accept that, then don't you have to do something about the unacceptable reality that millions live with? 

Titles

I'm reading a novel by Richard Coles. He was in The Communards in the 1980's. After that he was a C of E vicar. He was also a radio presenter. Now he writes novels. So, multi talented. It made me think about titles & wonder why, when he left the church because of it's stance on LGBTQ+, he still uses the title Rev.

Then I wondered why, when I have been widowed for 16 years, I am still Mrs....

That led me to the Monarchy & Aristocracy. Why do we accept that, simply because of an accident of birth, some people are given higher status than others. They haven't done anything to earn their status. They may not be particularly intelligent, or skilled, or have valuable experience or expertise. They cannot necessarily be thought of as having done anything to merit their exalted position other than been born to privileged parents. 

Then there is the vexed question of the Honors List where politicians & the monarch raise people to higher status. If it were only done because the recipients had done something exceptional to merit the honor, I wouldn't mind. But that isn't necessarily the case. The Conservatives apparently gave out 10 times more honours than Labour since 2010.

OBE, MBE, CBE - These are the most common honors and are awarded twice a year (New Year and King's Birthday) for contributions to various fields like arts, sciences, public service, and community work. I'm struggling to justify why, because someone has been talented in sport or the arts for example, that warants an honor. I certainly can't justify celebrity honours. 

Knighthoods/Damehoods -  Are higher honors given for supposedly major contributions at a national or international level. Many of these are political. A significant portion of these honors are tied to political service, donations and influence. Some are directly awarded by the Prime Minister upon resignation, and others are given to those who have held public office and contributed to national life. There has been an expectation that politicians & civil servants are almost entitled to these. Many people object to the degrading of these, for example by Boris Johnson & especially Liz Truss after being Prime Minister. 

Personally, while I am always interested in meeting new people, I struggle to defer to anyone. Honour means high respect, great esteem. If someone has done something outstanding or above the norm I would obviously respect that. But that does not seem to be how our Honors system always works. The system is inherently flawed & debases those who genuinely deserve to be recognised. 

It needs to change. Titles are not the answer. It just perpetuates the British class system. We need to be a genuine meritocracy.