Elsewhere in this blog (well slightly further down) I've covered what was my opinion of the Occupy protests, through my open letter to Occupy Wall Street. I was of the opinion that while a good idea, what they needed to be really effective was a manifesto. A set of desires that could be used as a stepping stone to an actual debate and actual change.
I've changed my mind. Read the last paragraph here and you'll understand why.
There comes a time in every country, every nation, every society's history where certain people - people fed up with a oppressive government, a corrupt system - stand up and say No. Where people realise that the time has come to draw the line and say No More.
We see it in British mythology with Robin Hood. We've seen it spreading across the Middle East like wildfire. Thousands upon thousands of people throwing off the yoke of opporessive governments. Now it's reached the West. Maybe we're not being oppressed by our governments like in Egypt and Tunsia. We still have basic rights like the right to vote democratically. But we've had enough of the 1% controlling all the money, all the buisness. Had enough of the Government being run by Eton and Oxford educated suits who have no interest in actually representing the people who elected them. Who have no idea what it's llike to have to surivive on hand outs and benefits.
But are we already too late to change things?
There's a statement from the Second World War called "First They Came" that goes like this
"First they came for the Communists. And I didn't speak out because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Trade Unionists. And I didn't speak out because I was not a Trade Unionsist
Then they came for the Jews. And I didn't speak out because I was not a Jew
Then they came for Me. And there was no one left to speak out for Me."
I fear that we are bludering towards that sort of situation once again. I think that statement can be perfectly adapted for now. Let's give it a try.
First they came for the Trade Unionists.
The Trade Unions, the united voice of the working man who you never see or do not consider - the Printer, the Train Driver, The Coal Miner and the Teacher - have had their powers gradually eroded over the last twenty years or so. Margaret Thatcher broker their power, Tony Blair pushed them out of the Labour Party - the party less you forget that was founded by and for the Unions. The ability to strike is more and more difficult to achieve and every time they speak out they are villified by the Press.
And it's not just happening here. It's happening in America where Unions in Wisconsin lost the power to bargin over pensions earlier this year.
If this carries on and more and more people ignore the importance of the Unions, who will be left to look after the man you never see?
And I didn't speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Students
It's true that the Student Protests late last year did not achieve what they set out to achieve. Those morons vandalising Millbank Tower overshadowed the genuine message of the protests. But that doesn't mean that what they had to say wasn't important.
Wit the Tuition Fees going up to £9000 next year Higher Education is quickly becoming the preserve not of the intelligent and those with the desire to learn but of those with the fattest cheque book and bank balance. And with the cuts Further Education Colleges and Appreticeships more and more young people will find themselves with no choice but to go on the dole.
=In America Higher Education is already inching closer to being the preserve of the well off. But the Government doesn't seem to be doing anything either.
The Government is cutting off the chance for the best and the brightest of the next generation to obtain a good education and make a difference. What will happen to our country then?
And I didn't speak out because I was not a Student.
Then they came for the Journalists
Yes the phone hacking scandal was a terrible terrible thing that should never have happened. Yes it is a reason to look at the concept of Media Plurality and why we let one man have so much control over what we read and think. But the Government have taken this as opportunity to take a look at the issue of Press Regulation.
While some like Heather Brooks and Joanna Cash are for leaving the Press to regulate themselves and the Prime Minister and most figures in the industry are fine with the Press Complaints Commission handling regulation, some such as MP George Eustice are for tighter regulations, essentially smothering the press' ability to chase after stories that might be considered "in the public interest."
Our Press may not be perfect, but it does a lot of good. If it was curtailed as harshly as some would like and desire it to be imagine what people would be able to get away with.
And I didn't speak out because I was not a Journalist.
Then they came for the Protestors
We saw this with the Student Protests late last year. Even with all the chaos going on around Milibank Tower who in the name of sanity KETTLES sixteen and seventeen year olds. It's not like the majority were gun toating Anarchists. They were people with a legitmate grievence expressing their democratic right to protest.
In the US those in authority have been trying to dispurse the Occupy protests by any means they can think up, mostly revolving health and sanitation. The Corporation of London which controls the Square Mile is now trying something simliar, attempting to remove the St Paul's protests via traffic regulations on the grounds that they "obstructing a public highway." Of course the protestors are happy to come back once they have taken down the camp. They just can't bring their tents back. Something I have heard said by both New York Mayor Michael Bloomburg and the Coroporation of London. Meanwhile in Oakland California, Iraq veteren Scott Olsen lies in hospital with a fractured skull. A fracture caused by police firing a tear gas canister right at his head as they attempted to remove the Occupy Oakland protestors.
David Cameron has said that he doesn't understand why people having the right to protest means they have the right to put up tents all over London. I would say to the Prime Minister that it's because they don't believe that a one day protest is enough. A one day march through London may get them a few column inches in the nationals but once that day is over the issue they were trying to highlight will be forgotten.
But a permant protest? A protest that people have to walk past every day? That gets noticed. People start to ask questions. That's how change happens. When people ask questions.
Why are the Governments so afraid of people protesting? Are they afraid of what might happen if the people's voices become too loud to drown out?
And I didn't speak out because I was not a Protestor.
So what you going to do? Are you just going to sit at home, flap your newspaper and complain about the rise in fuel prices before you go to pick up David and Daisy from school? Or are you actually going to go out there and show the FTSE execs, the Wall Street CEO's, the Governments that you aren't going to stand idly by any more.
Because you know what happens next.
Then they came for Me.
How long till we wake up and realise that the Banks, the Business, the Governments are all controlled by a tiny miniority looking out for themselves, yet we can no longer do anything because all our means of protests, all those democratic rights we held so dear are useless. They haven't been removed oh no. Instead they've been netured right under our noses and are as pointlesss as if they had been abolished.
Then what are you going to do?
And There Was No One Left To Speak Out For Me
Monday 31 October 2011
Sunday 30 October 2011
Royal Succesion Changes
In case you haven't been reading the news recently you should take a look at this: Succession Rules to Change
In short the Commenwealth Nations have got together and decided that the Laws of Succesion governing the British Monarchy should change. Specifically they've scrapped the bit about not marrying Roman Catholics and made it so that the first born child of the reigning King or Queen is the heir apparent regardless of whether they're a boy or a girl instead of giving preference to first born sons.
Now I'm a Monarchist. I love the Monarchy so this story is of interest to me. But I have to say I'm not to fond of the changes. Not the "You can now marry Catholics" bit, I'm fine with that. But the shift away from Male orientated primogenitor. Mostly because I don't see why it's actually neccerssary.
Now before you start screaming sexist and throwing things at me, hear me out. The UK (in one way or another, I'm thinking specifically England) has had a Monarch since approximatly 871AD, (there were others before then of course, but that was when one person started to rule the whole country) an unbroken line strenching from then till now - apart of course from that messy period just after the Civil War but we'll skate over that. That's over 1140 years. Now granted most of those Monarchs have been male but that's just how it worked back then. However since Mary I came to the throne in 1553, we've has six Queens (Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II). That's six Queens in 458 years for those of you keeping notes, one of whom was our longest reigning Monarch ever.
We've also in that period had one female Prime Minister who was the longest running Prime Minister ever. America on the other hand - one of the countries most excited over this whole thing - has been around for 234 years or there and there abouts and has yet to even have a female Presidential candidate, let alone a female President. So we can't exactly be accused of gender bias.
I tend to live my life by two mottos. Such is Life, and If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This pandering to the Political Correctness Brigade seems to me like fixing something that isn't broken. Our current succesion laws don't forbid a girl from becoming the Monarch. If William and Kate were to have a girl and then no other children, or a girl and then another girl the eldest would become Queen and that's fine. But the system of letting boys have first bite at the crown so to speak has worked - as shown above - for over a thousand years and I don't see any reason to change it now. It's traditional and surely the Monarchy is all about tradition. It also seems like we're switching from one form of discrimination to another. Previously it was a case of "Bad luck, you weren't born male." Now it will be a case of "Bad luck, you weren't born earlier." Discriminating in favour of age seems only slightly less bad to me than discirminating in favour of gender.
Now I know this is all a case of locking up the stable, after I've already seen Black Beauty heading towards Hastings. The Commenwealth has made a decision and there is nothing that I or anyone reading this blog can do. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. However if we are going to mess around with the rules regarding the Monarchy, could we insert a line into the Consitution similiar to one the Spanish have, making the reigning Monarch the living embodiment and personfication of the United Kingdom.
I'd like that very much.
In short the Commenwealth Nations have got together and decided that the Laws of Succesion governing the British Monarchy should change. Specifically they've scrapped the bit about not marrying Roman Catholics and made it so that the first born child of the reigning King or Queen is the heir apparent regardless of whether they're a boy or a girl instead of giving preference to first born sons.
Now I'm a Monarchist. I love the Monarchy so this story is of interest to me. But I have to say I'm not to fond of the changes. Not the "You can now marry Catholics" bit, I'm fine with that. But the shift away from Male orientated primogenitor. Mostly because I don't see why it's actually neccerssary.
Now before you start screaming sexist and throwing things at me, hear me out. The UK (in one way or another, I'm thinking specifically England) has had a Monarch since approximatly 871AD, (there were others before then of course, but that was when one person started to rule the whole country) an unbroken line strenching from then till now - apart of course from that messy period just after the Civil War but we'll skate over that. That's over 1140 years. Now granted most of those Monarchs have been male but that's just how it worked back then. However since Mary I came to the throne in 1553, we've has six Queens (Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II). That's six Queens in 458 years for those of you keeping notes, one of whom was our longest reigning Monarch ever.
We've also in that period had one female Prime Minister who was the longest running Prime Minister ever. America on the other hand - one of the countries most excited over this whole thing - has been around for 234 years or there and there abouts and has yet to even have a female Presidential candidate, let alone a female President. So we can't exactly be accused of gender bias.
I tend to live my life by two mottos. Such is Life, and If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This pandering to the Political Correctness Brigade seems to me like fixing something that isn't broken. Our current succesion laws don't forbid a girl from becoming the Monarch. If William and Kate were to have a girl and then no other children, or a girl and then another girl the eldest would become Queen and that's fine. But the system of letting boys have first bite at the crown so to speak has worked - as shown above - for over a thousand years and I don't see any reason to change it now. It's traditional and surely the Monarchy is all about tradition. It also seems like we're switching from one form of discrimination to another. Previously it was a case of "Bad luck, you weren't born male." Now it will be a case of "Bad luck, you weren't born earlier." Discriminating in favour of age seems only slightly less bad to me than discirminating in favour of gender.
Now I know this is all a case of locking up the stable, after I've already seen Black Beauty heading towards Hastings. The Commenwealth has made a decision and there is nothing that I or anyone reading this blog can do. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. However if we are going to mess around with the rules regarding the Monarchy, could we insert a line into the Consitution similiar to one the Spanish have, making the reigning Monarch the living embodiment and personfication of the United Kingdom.
I'd like that very much.
Saturday 15 October 2011
Save Doctor Who Confidential
Doctor Who fans, like the Doctor himself are notoriously hard to anger. By and large they will accept a change of Doctor, Companion or Show Runner with only a miniscule bit of grumbling. Some find it hard to accept of course, but the majority will accept change as and when it happens. But when roused they can be as terrifying as the Doctor himself. At the moment they are roused.
The cause of this display of uncharacteristic dissatisfaction is in fact not target towards Doctor Who, but rather towards the BBC. Specifically BBC3 and it's decision to cancel the long running behind the scenes documentry Doctor Who Confidential. A victim of the BBC budget cuts, Confidential has apparently been axed in order to make room for - in the words of every missive sent by the BBC concering this matter - "Original British commisions unique to the channel." What this means no one is exactly sure - the BBC refuse to specify despite numerous letters - though it apparently means airing Top Gear USA which is hardly original or unique.
The reason for this upsurge of anger is two fold. On the one hand the removal of Confidential will mean that Doctor Who now has no spin off shows, where once it had three. With the Sarah Jane Adventures bought to an end by the unfortunate death of Elisabeth Sladen, and the furture of Torchwood hanging in the balance, Confidential was the last bastion of Doctor Who spin offs. Without it, there will be nothing left.
The other reason is the central one however. To the fandom, Confidential is more than just a spin off it was an interesting and engaging show in it's own right. There is no other show on the BBC that presents such a candid and in depth view of what life behind the cameras of a major tv show is actually like. To those interested in how television is made and what is involved then Confidential was a gift from the heavens. As Alice Evans says "I enjoy Confidential immensely, I like seeing what goes on behind the scenes, what goes into the creation of a script or a scene or a costume or a character. This appears to be the reaction of most fans. The chance to see what is going on behind the scenes is something all fans - espeically families with small children - relish.
The fandoms response to the cancellation has been rapid, with a facebook page, a twitter feed and at least two petitions all popping up in the time since the annoucement was made. While some believe that having multiple petitions will undermine the campagins efforts and make co-ordination difficult, with 42, 110 signitures currently adoring the petition and fans from around the world joining the campagin it certainly seems to be making a mark.
Some believe that the show can not be saved. Others believe that if it is it will have to be cut down from it's current length of fourty five minutes to somewhere around the twenty/twenty five mark. But one thing is clear. With nine out of ten fans of the opinion that the decision was the wrong one, the BBC certainly have a fight on their hands.
The cause of this display of uncharacteristic dissatisfaction is in fact not target towards Doctor Who, but rather towards the BBC. Specifically BBC3 and it's decision to cancel the long running behind the scenes documentry Doctor Who Confidential. A victim of the BBC budget cuts, Confidential has apparently been axed in order to make room for - in the words of every missive sent by the BBC concering this matter - "Original British commisions unique to the channel." What this means no one is exactly sure - the BBC refuse to specify despite numerous letters - though it apparently means airing Top Gear USA which is hardly original or unique.
The reason for this upsurge of anger is two fold. On the one hand the removal of Confidential will mean that Doctor Who now has no spin off shows, where once it had three. With the Sarah Jane Adventures bought to an end by the unfortunate death of Elisabeth Sladen, and the furture of Torchwood hanging in the balance, Confidential was the last bastion of Doctor Who spin offs. Without it, there will be nothing left.
The other reason is the central one however. To the fandom, Confidential is more than just a spin off it was an interesting and engaging show in it's own right. There is no other show on the BBC that presents such a candid and in depth view of what life behind the cameras of a major tv show is actually like. To those interested in how television is made and what is involved then Confidential was a gift from the heavens. As Alice Evans says "I enjoy Confidential immensely, I like seeing what goes on behind the scenes, what goes into the creation of a script or a scene or a costume or a character. This appears to be the reaction of most fans. The chance to see what is going on behind the scenes is something all fans - espeically families with small children - relish.
The fandoms response to the cancellation has been rapid, with a facebook page, a twitter feed and at least two petitions all popping up in the time since the annoucement was made. While some believe that having multiple petitions will undermine the campagins efforts and make co-ordination difficult, with 42, 110 signitures currently adoring the petition and fans from around the world joining the campagin it certainly seems to be making a mark.
Some believe that the show can not be saved. Others believe that if it is it will have to be cut down from it's current length of fourty five minutes to somewhere around the twenty/twenty five mark. But one thing is clear. With nine out of ten fans of the opinion that the decision was the wrong one, the BBC certainly have a fight on their hands.
Thursday 13 October 2011
An Open Letter
Dear Occupy Wall Street
I thought it was time I sent you a letter with some suggestions as to how you can improve your campaign and actually achieve something.
Firstly though I must congratulate you. For a long time those of us who believe in fair play, economic and social equality and good old fashioned common sense have been rather annoyed to see that despite the massive world wide recession - which among other things is sending the Eurozone into a tailspin. Watch it go - those in power and those responsible have done very little.
Here in the UK alone we've seen the Bankers partially responsible for the recession skip merrily away with six figure bonuses and the Banks quash any attempt at serious reform on the grounds that it would interfear with - you've guessed it - their ability to make yet more money. As far as I'm aware you're even worse off in the US. The Banks are repossesing houses and you're watching your ecomony float merrily down the toilet.
On top of that those who you have elected to represent you at this time of crisis are by and large stinking rich and unaffected by the cuts they are forcing on the rest of you. Same here in the UK. Funny they say we're all in this together just before they swan off to Corsica.
So kudos on actually taking a stand. It's time that somebody did. But allow me to make a suggestion that might allow things to run a little smoother.
As far as I'm aware you have issued twenty two seperate declarations refering to the "occupation of New York" explaning your motives for doing what you are doing and you have yet to issue a list of possible solutions to the problems you are protesting against.
So let me suggest that you do two things. One: Assemble one declaration listing your grivences and aims. This will be easier for those in authority to digest and will open up channels for discussion. Two: When you have opened up these channels present those you are talking to with a list of solutions to the problems outlined in your manifesto.
This way you seem like serious protestors rather than a load of hippy cranks.
Once again, I have the greatest of respect for what you are doing. I just believe this way you will be able to achieve much more.
Yours
William Davie
I thought it was time I sent you a letter with some suggestions as to how you can improve your campaign and actually achieve something.
Firstly though I must congratulate you. For a long time those of us who believe in fair play, economic and social equality and good old fashioned common sense have been rather annoyed to see that despite the massive world wide recession - which among other things is sending the Eurozone into a tailspin. Watch it go - those in power and those responsible have done very little.
Here in the UK alone we've seen the Bankers partially responsible for the recession skip merrily away with six figure bonuses and the Banks quash any attempt at serious reform on the grounds that it would interfear with - you've guessed it - their ability to make yet more money. As far as I'm aware you're even worse off in the US. The Banks are repossesing houses and you're watching your ecomony float merrily down the toilet.
On top of that those who you have elected to represent you at this time of crisis are by and large stinking rich and unaffected by the cuts they are forcing on the rest of you. Same here in the UK. Funny they say we're all in this together just before they swan off to Corsica.
So kudos on actually taking a stand. It's time that somebody did. But allow me to make a suggestion that might allow things to run a little smoother.
As far as I'm aware you have issued twenty two seperate declarations refering to the "occupation of New York" explaning your motives for doing what you are doing and you have yet to issue a list of possible solutions to the problems you are protesting against.
So let me suggest that you do two things. One: Assemble one declaration listing your grivences and aims. This will be easier for those in authority to digest and will open up channels for discussion. Two: When you have opened up these channels present those you are talking to with a list of solutions to the problems outlined in your manifesto.
This way you seem like serious protestors rather than a load of hippy cranks.
Once again, I have the greatest of respect for what you are doing. I just believe this way you will be able to achieve much more.
Yours
William Davie
Friday 7 October 2011
Let's Do the Shuffle
So Ed Milliband has reshuffled his Shadow Cabinet for the first time. It used to be that according to Labours rules the Shadow Cabinet was elected every two years. However Miliband scrapped that rule at the recent conference and instead gained the right to choose his own Cabinet. So let's see who's in, who's out and who's been moved about.
In
Coming up from either the back benchs or relatively minor positions to the top table we have.
Rachel Reeves
A relative new MP who only came in at the last election, her new position as Shadow Chief Secreatary to the Tresury is a big step up.
Liz Kendall
Another newbie who's only been around a year Liz Kendall's appointment as Shadow Secretary for Care and Old People is her first Cabinet position.
Chuka Umunna
Another of Ed's up and comers Chuka campaigned for Ed Milliband during the leadership campaign and has been awarded with the post of Shadow Secretary of State for Buisness, Innovation and Skills
Tom Watson
The attack dog of the Labour backbenches Tom Watson has never been an MP to shy away from a fight being one of the principle movers and shakers in the phone hacking scandal. Now the Deputy Chair of the Labour Party and Campaign Co-Ordinator.
Margret Curran
A former memebr of the Scottish Parliament Mrs Curran come down to Westminster last year. In the shuffle she now holds the position of Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.
Out
Those who were in Government but now will be able to have a nice long rest in the Backbenches
John Denham
Was Shadow Secretary of State for Buisness, Innovation and Skills
John Healey
Former Shadow Secretary of State for Health
Shawn Woodward
Now no longer the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Shaken All About
The Cabinet Members who have retained their seat at the table but have in fact moved chairs.
Harriet Harman
Moved from International Development to Culture, Media and Sport. And still Deputy Leader.
Andy Burnham
Replacing John Healey, Andy will go from facing down Michael Gove to facing down Andrew Lansley as he moves from Education to Health.
Ivan Lewis
Playing swapsies with Harriet Harman, Lewis goes from Culture Media and Sport to International Development.
Hilary Benn
Moving from an important but not very well known position as Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Hilary will now get to argue bins and biscuits with Eric Pickles at Communties and Local Development.
Vernon Coaker.
Moving up from the minor position of Shadow Secretary for Policing, Coaker will now take over Shawn Woodwards old brief at the Northern Ireland Office.
Angela Eagle
One of the first openly gay MP's, Eagle is being moved from her position as Ed Ball's right hand woman to Hilary Benn's old chair as Shadow Leader of the House of Commons.
Stephen Twigg
Another one crawling up the ranks, Twigg goes from being a Shadow Foreign Office Minister to Michael Gove's opposite number at Education.
Caroline Flint
Ms Flint takes what could be considered by some to be a step back. From facing down Eric Pickels she now takes over the role of Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the brief once held by Ed Miliband himself.
Apart from that the Status remains Quo. The Big Three of Miliband, Balls and Cooper remain where they are, as do Douglas Alexander at the Shadow Foreign Office and Jim Murphy gets to keep his seat at Defence. Rumors about the removal of Sadiq Kahn proved groundless as did suggestions we might see a return of Alan Johnson or David Miliband to the Front Benchs.
Now let's see what this new team can do.
In
Coming up from either the back benchs or relatively minor positions to the top table we have.
Rachel Reeves
A relative new MP who only came in at the last election, her new position as Shadow Chief Secreatary to the Tresury is a big step up.
Liz Kendall
Another newbie who's only been around a year Liz Kendall's appointment as Shadow Secretary for Care and Old People is her first Cabinet position.
Chuka Umunna
Another of Ed's up and comers Chuka campaigned for Ed Milliband during the leadership campaign and has been awarded with the post of Shadow Secretary of State for Buisness, Innovation and Skills
Tom Watson
The attack dog of the Labour backbenches Tom Watson has never been an MP to shy away from a fight being one of the principle movers and shakers in the phone hacking scandal. Now the Deputy Chair of the Labour Party and Campaign Co-Ordinator.
Margret Curran
A former memebr of the Scottish Parliament Mrs Curran come down to Westminster last year. In the shuffle she now holds the position of Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.
Out
Those who were in Government but now will be able to have a nice long rest in the Backbenches
John Denham
Was Shadow Secretary of State for Buisness, Innovation and Skills
John Healey
Former Shadow Secretary of State for Health
Shawn Woodward
Now no longer the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Shaken All About
The Cabinet Members who have retained their seat at the table but have in fact moved chairs.
Harriet Harman
Moved from International Development to Culture, Media and Sport. And still Deputy Leader.
Andy Burnham
Replacing John Healey, Andy will go from facing down Michael Gove to facing down Andrew Lansley as he moves from Education to Health.
Ivan Lewis
Playing swapsies with Harriet Harman, Lewis goes from Culture Media and Sport to International Development.
Hilary Benn
Moving from an important but not very well known position as Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Hilary will now get to argue bins and biscuits with Eric Pickles at Communties and Local Development.
Vernon Coaker.
Moving up from the minor position of Shadow Secretary for Policing, Coaker will now take over Shawn Woodwards old brief at the Northern Ireland Office.
Angela Eagle
One of the first openly gay MP's, Eagle is being moved from her position as Ed Ball's right hand woman to Hilary Benn's old chair as Shadow Leader of the House of Commons.
Stephen Twigg
Another one crawling up the ranks, Twigg goes from being a Shadow Foreign Office Minister to Michael Gove's opposite number at Education.
Caroline Flint
Ms Flint takes what could be considered by some to be a step back. From facing down Eric Pickels she now takes over the role of Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the brief once held by Ed Miliband himself.
Apart from that the Status remains Quo. The Big Three of Miliband, Balls and Cooper remain where they are, as do Douglas Alexander at the Shadow Foreign Office and Jim Murphy gets to keep his seat at Defence. Rumors about the removal of Sadiq Kahn proved groundless as did suggestions we might see a return of Alan Johnson or David Miliband to the Front Benchs.
Now let's see what this new team can do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)