Doctor Who 'The Rings of Akhaten' Review

On their first proper trip together in the Tardis the Doctor takes Clara to see the Rings of Akhaten, where several planetoids circle an asteroid with a great golden pyramid and a giant star.  The duo visit a large alien market on the planet closest to the pyramid where dozens of species have gathered for a ceremony that only occurs once every thousand years.

Whilst exploring Clara meets a young girl named Merry Gejelh, the Queen of Years who has an important part to play in the ceremony.  Initially afraid of taking part because she might go wrong Clara convinces her to go ahead.

The Doctor and Clara attend the ceremony, where The Doctor explains that since the Rings were settled there has been a constant song sung to keep an angry god asleep. The people fear that the god, which they call Grandfather, will awaken and consume the entire universe if the song is ever interrupted.  Merry begins her song, but during the ceremony the mummy within the pyramid awakens and Merry is pulled into it.

The Doctor and Clara race after her to save her from the mummy and prevent the angry god from awakening. 

The Doctor and Clara see Akhaten for the first time.

‘The Rings of Akhaten’ is an interesting episode filled with marvels and massive scope, unfortunately it suffers from the modern series format.  Crammed into a scant 45 minutes the episode feels incredibly rushed and half told.  The plot would have felt more at home as a classic series serial, with several episodes in which to fully explore the plot and characters. 

As it is the Vigil and the Mummy appear briefly and play very little actual threat and the resolution comes so soon that it feels almost easy.  Yes, there are some great character moments and the episode is filled with visual spectacle but these cannot help to save the episode from its glaring faults. 

The Doctor confronts the 'Angry God'.

A very rushed episode that doesn’t have enough time to fully explore the story or characters.  Could very well have been a great episode, but as it is may be remembered as something of a misstep.  4/10.

Amy.

xx

Amy Walker Facebook
Trans Girl Writer Facebook Fan Page
Amy Walker Twitter

A Letter of Concern to MP Results

Some of my regular readers might remember that a number of weeks ago I wrote to my local MP following the tragic events of Lucy Meadows death after the invasion of her privacy of the Daily Mail and Richard Littlejohn.  Unfortunately this was not a single isolated incident but just another of a long list of examples of the press feeling like they’re free to discriminate against transgender people with little to no consequences.

I thought that it was time that the trans community took matters into their own hands and take our concerns to the government as things clearly aren’t going to get better with the current systems in place.  I urged my readers to write to their MP’s and express their anger and sadness at theses events.  I’m not sure how many of you did this, but I did.  And I seem to have had something of a result.

After emailing my local MP I received a response from him, expressing his support for my concerns and reassured me that he would take the matter further.  At the time I thought ‘that’s nice, but it’s probably just a standard response to letters like this’.  Yesterday, however, it became clear that it wasn’t but that Mr Hollobone, my local MP, had in fact meant what he said.

I received a copy of the letter that Mr Hollobone had sent to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.  He includes my original letter within and asks that she carry my concerns further and hopefully reaches some kind of result.

I’m unsure as to how far this will go, and doubt that things will change just because I have sent my letter.  However, it has found itself into the hands of someone with some degree of power that can bring these concerns to others that may be able to make positive changes.

I think it is important that the trans community realise that we can make a difference, that our voices can be heard if we speak out.  If you haven’t done so already I urge you to follow my example.  One letter of concern can make someone take notice, hundreds possibly thousands can make a very real difference.  Don’t stay silent, things won’t get better for trans people unless we’re willing to stand up and do something about it.

Amy.

xx

Amy Walker Facebook
Trans Girl Writer Facebook Fan Page
Amy Walker Twitter

Doctor Who 'The Bells of Saint John' Review

 

‘The Bells of Saint John’ is the first episode of the second half of series seven of Doctor Who.  Following on from the 2012 Christmas special ‘The Snowmen’ we continue with the mystery of Clara Oswald, who is she and why does she keep appearing throughout time?  

The episode begins with a man on a computer screen warning people about some strange threat inside the Wi-Fi, that will drain the minds from those who become exposed to it.

We then find ourselves in 1207, where the Doctor has retreated to a monastery to contemplate the mystery of Clara.  The Doctor is disturbed from his contemplation when one of the monks informs him that ‘the bells of saint john are ringing’.  Travelling to a cavern where he has hidden the Tardis we discover that the ‘bells of saint john’ refers to the telephone within the Tardis, which bears the Saint Johns Ambulance logo.

The Doctor answers the phone and enters into a conversation with Clara, whom he does not initially recognise, who is having problems with her internet connection.  The Doctor is about to hang up the phone when Clara says the phrase ‘run you clever boy and remember’ as a mnemonic for her password.  Realising who he is talking to the Doctor sets out to find her.

Beware the Wi-Fi.

The Doctor arrives at Clara’s home in time to find her being attacked ‘uploaded’ to the mysterious Wi-Fi signal by a robotic mobile server.  Preventing the upload the Doctor manages to save Clara this time, the pervious two versions of her he had previously came across having died. 

Clara learns the truth about the Doctor being a time travelling alien and agrees to help him to stop the threat from the Wi-Fi, though little do them know that there are much greater forces at work in the shadows.

Clara and the Doctor race to save the day.

‘The Bells of Saint John’ is by no means the most exciting episode on which to start the second half of series seven, but it’s still a competently engaging episode with a number of over the top set pieces and gorgeous visuals.

The reintroduction of Clara into the Doctors life feels a little more chance than anything else, though her comment about being given his number by ‘the woman in the shop’ who tells her it’s the ‘best helpline in the universe’ has me believing that their was a definite hand played in getting these two together again.  River song jump to mind for anyone else?

Clara and the Doctor play off each other wonderfully, the quickness of banter between the two of them feels fresh and exciting, and lets face it introducing new companions is all about making the show special again. 

Miss Kizlet and the Doctor come face to face.

The threat of the Wi-Fi and the ‘Spoonheads’ could have been something silly and dull, but the fact that the people behind it are able to use something that is almost everywhere in modern life to track the Doctor and toy with him gives the bad guys some added power.

A good episode that sets up a great new dynamic between the Doctor and Clara and even hints at some long term set up for baddie The Great Intelligence ‘The Bells of Saint John’ is a neat little reintroduction to the show and will hopefully draw in a number of new fans.  7/10

Amy.
xx

Amy Walker Facebook
Trans Girl Writer Facebook Fan Page
Amy Walker Twitter

A Letter of Concern to MP's

Following on from the ridiculous response I received and yet more incidents of anti-trans sentiment in the media I have written a letter of complaint and concern about the increasingly common occurrences to my local MP in hopes of some kind of action.

I am aware, however that such concerns may fall on deaf ears.  As such I am asking any who read this post and share the same concerns to do the same.  There is also no reason to simply stop at MP’s, but also voice our concerns to other individuals that may be in place to help promote change.

Below is the letter I sent out, please feel free to copy it or simply draw inspiration from it to join in the fight against the anti-trans press.

Dear Mr Hollobone,

I was recently reading about the apparent suicide of transgender teacher Lucy Meadows following the negative attention and public ridicule she faced at the hands of journalist Richard Littlejohn and the Daily Mail.

I am a firm believer in freedom of speech, however, it is becoming clearer and clearer through articles run through various newspapers and magazines that a handful of journalists are using freedom of speech as a way of justifying what can only be described as harassment and hate speech towards transgender individuals. 

A recent example is the much talked about case of Joe Burchill and the Observer, a piece so filled with negative sentiment and prejudice that is was removed from the Observers website.  I joined the scores of people that wrote a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the article. The response I received, however, was shocking. 

The Press Complaints Commission admitted that the article did contain negative views and opinions towards transgender people and used false information to insult and degrade them, yet claimed that as she was attacking trans people as a whole and not any individual person than there was nothing they could do about the article in question.

Now we have another incident where a member of the British press has attacked a transgender individual in what can only be viewed as an attempt at ruining the poor woman’s career and personal life.  The fact that Miss Meadows took her own life soon after must be due in some part to this article.

I want to be able to complain about the incident, to approach the right people and make my case heard in order to avoid any further incidents like this and the Burchill article.  Unfortunately I feel that any complaints raised about anti-trans sentiment will swiftly fall on deaf ears.

As a transgender woman myself I can assure you that such articles are upsetting and damaging to the trans community.  Due to negative stereotyping and prejudice we are not given the respect and understanding we deserve. 

Something needs to be done in order to correct these mistakes and ensure that transgender people are taken seriously and given the respect we deserve.  I cannot believe that any other group of people would be allowed to be openly mocked and bullied in this way.

I hope that you will be able to raise this issue in Parliament and ensure that such incidents don’t happen again in the future.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Walker.

 

Amy.

xx

Amy Walker Facebook
Trans Girl Writer Facebook Fan Page
Amy Walker Twitter

Were We Even Taken Seriously?

Some of you may remember that a few months ago I wrote a piece about the comments made by Joe Burchill in The Guardian about her distaste towards the Trans community.  Her article was filled with disgusting hate speech and inaccurate views on transgender people.  The Observer and the Press Complains Commission were flooded with complaints over the piece and the article was eventually removed from their website.

I myself joined the hundreds of other who filed a complaint about the piece as today I received a response from the Press Complaints Commission regarding their decision regarding the article.  Here is the e-mail I received;

Commission’s decision in the case of

Two Complainants v The Observer / The Daily Telegraph

The complainants were concerned about a comment article which responded to criticism of another columnist on social networking sites. The article had first been published by The Observer. Following The Observer’s decision to remove the article from its website, it had been republished on the website of The Daily Telegraph. The Commission received over 800 complaints about the article, which it investigated in correspondence with two lead complainants, one for each newspaper.

The complainants considered that the article contained a number of prejudicial and pejorative references to transgender people in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. They also raised concerns under Clause 1 (Accuracy) that language used by the columnist was inaccurate as well as offensive, and, furthermore that the article misleadingly suggested that the term “cis-gendered” was insulting. Additionally, concerns had been raised that the repeated use of terms of offence had breached Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Code.

The Commission first considered the complaints, framed under Clause 12, that the article had contained a number of remarks about transgender people that were pejorative and discriminatory. It noted that the Observer had accepted that these remarks were offensive, and that it had made the decision to remove the article on the basis that the language used fell outside the scope of what it considered reasonable; however, the Observer denied a breach of Clause 12 because the article had not made reference to any specific individual. Clause 12 states that newspapers “must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability”. However, the clause does not cover references to groups or categories of people. The language used in the article did not refer to any identifiable individual, but to transgender people generally. While the Commission acknowledged the depth of the complainants’ concerns about the terminology used, in the absence of reference to a particular individual, there was no breach of Clause 12.

The Commission also considered the complaint under the terms of Clause 1, which states that “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures”. Complainants had suggested that the terms used in the article to refer to transgender people were inaccurate or misleading. Whilst the Commission acknowledged this concern, it was clear from the tone of the article that these terms were being used to express an opinion. Whilst many people had found this opinion deeply distasteful and upsetting, the columnist was entitled to express her views under the terms of Clause 1(iii), so long as the statements were clearly distinguished from fact. The same was true in relation to the columnist’s assertion that the term “cis-gendered” is offensive. Viewed in the context of the article as a whole, particularly in light of the fact that the article had been deliberately identified as a comment piece, this was clearly distinguishable as an expression of her opinion about the term rather than a statement of fact about how it is perceived more broadly. This did not constitute a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, for the purposes of Clause 1(i), and neither was there any significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii). There was no breach of Clause 1.

The Commission turned to consider those concerns raised under Clause 4, which states that “journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit”. It made clear, however, that the publication of a single comment piece was not conduct which would engage the terms of Clause 4. There was no breach of the Code.

The Commission acknowledged that the complainants found much of the article offensive. Nonetheless, the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice do not address issues of taste and offence. The Code is designed to address the potentially competing rights of freedom of expression and other rights of individuals, such as privacy. Newspapers and magazines have editorial freedom to publish what they consider to be appropriate provided that the rights of individuals – enshrined in the terms of the Code which specifically defines and protects these rights – are not compromised.  It could not, therefore, comment on this aspect of the complaint further.

Now I might have misunderstood what was written here, but it seems to me that the Press Complaints Commission has turned around and said that ‘yes it is filled with hate speech, but because it’s directed at a group rather than an individual and it’s the authors own opinion then its okay.’

I just cannot help but find this decision baffling.  How is what was written not considered to have breached the clauses stated in the email?  Is it okay to be bigoted and hateful if it’s a general hatred?

I find myself wondering if they have found these apparent ‘loop-holes’ if the comments in the article had been made about people of a different ethnicity or religion of the author.  Do you think they would have given the same response if it was a hate piece about an ethnic group?  I doubt it.

This looks to me like yet another case of trans people being ignored, of people thinking that it’s okay for trans people to be mocked and hated because in their minds we’re not a legitimate group of people, that we’re trans because of a lifestyle choice rather than because it’s something that we have no control over.

It’s disgusting that the Trans community is still treated this way, that our views and opinions are just considered a joke.  I have never had very much faith in the press and this whole sorry affair has given me even less.  I am truly disappointed and sickened by this result.

Amy.

xx

Amy Walker Facebook
Trans Girl Writer Facebook Fan Page
Amy Walker Twitter