Sitting Duck/Jaques07

Nobody, I agree. I've already flagged up my concerns re another of Jaques earlier 'opinion' pieces and it has been discussed. It's a tricky one apparently, censorship-wise, as it is merely an opinion. His prejudices are becoming more and more blatant though. The most recent ones are still on the spike and haven't been read yet by the editors. I'm not sure at what point his writing would warrant censure, but he will be kept an eye on. What I would say, is that his views are so obviously charged with bitterness and bile that I doubt they effectually portray anyone in a bad light except himself. I know the situation in SA leaves a lot to be desired. A white friend has a relative out there who has suffered some terrifying ordeals in the past few years. However, I find it almost laughable that Jaques fails to see the irony of his position. He appears hate-filled on account of feeling discriminated against and threatened due of his colour. Decades of far worse in the other direction are expected to have no lasting effect whatsoever. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

I've seen a lot of hate, of one sort or another, on this site. Personal hate, racism, sexism, class hate, etc. All silly, all rotten, but, censorship is against my Magna Carta -- means make the end. But doesn't such hate make for a hollow boring read! How dead on page the stuff is! And Jaques really does come across as a horse of bad bottom The Lone Groove

I thought long and hard before accepting these pieces - but decided that they were a comment and not an incitement and therefore could go on. Personally I detest them but it's that old censorship thing - if I can possibly allow them on, then I will - however much I may disagree with them.

The sad, or maybe fortunate thing is, his pieces offer to me at least, a lot more insight into the mind of a racist but not overtly racist southern white dude. He is not alone. The south in America is full of folks who think exactly the same way. But what I mean to say is that the reason I don't find his pieces too offensive is that, if he had labeled them as fiction and given them a title that suggested that he was, you know, just showing that this kind of person exists, we would all be thinking how fascinatingly terrifying the reality of how a lot of white folks feel about blacks in the south. They have value in that way, and I think it's good for people to read them because they will know more about the situation and they will realize what a short-sighted fool him and the rest of his crowd are. I've heard about the experiment you are doing, Nobody, so you should be able to understand what I'm saying. You never know, maybe this guy is experimenting in the same way. Even if he isn't, that doesn't stop us from appreciating them through that hypothetical perspective.

He's in South Africa - not Southern America!

Without joining in a debate on what is racist and what isn't, I don't suppose any one of the critics of these pieces actually *lives* in South Africa? We all think we know the history of the country but perhaps Jacques has a point, however inelegantly put, and being South African, has a better grip on what actually happens than we do in our comfortably eager left-wing politically correct armchairs on the other side of the world. The kneejerk reaction is to feel that blacks are always the victims, because of the history, but I suspect that black people have as much agency in their own behaviour as whites. Just a thought.

Yeah, I thought I kinda covered that, AG. No one is saying that whites don’t suffer discrimination or that crime against whites hasn’t increased massively. Stating that that is the case is not what Jaques is being criticized for. I remember reading a beautiful piece on here about a white girl growing up in South Africa during Apartheid. She was scared of the servants because she knew they resented her and she suffered regularly at their hands from petty cruelties. It was a moving and interesting piece, written from a perspective I hadn’t given much thought to. At no point, however, did she imply that the servants’ unjust behaviour was part of their innate ‘black’ character or that she failed to understand what fuelled their attitude towards her. A well-written series of pieces, from Jaques, documenting the crisis in black/white relations following the end of fifty years of Apartheid would’ve been met with interest rather than scorn. Instead we get this sort of thing on the matter of a white ex-soldier being discriminated against by a black recruitment officer (called here, ‘the fucker’): "But what the fucker did not know, because it was beyond the grasp of his intelligence and insight, was that in ten years from now the tables would be turned. He, and most of his buddies he was busy conscripting into the army right at this moment, would be dead or dying of AIDS. His glorious liberation army and government would be nothing but a shell and a ghost of what it was now. It would be non-functioning, and for all practical purposes, non-existent. And the young white man he had just chased off like a dog? Well he would lead a long and glorious life. He would become a great writer and artist, and his name would live on forever." I don’t care where he lives, that sucks. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

You know, I don't disagree that the writing is filled with bitterness and anger, but I still think there are some assumptions amongst the critics which perhaps should be questioned, which could be summarised thus: Sum(South Africa): Black = good, nice, pure + historical victim/White = bad, bigot + perpetrator. I must stress that I am *not* advocating prejudice of any sort, but I do think it is not unreasonable for someone who has been beaten up by a gang and is systematically discriminated against to feel anger and bitterness. Why is this somehow okay for blacks to feel, but not whites? Not all white South Africans were pro-apartheid and thought Bothe was a great guy; I cannot speak for Jacques' feelings about apartheid, but I do feel that he is just as entitled to feel victimised in post-apartheid SA as the blacks did during it. There IS racial discrimination happening (look at Zimbabwe; okay, we can argue about colonialism, but the government there truly cut off its own nose and starved its people in the meantime). He does also, sadly, have some valid points about the ineptitude and attitude of various organisations; this is not exclusive to South Africa but can be found throughout the continent (and indeed the rest of the world...) These are complex issues and I feel that people are reacting to the *subject*, without having any personal experience. To the writing *content*, however, I agree with 2Lou that there are ways of showing things which make the reader think more deeply about matters. Jacques is heavy-handed and angry in his writing, which could do with some editing and reworking, but I will defend his right to write what he likes, however distasteful some may find it. Ta.

Nobody, you are missing my point, and we are arguing about two different things. You are, I might say, overreacting. One part of the thread is per 2Lou's discussion about writing style and content, and I am in total agreement with her. The other part of the discussion is the actual subject matter, which is where you're getting bent out of shape. I don't think it's arrogant of me to suggest that, unless you have lived in SA you won't really have any idea of the real situation. 2Lou also discussed this in her post. I would say the same thing about, oh, Bradford, for example. If you have never been there, the ideas you get about life there are from what the press/television show you, and they all have their own agendas. I'm not denying or diminishing the history of the country, but I am suggesting that for *some* of the readers, the awareness of the past history of the country is blinkering their ability to accept another, very different perspective on the present. I *have* read a good deal of Jacques' work, loads and loads of it. I don't agree with all of it, but defending his right to write it hardly puts me amongst the lynch mobs and Holocaust deniers - to suggest that is childish and rather stupid. I personally find it easier to read and understand one man's prejudices and bitterness than to read, for example, a short vignette on the brutal rape and slow death of a woman by a stream, as was posted on this site at one point. The motive in Jacques' writing is to unload his feelings; this is clear, and however unpalatable you might personally find it, the fact is that we all have deeply-held prejudices, some of which are cloaked in a form of moral superiority toward those who hold views much different from our own. You might even say that, judging by your very emotional reaction to Jacques' writing, he is in fact triggering your own prejudices. And I guess I should add that, should any of the critics of Jacques' subject matter be in fact themselves South Africans of any skin colour, then I will absolutely stand corrected and stand down.

I would never, ever defend racism as a viable way to view things, Nobody, but I do acknowledge others' right to differ. I don't like it, but I understand it to a certain extent. Like 2Lou said, if Jacques can channel all of his anger and resentment and remove the vitriol from it, the subject of reverse discrimination would actually be a very interesting and informative topic to write about. Very eye-opening. But I strongly agree that the current narrative doesn't evoke much sympathy! Jacques, are you reading this? :-)

"We all think we know the history of the country but perhaps Jacques has a point, however inelegantly put, and being South African, has a better grip on what actually happens than we do in our comfortably eager left-wing politically correct armchairs on the other side of the world." Luckily, my response to this, which was like Nobody's but angrier got timed-out out last night. I think the point that people who aren't in South Africa don't know what's going on there is quite reasonable - although I wouldn't take it to the extent that you do - but I object the 'left-wing politically correct archairs'. You seem to be joining many others in suffering from 'Political correctness gone mad, gone mad' syndrome. Sufferers from this syndrome use the tag politically correct - often wildly out of context - to disparage a position or argument without actually having to go to the trouble of explaining why that position may or may not be correct. The 'gone mad' brigade apparently think while reactionary opinions are all genuine, experienced-based and authentic, liberal or left-wing opinions are completely unrelated to life experiences and all produced by indoctrination by local councils and listening to Radio 4. And furthermore people who hold liberal or left-wing views do not in fact really hold these positions - which may or may not be correct - on a practical or moral basis but espouse them solely to avoid offending one-legged black lesbians. I don't think that's a great basis for debate.

Ah, but Bukh, you've got me all wrong, mate. I just did that political compass thingmie on the other forum and came out very, very leftist and near anarchist, and not because I'm afraid to offend one-legged black lesbians, either. I think the point I was trying to make, probably very badly, was that it is very easy to decry someone else's belief system (in this case, a rather inflammatory one) without pausing to think about why they have that worldview. My comment about leftist armchair PC-police stemmed from this. One of the things I love and hate about Middle England is this sort of overriding sincerity and eagerness to be seen to be embracing all that is socially accepting and integrative and non-prejudiced in the world (as denoted by your very funny comments about indoctrination by councils and Radio 4, which aren't far off the mark. I work for one of those councils.). It's easy for those who feel like this to experience instant outrage at the suggestion of racism or hate towards a perceived underdog (also a very English sentiment, I think). However, reacting this way, particularly in the context of this piece of writing, is nearly as lacking in insight as the work in question, because it means that the reactor has only thought about one side of the coin- the side s/he prefers to see as it fits with his/her worldview: in this case, that all-embracing socialist let's all love one another worldview. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this perspective (I hold it myself); however, it becomes wrong when seen to be the only valid perspective available to everyone. This is a form of prejudice. If we live in a truly liberal society we must accept the fact that not everyone feels the same way, and if we are to uphold our right to say and feel what we want, we must also then accept that others have the right to say and feel what they want, whether or not it is popular. What I was suggesting was that instead of just reacting to an unpleasant piece of writing in a knee-jerk 'that's bad and you're wrong' kind of way, it would be more informative to put the shoe on the other foot, and see how it fits. Compassion is not just about feeling empathy for those with whom we agree; it is about feeling empathy for those with whom we don't. As it is, I hope I explained things clearly in previous posts. Perhaps you object to my terminology because you feel you are, indeed, one of those liberal left-wing PC policeman, eh? :-)

I am a leftist. I'm not a liberal - in the English sense, I'd be described as one in the US. I don't own an armchair. I don't think I did get your wrong. I wasn't suggesting that you are right-wing, I was suggesting that you're wrong to attribute the view you describe as PC to: "overriding sincerity and eagerness to be seen to be embracing all that is socially accepting and integrative and non-prejudiced in the world" in a knee-jerk fashion. Of course, some people really, really want to be seen as not being prejudiced. Some people are forced to pretend they're not prejudiced for professional reasons - these people are, not necessarily wrongly, caught up in political correctness. Other people may just - in principle - object to discrimination against people or negative representation of people on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, religion, facial disfigurement, fashion sense etc. Some or all of these objections - or the way in which they're raised - may be some or all of: excessive, misplaced, ill-informed or counter-productive. I was arguing that - like much of the British media - you've gone down the route of labelliing opinions and actions as PC rather than challenging them on their merits.

I am far too tired to argue about the semantics of 'PC'; therefore I willingly withdraw that part of my statement. But one could argue that it is currently politically correct to pretend one doesn't have any prejudices of one's own, whilst slating those who are more open about their beliefs.

My problem with AG’s argument is one of assumptions. You’re making assumptions about people’s assumptions, AG, if you know what I mean. ‘Black = good, nice, pure + historical victim/White = bad, bigot + perpetrator’ is a simplistic assumption, you’re right. The assumption I disagree with is the one that says that if a person is critical of Jaques’ writings then they must be looking at the situation simplistically. Just as you have been able to consider the other side of the coin, AG (even though you don’t live in SA) others have too. In this country we had a gradual extension of the franchise over centuries. When a transition such as this happens ‘overnight’ it seems almost inevitable that there will be a period of political blood letting against those who previously had the upper hand. My knowledge is sketchy, to say the least, but I seem to recall it was the rushed and heavy-handed implementation of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that led to the formation of the Klu Klux Klan in the South. It’s easy to understand why it happened and in an odd way you can sympathize. The Whites were suddenly outnumbered, vulnerable and threatened and the place was in chaos. Having an understanding of their genuine grievances, however, does not negate the fact that those who headed the Klu Klux Klan did so in the belief that Negroes were lesser human beings. I *have* considered the other side of the coin as far as Jaques is concerned, but, in my opinion, his writings have increasingly betrayed an underlying disdain for blacks that runs far deeper than a simple reaction to his current situation. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

AG do you really believe you have to live in South Africa, or any other place, before you can have a good picture, and form an opinion of what’s going on there? Do you really believe that after years and years of hearing multiple reports from thousands of individuals from all the walks of life in South Africa, from many different sauces (not only the media), that it is not enough to qualify some one to use a little imagination to form a valid picture or opinion -- and this view to be rejected solely on the grounds that one is not there and experiencing it first hand? If so, this would mean we should all just shut up about all the stuff we hear about unless it is happening to us. What is wrong with Jaques' piece is it’s one dimensional reactionary view. I don’t have to live there to get that! Chris

I will hold my hand up and admit that I make assumptions about people's assumptions, definitely. My reaction to some of these posts comes purely from the wording in the posts, if you see what I mean, some of which seemed to come from a purely inconsidered knee-jerk response to the subject matter. 2Lou's responses were far more insightful, and also helpful, than the others- she, for sure, has not looked at the situation simplistically; I'm not yet convinced about the other responses. 'See in the underclass you don't have time to judge people by their colour etc, you're all in it together' - I couldn't disagree more, Nobody. There is racism amongst all socio-economic strata, full stop, just as there are genuinely non-prejudiced people. It isn't as simplistic as this. 'Now the one thing I hate is racism and discrimination, not just against blacks but against anyone.' - But if you are promoting equality, you must consider that those who disagree with your view are also your equals; if you take equality to its fullest measure, it includes those with undesirable viewpoints. It can't just be that you promote one side to the exclusion of the other. 'minorities = our equals. people who don't like minorities = not our equal.' This may not actually be what you feel, but this is what your posts imply. Congratulations on uncledom, btw! 'it is not enough to qualify some one to use a little imagination to form a valid picture or opinion -- and this view to be rejected solely on the grounds that one is not there and experiencing it first hand?' Imagination does not equal experience. I like to use my imagination and have a love affair with Russell Crowe. Sadly, I have never experienced a real love affair with him, although I do write him letters suggesting we have one. I do believe that you have to live in a place to get a genuine idea of what life is like. You can watch all the National Geographic and CNN programmes about life in Malawi that you want to; the fact of the matter is, unless you have lived in Malawi for a number of years, worked there, felt the weather, spoken the language, you will not understand, completely, what it is like to live there, or to be a Malawian. That's a given. And what you appear to be missing, according to what you have said, is that there is not only the black South African experience, but also the white South African experience, and it's not the case that [some] white South Africans are prejudiced, but black South Africans aren't. It runs both ways, and there are most definitely historical reasons for this, but IMO prejudice on ANY side is not justifiable. Whatever view Jacques has of his world and the people in it, he is still the victim of prejudice, and it is still unjustified, no matter his personal beliefs, and no doubt the things that happen to him simply serve to reinforce these beliefs, which does not serve the greater good of SA or the people in it. You do not progress if you do unto others what has been done to you; two wrongs don't make a right, etc. I have never disputed that the writing lacks insight, and would be much better served if the writer took a 'time out' before writing, to consider both the actions/perpetrators, his responses, and the reasons for both. It is helpful to criticize the *writing*; less helpful to just dismiss the writer.

Oh dear, oh dear. Neither a reliable witness to events nor undeserving of our sympathy, it seems. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

"But one could argue that it is currently politically correct to pretend one doesn't have any prejudices of one's own, whilst slating those who are more open about their beliefs." Once again, a peverse use of 'politically correct' with no connection to any logical meaning of the phrase. 'Fashionable' might make sense in that context. If you're arguiung that it's politically correct to have a go at other people's prejudice s while claiming to have none of your own, you'd need to make some suggestion of which political or societal is dictating this correctness. Many people, probably most people, do criticise other people's prejudices while claiming to have none of their own. Partly because it's often easier to identify prejudice in other people than it is to admit to it in yourself. That's a human failing, it's not political correctness. That said, though, I don't accept the logic that people who understand that they themselves are prejudiced in many ways - all of us are, because we don't know or understand everything and it's impossible for us to do so - should not criticise prejudice (and the consequences of prejudice) in others.

"...I don't accept the logic that people who understand that they themselves are prejudiced in many ways - all of us are, because we don't know or understand and it's impossible for us to do so - should not criticise prejudice (and the consequences of prejudice) in others." Sorry, BWMFB... I don't quite get the logic of what you're saying here. I get the gist that people who have prejudices shouldn't be excluded from criticising prejudices in others. But how can we understand ourselves to be prejudiced if it's impossible to understand that we are prejudiced? Why is it impossible to understand that we are prejudiced? Sorry... I may just be having a bad moment.

Bukh, you're arguing in the style of Jack Cade, and I'm just not up for the mental gymnastics.I will reiterate my willingness to withdraw *all* statements that include the words 'politically correct' in them, and leave it to you to fill in the sentences, should you desire, with a word commensurate with the context. I've said my piece, replete with my own ingrained prejudices. 2Lou, your comments about the KKK are very incisive, and I agree 100% with your post. Personally, I abhor prejudice on principle, whilst acknowledging that I have a good number of them myself, some conscious and some a little more subtle. But I don't feel that attacking people (as this may or may not be perceived) about their beliefs brings them any closer to insight, while gentleness and compassion just may.

"Bukh, you're arguing in the style of Jack Cade..." Ha! You mean long sentences, or use of the phrase 'logical meaning'? I do follow what he's saying entirely though - you said, "one could argue that it is currently politically correct to pretend one doesn't have any prejudices of one's own..." etc. And you could, but it wouldn't be a very good argument, because, as David says, it's not something people do for political reasons - it's just something humans have always done - pointing out each other's mistakes without necessarily recognising their own. I too get fed up with overuse of the phrase 'politically correct', particularly when it's used to mean, essentially, 'not stridently offensive'. As in, "I want to call that person a nignog/chinkee/spacker/bulldyke but society won't let me because it's not politically correct to do so." It's also become an irritating fashion statement - people advertise themselves as being 'politically incorrect' in the same way they claim to be 'nonconformist' and 'refreshingly honest'. All it really means, in that situation, is that it's critical of the government. Whoopee-doo.

Well this is a site discussing the strength of the writing is it not. As for the writing, I think it was quite good. The story was fluid, and it pained a picture of the setting etc... Im no writer, just a reader - and I found it ok. I imagined the young guy tormenting the dogs, and the little house where the old lady lived. Now on the subjuect matter - I have to say, I found this piece fulll of racism. It was quite simply a piece of propaganda against black people. Whatever the historical context of this story, it implied that black men are of such low moral fibre that they would tie up and rob an elderley lady, than kill her. I fiind this offensive, and I hope the writer does not belive this themslef, and the person writing was a character they created. If not, I truly hope they have a good long thought at what they believe to be tru.

"...I don't accept the logic that people who understand that they themselves are prejudiced in many ways - all of us are, because we don't know or understand and it's impossible for us to do so - should not criticise prejudice (and the consequences of prejudice) in others." Sorry, BWMFB... I don't quite get the logic of what you're saying here. I get the gist that people who have prejudices shouldn't be excluded from criticising prejudices in others." No, you're not missing anything. I've missed a word out the word 'everything' which causes the sentence to make no sense whatsoever. If possible, I'll go an put it in.

I just (about a month ago) watched a movie called Tsotsi (coincidence, Jaques?). I'll never think about S Africa in the same way, and it made this piece seem benign. Never once did I say 'racism', but rather, 'my god, is that really what it's like over there?" I don't mean to discredit anyone's reaction to this piece, in fact I felt all that was written was justified...but maybe because of that movie, it struck me instead instead as a commentary on life in that part of the world. I recommend the movie - watch it then read this piece again - then see if your reaction is the same. might be. might not be. foster.

Foster - I've seen 'Tsotsi' - wouldn't be quite so ready to take it as hard journalism, seeing as it's a slightly mawkish tale. And it doesn't change my impression of this piece - the film is concerned with the divide between the affluent and poorer areas. Tsotsi and his gang are black, but so are their victims. Added to that, the reasons for Tsotsi being what he is (abused as a child etc.) are delved into, *and* he achieves a measure of redemption by the end of the film. Jacques' piece not only singles out the perpetrator as being black, without mentioning the colour of his victims (so we're left to assume they're white, otherwise why mention colour at all?) but it also fails to suggest that poverty has anything to do with it, and as Jacques himself admits, doesn't tell the criminal's side of the story (if indeed that character *is* a criminal - it's all speculation and paranoia). This leads on to the 'good writing' part of it as well. Jacques - your sympathies may well be with the victims, but if you want to tell a story, you have to give some impression of what motivates all those involved. So if you're not prepared to 'get into the head of' a criminal, or you don't believe there is anything there that can be sympathised with, I don't think you can ever succeed in a piece like this.

The similarities between Jaques piece and the film are found in the attitudes of the criminals – their disregard for life, etc - they were portrayed in the same way, which leads me to believe its an accurate depiction, and not an angry racist's backlash. Maybe the movie buffered this piece for me, and because of that I wasn’t as shocked by it. I still fail to see racism in either, but don’t doubt that others do – we all are free to interpret stories as we see fit. But to call this racism, to me, is a dangerous thing because it puts this story and others like it into a “forbidden” category, when I think things like this need to be written about (but perhaps with a bit more thought). There have been great books written with racism at their heart, and from the other POV, some of Toni Morrisons's work – what makes them more acceptable?

'There have been great books written with racism at their heart, and from the other POV, some of Toni Morrisons's work – what makes them more acceptable?' This was my point, too, Foster, but not a popular one.

"The similarities between Jaques piece and the film are found in the attitudes of the criminals – their disregard for life, etc - they were portrayed in the same way..." No, they weren't. In the film, one of the gang is physically sick when Tsotsi kills someone, and then rages at him until they get into a fight, going on and on about how their victim had more honour and dignity than any of them. Later, Tsotsi is racked with guilt over what he's done, and kills a fellow gang member in order to stop him killing another victim. And then he turns himself in. I don't see how this could be a more different portrayal of a young killer to Jacques'. Calling it racism is only dangerous if you cannot distinguish between two stories about South African crime when one is racist and one isn't. Books written with racism at their heart - or examining racism - are clearly in a separate category to rants against black criminals written in a similar setting. It's like being hesitant to condemn Mein Kampf because you've seen Schindler's List.

I'm no longer sure what's being debated: A. Is Jaques' piece racist? B. Is Tsotsi racist? C. Is Jacques' piece similar to Tsotsi? D. Are books about racism in a separate category to rants against black criminals written in a similar setting? Of these, I find C to be the most interesting. Jacques' piece is very short, six paragraphs, the final a single sentence. Tsotsi is a full length movie - of course the characters and plot line are more developed. Who's to say that in Sitting Duck, after they robbed the old lady, one of the thugs didn't feel strong remorse and throw up, and who's to say the leader didn't one day try to redeem himself? If you were to stop the movie after the opening scene, after they rob and kill the man on a train, but before one of them throws up...you have Sitting Duck, retold in a different way. The difference is that the movie is longer, and Jacque's piece stops, but could go on in the same way as the film, or in a number of other ways.

Good point Fozzie. However, Jacques has CHOSEN to end his story at the point he has. Whether this is significant is anyone's guess, but the readers can only draw their own conclusions. The piece lacks a moral standpoint, and some opinion from the writer would improve it.

"If you were to stop the movie after the opening scene, after they rob and kill the man on a train, but before one of them throws up...you have Sitting Duck, retold in a different way." Not really. In the film, you have a crime carried out by slum-dwellers against the relatively rich - race doesn't enter into it because nearly all the characters are black. In Jacques' piece you have an accusation (not even an actual crime) levelled against a black kid by a white person, and an imagined scenario where black criminals attack white victims. The only real similarity is the setting, and the theme of violent crime. Added to that is Foster's point. You have to take the movie as a whole and Jacques' piece as a whole. You can't say that Jacques' piece isn't racist because *if* he'd added more of a context or an explanation it wouldn't be racist.

Jon, I don't think Jaques's piece is racist. You do. I think Jaques' piece is similar to the move Tsotsi. You don't. I can live with that. foster.

It's true that none of Jacques' pieces of work appear to contain actual unequivocal assertions of racial essentialism - ie 'all blacks are wicked' or 'he was cruel because he was black'. It's more that they imply that their author is a card-carrying bigot. I think I kind of see where AG is coming from - it's easy to deride someone's fears and prejudice when you're not living in the same environment as them - but the fact is, I encounter people with identical views who live just a couple of streets away from me. As far as I'm concerned, Jacques is a dire writer with a penchant for fear-mongering. I suspect he would enjoy witty and incisive tell-it-like-it-is pundit Richard Littlejohn's searing inditement of political correctness gone mad, the novel 'Hell In A Handcart'.