Girl Guides and Mixology

Thanks to today's BBC's Pointless quiz show I discovered that Girl Guides can earn a Mixology badge. For those that don't know what mixology is, it is the mixing of ingredients to make a drink. This raised an eyebrow or two. Mixology is normally associated with alcoholic drinks. What is the Girl Guides movement thinking? Surely they aren't getting young girls to mix ingredients from their parent's cocktail cabinet.

Rest assured this is not the case. One look at their website and your mind is put at rest. Mixology does not have to involve alcohol. A tasty drink can be non-alcoholic. Indeed the Girl Guides website suggests experimenting with different juices, fruits, herbs, and spices. A simple recipe cold just involve adding cinnamon to a vanilla milkshake. It's all above board then.

Shame. I could just imagine a guide's mother asking her daughter to make a "slow comfortable screw up against the wall" on a Friday evening. On well. Maybe a more subtle "kiss from a rose" will have to suffice.

How to ensure good content

Last week the Society of Technical Communications (STC) declared bankruptcy and went out of business. It's demise won't have sent shockwaves through the world's stock markets. The news won't even have figured on intelligence reports for CEOs around the world, but perhaps it should have.

The STC is (sorry was) an organisation dedicated to the advancement of technical communication. It's vision, "To be the international authority in content design and delivery, advancing the professional development of our members and articulating the value of technical communication within industry and academia.", was laudable.

That's all well meaning, but unlike other professions you don't need to be an STC member to work in the content field. Accountants, lawyers, and doctors must be members of their professional organisations to work in their field. What's more they must regularly prove they've continued their professional development. So why does this not apply to the field of technical communication? 

The STC was founded as a reaction by content professionals in in effort to maintain standards in a fast growing profession. It did this to a degree, but as a relatively niche profession it didn't have the muscle or exposure to change the world. Roll on a few decades and the content world has changed beyond all recognition.

The problems faced by the STC, and other organisations like the Institute of Technical and Scientific Communicators (ISTC), are many. First and foremost, the technical communication field changes constantly. It's gone from just producing technical documents, to producing UI copy, electrical wiring diagrams, flat pack furniture instructions, localisation, and much more. Neither is technical communications the domain of IT. Content is produced everywhere with marketing, finance, and everyone in between involved, seeing a rise in content strategist roles. After all, why have the same content produced two separate departments. Content reuse reduces cost and increases productivity.

Perhaps the biggest problem the STC faced is that as a largely volunteer run organisation, it never had the manpower or clout to become mainstream. In an agile industry that by necessity made up the rules as it went along, it was never going to become a category defining organisation without significant resources.

When it comes to working in the technical communication field, I've never been asked by a prospective employer if I was a member. Even if I've volunteered my membership of the ISTC, it rarely raises more than an inquisitive eyebrow. To my knowledge it has never been the defining factor is me getting a job. The reality is that organisations like the STC just haven't got the eyes and ears of those they are trying to educate about the need for good content.

Perhaps that's why STC membership has dropped off a cliff in recent years. Why should young workers struggling to pay off their student debt and get on the housing ladder, have to pay a couple of hundred pounds a year for something they don't need.

In the days of social media and online content, perhaps the STC had a brand problem. Was it seen as something too academic? Should it have renamed itself to something more appealing to a younger and diverse communications audience? Not all content is technical. As a social media specialist at a marketing agency, I wouldn't join the STC even if I knew it existed. 

That's the real issue here. In a world where the amount of available online content has increased exponentially, and in areas not envisioned by the original STC membership, it was always doomed to sit on the fringes of an ever expanding content world. It simply was never going to have the resources or contacts to fulfil its aims. That's a shame. We can all point to examples where poor content has cost companies millions, led to people being injured or killed, or just left frustrated users. 

Good content is important. The STC made a valiant attempt to implement a world where good content was the norm. It just came up short. Perhaps we should ask, is content in a better place now that it was when the STC came into being? That's near impossible to quantify, but it did its best whilst it existed.

What's in a name?

What does your last name say about you? In western cultures it describes where you've come from, who your family is, and who you identify with. For a man or unmarried lady, this is simple. It shows your lineage, perhaps going back centuries. It shows the world where your family got up to. The same is not necessarily true for married ladies. 

Tradition dictates that when a woman marries, she takes her husband's name. In effect she surrenders her identity in favour of her husband's. My problem with that is that who she is, or what she's become? What about her family's history and identity? Does that not matter?

More recently some women have taken to changing their surname to a double barreled variety when they get married. Using both their and their husbands surnames, this acknowledges the union of two people whilst maintaining a own identity. That's alright, even if it normally only affects the lady. The husband's name normally remains unchanged, leaving the legal necessities of a name change down to one half of the partnership.

What if there was another way that was less discriminatory? A young couple I met recently both changed their surnames when they married to a combination of their family names. One's surname was "Fan" and the other's was "Shaw". When they married they both changed their surnames to "Fanshaw". The romantic is me thinks this is a lovely way of two people agreeing to unite their pasts. It may be a genealogist's nightmare, but it signals a new beginning together.

When I married I didn't expect my wife to take my name. Why? I've always felt uneasy about the concept of engagement and wedding rings. Society expects the lady to wear a ring, but what about the man? To me this points towards a notion that the female "belongs" to the man. She's taken and off limits. My wife most definitely does not belong to me. She's her own woman with her independent thoughts. So why should she have to wear a ring to show she's taken, but I don't have to? It shrieks of misogyny.  

I was secretly pleased when my wife said she'd prefer to keep her family name once married. After all I'm proud of my family's heritage, so why shouldn't she? I like the idea of combining surnames, although it works better with shorter names. I'm less certain it would work with our names. It would be a bit of a mouthful and make filling in forms more tricky. Our status quo works for us, and that is what matters. Besides it helped eradicate a lot of post marriage administration!

What nationality am I?

I've been thinking a lot about my nationality, and how I identify myself to others. I'm in a strange situation where I was born in Ireland to Irish parents, have an Irish passport, but have lived in England for the vast majority of my life. I speak with an English accent, although I can slide into a slight Celtic brogue when visiting the homeland. I'm educated in the English system, yet have taught myself about my country's recent history and formation.

The importance of identity

We all like to belong to something. It makes us feel protected. What we belong to depends on your view. I spoke to someone once who was half English and half Indian. He was born in Malaysia, went to school in Manila, Hong Kong, and Singapore, worked in Australia and London, and was married to his French Algerian wife. When I asked him what he identified with, he looked at me a bit confused. After a few moments thought he said, "Well, I live in south London and support Chelsea FC."

That's a pretty extreme case, but it perfectly highlights why some people don't identify with one thing. We all like to place people into neat categories, but sometimes that just isn't possible.

Why it important to be...?

In short, it isn't, but that's a shame. In England most people would struggle to say when St.George's Day was, but would have no trouble telling you about St.Andrew's, St.David's, or St.Patrick's Day was. They may identify as English, but could equally identify as a Yorkshireman or Londoner.

What's more, if you asked them what it means to be English, they'd think for a bit and say something like roast beef and yorkshire pudding lunches. Food references could even include such non-English delicacies as pizza, curry, and hamburgers.

How you identify as English depends on your background and experiences. As a former super power whose empire in the late 19th century held sway over 23% of the world's population, it's only natural that many British cities have a large ethic minorities. In London you can find one of the most eclectic and diverse food scenes in the world.

So who am I?

It is easy to say I'm more English than Irish. Speak to me for the first time, and you'd not think of me as anything else but a typical English man. I enjoy a life mixed with both English and Irish traditions, and feel all the better for it. 

Life is all about experiences, and if that includes learning from other cultures the world will be a better place for it. Ask me where I come from though, and you'll only get one answer. I remember where I've come from, my country's history, and what it had to do to identify as Irish. We forget that at our peril.

The role of traditional music in Irish life

Traditional Irish music is known and loved around the world. Tourists flock to Ireland to experience the magic of music sung and played in bars around the country. Traditional Irish music is a major export too, with musicians playing at music festivals around the globe. The Irish diaspora obviously plays a big part in that, but the popularity of traditional Irish music goes way beyond that. You'd expect it to be popular in the USA and Australia, but Germany and India?

Irish culture

Traditional music in Ireland is about our identity, experiences, and culture. It is who we are. It's been around since the dawn of man, with small groups of musicians signing to their family and friends at home. It underwent a resurgence in the late 19th century, with the rise in popularity of the Irish language and independence movement from Britain.

Today it's easy to find an Irish bar in just about any town or city around the world, many of which play Irish music of some type or other. Traditional music is intrinsically married to a pint and a group of friends enjoying the craic. Places like Dingle in Co. Clare are meccas for traditional music fans, and there are music festivals frequented by Irish musicians around the world.

Is our culture under threat?

Pubs and bars around the country play a big part in the life of a musician. It's easy to stumble across a bar in the evening just about anywhere in Ireland with music playing. If you're lucky it will be a small group in the corner just singing and playing songs in the same way they have been for hundreds of years. Locals and tourists alike sit and salivate in its foot tapping loveliness.

If the music is tied to pubs and bars, what happens if the number of bars available to play in are diminishing. Like other countries around the world, the hospitality sector has taken a massive hit since the Covid pandemic. Many are closing because they just can't make the numbers add up. Others are adapting the experience they offer by appealing to the lowest common denominator. You can't blame them for doing what is necessary for their business, but if it continues the opportunities to display who we are diminishes too. With that will we become less Irish?

Tradfest

This is why events like Tradfest is important. Now in its 20th year, Tradfest brings together the best Irish musicians from around the globe together for a week of magic. What is wonderful about it is that you're unlikely to hear names like Enya and Christie Moore. Great musicians they most certainly are, but Tradfest is about the less commercial folk. Yes the artists sell records and make a professional living from their craft, but they genuinely do it because they love it. It just so happens they're good enough to make money from it. Enya and Christie can do their own thing, and thank the almighty they do, but just like a small pub corner in Tuosist, Co. Kerry there's room for everyone.

An unnecessary shopping surprise

I'm not someone who particularly enjoys shopping, but it is a necessity. When I go, I generally know what I need. So when I enter a shop I go to the department housing the item I want, buy the item and leave. I very rarely just aimlessly browse.

When it comes to food shopping, I'm no different. I'm a creature of habit, going to the same supermarket where I know where things are. I don't go down aisles where I know I don't need anything.

Today I had to go down one of the supermarket isles I rarely go down. The winter weather we've experienced lately had seen my stock of car deicer diminish. So imagine my surprise when I saw this panel at the end of the aisle trying to get me to buy fragranced deicer.

Why the heck would you need to smell gingerbread or winter berries as you spray deicer on your car windscreen? What's wrong with a good whiff of ethylene glycol?

Is branch banking dying?

Yesterday I visited my bank. Whilst waiting my turn to be seen I was behind a lady drawing out a large amount of cash. The transaction took about ten minutes, because the cashier had to ask her a lot of questions. Why did she need it? Could she not send an electronic payment? Was someone asking her to make the payment? Gone are the days when the only question she'd have been asked would be, "How would you like it?"  

It get the questions. Fraud and scams are everywhere these days, and the banks have a duty of care. They need to ensure they're not responsible for a customer losing their money. Helping to educate customers of the risks of a transaction is no bad thing. It just gives the impression that cash is no longer seen as a major force in banking.

It seems strange for me to say that, but cash is something that is becoming increasingly irrelevant to most people. I rarely carry it around. Pretty much everything I pay for is done via a card tap. In fact the number of venues around that only accept electronic payment is increasing. I rarely need to go to a bank these days, maybe only once or twice a year. Even getting foreign money isn't needed as most countries are the same.

Is this a good thing? On the personal security and convenience fronts, maybe. You could argue that having a bank card stolen is worse than dropping £20 from your pocket as you take your car keys out. Online banking definitely makes paying bills easier and quicker for both parties. For a start you can do so at any time of day. I'm sure the tax authorities like it too, as there's a trail they can follow.

On the personal front, I understand some find the lack of human contact difficult. Local bank branches can be like a local pub. I'm reminded of a lyric from the Cheers TV show theme song:

"You wanna be where you can see our troubles are all the same.
You wanna be where everybody knows your name."

The lack of a friendly face is something people miss, particularly those who don't have a lot of social contact. It's a chance for some interaction, to talk about the weather or the latest football match, whilst doing business.

Will bank branches be here when my nieces and nephews are my age? I'll stick my neck out and say probably not. At least not in their current form. Just like when I first went to a bank, the role of banking has changed and continues to change. At the end of the day bank branches have to pay for themselves. They're expensive to run. The number of UK bank branches has been declining for some years, and will continue to do so. The way we live our lives financially has changed, and the banks must react to this.

WDSA December 2024 - Dons Trust Restricted Actions

Who’d want to be on the Dons Trust Board? Thankfully there are plenty of candidates in the forthcoming elections, but whoever gets your vote will inherit a to do list most of us would baulk at. Throw in a dysfunctional club governance structure, and the challenges faced are huge. Recently the focus has been on the Board’s attempt to get a mandate to implement restricted actions and reduce its equity holding. Hardly trivial matters, yet they’ve come in for a fair degree of flack in the run up to the votes.

A major criticism was not providing a vision of what the future looks like, and what it would mean for the club before the vote opened. There was a slick strategy document, but it left as many answers and questions. Talking to individual board members it becomes clear, to me at least, that the debt is the issue. We’ve indebted ourselves up to the eyeballs to call Plough Lane our home. Now we’ve got to repay it, and it becomes much harder to do so as a non-league team. Maintaining our league position must be a priority, but doing so with the debt on our backs makes that more difficult.

The club’s financial position is interesting. The recent 2024 PLC accounts show a loss of £0.7m, although that was caused by the auditors asking for a massive depreciation cost on the stadium facilities. We raised £3.3m from player sales, and there are other profitable areas. If only we could get rid of the £8.5m debt. Imagine what we could do with that money.

The first SGM in late September failed to adequately communicate the seriousness of the club’s predicament. Part of this was due to a previous motion that called on the Board not to make a recommendation on how members should vote on motions. That’s a bizarre policy. If you can’t have those in closer to the issue advising you, why the hell are they there. You may not agree with their stance, but you’ve the opportunity to hold them to account.

There was also confusion about the two motions and how they are connected. The restricted actions vote was to put protection in place to protect the club’s assets, namely the ground, name, and FA status. This seems like a no-brainer, until you realise that if we ever had to reduce our equity to less than 50%, they’d be meaningless. They’re really only a short term solution. It is widely expected, including by members of the Dons Trust Board, that the day will come where we can no longer fund the fan ownership model.

As for the equity reduction, if the motion passed it would give the Board a mandate to look for a benefactor willing to give us a sizeable amount without with little say on how the club is run. However, to my knowledge there was no benefactor lined up. Plus if we do end up having to go below 50% equity in the future, it doesn’t make us less of a viable option.

I didn’t vote on either issue, something I regret doing. If I had, I’d have voted in favour of the restricted actions and abstained on the equity reduction. I’m not against a reduction in equity, so why did I not vote in favour? Put simply, I was unclear what the club’s strategy was. It is only in recent conversations with board members that I’ve started to understand the challenges faced.

I feel for the Dons Trust Board. We must acknowledge they’re volunteers spending their spare time wrestling with big issues that affect the club’s future. Could they have communicated things better? Yes. I’m surprised so many Dons Trust members voted on the motions. Much has been made of the vote’s democratic success. 58.56% of members voted on the restricted actions motion and 58.45% on the equity reduction motion. Reasonable numbers, although hardly a ringing endorsement on such a pivotal vote. If a clear position had been communicated, I suspect more members would have voted in favour of both motions.

So what now? I fully expect the restricted action vote to pass at the next SGM. I’ll certainly be voting in favour. As for reduced equity, we’ve kicked the can down the road, only to go through this all again at some point in the future. The only saving grace is that when that happens, the membership will be better informed. It’s a shame we weren’t this time.

A glimpse into retirement

This morning I woke up a little depressed. I return to work tomorrow after the Christmas and New Year break. I don’t really want to go back, and the inertia is compounded by wife not returning until next Monday. I’ve only got two days to get through until the weekend, but I should have taken them off too. It should be quiet at work as some won’t be back, but I still can’t avoid a feeling of desolation. It will soon change as things pick up and I get busy, but I can’t deny that I feel like throwing in the professional towel.

I’ve enjoyed being off for the last 10 days even if, or maybe because, we’ve been busy. We moved house last year into a home that needed a lot of renovation, so there’s no shortage of decisions to make. We met friends and family and had time to ourselves to chill. It’s been a glimpse into what retirement will be like, and I like it.

Retirement has been on my radar for a few years. I haven’t taken the plunge, mainly because I didn’t feel ready for it. I still mostly enjoyed my job and hadn’t found a suitable replacement for it. I don’t want to just sit on a sofa and vegetate. I want the option to vegetate of course, but it would be the exception rather than the rule. That is what my vision of retirement is. It’s about flexibility to do what I want when I want to do it. It’s about the focus being on what’s good for us, not my employer.

The last 18 months at work have been more difficult. Not because I can’t do the job, because there’s a lot more office politics at play. There’s been redundancies and more than a few reorganisations. This uncertainty plays into my feelings of disloyalty. No matter how many times I’m reminded of the firm’s values and principles, I can’t help feeling like being told to such eggs.
The last ten days off work have seen me do pretty much what I wanted to do. I’ve read, written the odd blog post, tidied the garden, tidy up my office, do some housework, and a myriad of other things. Most of those tasks, like in my professional life, needed doing, but they didn’t feel like a chore. It felt great having the freedom to do what I wanted. If that is what retirement is like, I can’t wait for the day when I can wave goodbye to the corporate world.