Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts

Wednesday, 22 March 2017

Brookside Closed


First published in the The Anfield Wrap magazine, issue 5 - December 2013




It didn’t take long, really.

I mean, we’d heard all the talk that this was going to be a different kind of soap, that this was a bold departure from the comfortable insularity of Coronation Street or the creaking melodrama of Crossroads.  And we hoped it’d be a showcase for a Liverpool that was not usually shown in the media; a Liverpool that consisted of more than the dole and the riots and the crumbling, derelict buildings that told of a city left to rot.  In short, we wanted it to capture just a hint of our real essence, not just pander to time-worn caricatures.

Halfway through the first episode it was already obvious that, whatever we were getting, it wasn’t going be pretty.  As Barry Grant defends his errant younger brother from accusations of graffiti, on the grounds that “It couldn’t be our Damon – he spells ‘Bollocks’ with only one ‘L’”, you can almost hear the sound of tea-cups crashing to the floor across middle England.  Throw in a shamelessly glorious altercation between Damon and his endearingly gormless sidekicks which crowbars two ‘pissings’, one ‘piss off’ and a ‘dickhead’ into a 20 second exchange, and it was clear that Brookside was setting out its manifesto right from the start.

For the next two decades, it continually managed to defy expectations while too often failing to grasp just what those expectations were.  It moved from holding a mirror up on society’s injustices to feeding the same society’s craving for cheap, vicarious thrills and in the process it misplaced the very qualities that had marked it out as special.  When its end came, few cared.  And for a programme which set out to prove that soaps could, indeed should, be relevant, that was the biggest failure of all.

____________________________




It had all been so different in 1982 when Brookside first elbowed its way onto the nation’s television screens, the unpolished jewel in the infant Channel 4’s ambitious new schedule.  Different in all kinds of ways. 

It looked different.  These were real houses in a real West Derby estate.  There were no studio sets with their trembling walls and restricted camera angles.  When characters went upstairs we were able to follow them; when they went round to a neighbour’s house for a chat or a barney, we went with them.  There was no convenient central meeting point where the inhabitants could congregate and interact, no Rovers Return or Queen Vic.  This meant that storylines were largely self-contained, and wherever possible, the focus was on day-to-day living and what went on within families behind their own front doors.  A bit like real life.

It sounded different.  Of course, by the early 1980s there was nothing new about regional accents on television, even Scouse ones.  Since the heady days of The Beatles, a certain cachet, a kind of rough glamour even, had been attached to the Liverpool dialect, though, ‘Boys From The Black Stuff’ aside, this was very much within the context of what the establishment was prepared to endorse.  It’s fair to say that Cilla, Tarby and Tom O’Connor were perhaps not wholly representative of a city still trying to put out the fires of Toxteth.   But Brookie changed all that.  This was the sort of language we could recognise.  Lads called each other ‘dickhead’ and ‘divvy’ every day – why shouldn’t that be reflected in a programme apparently designed to show us as we were, warts, wedges and all?

Of course, a media outcry ensured that the rougher edges were soon smoothed down and dialogue more acceptable to an early evening audience was introduced.  Though it’s interesting to note that by the time of its demise Brookside had come full circle, then pushed on a bit further just for kicks, with widespread effing and jeffing and a return to the uncompromising verbals of its early days.  It wasn’t big and it wasn’t clever, but it was the last flicker of a flame many thought had long been extinguished.  And, it reminded you that, at its best, Brookie was never afraid to kick against the pricks.

This was most evident in the issues and themes that ran through the programme’s early years.  And in this, the difference between Brookside and its contemporaries was clearly defined. While Coronation Street could command viewing figures in the tens of millions, it had become for many an escape from everyday existence, not an echo of it.  Though solidly written and acted, it had moved away from its kitchen-sink origins to embrace a more absurdist, cartoon depiction of working class northern life.  Brookside creator, Phil Redmond, wanted his new soap to be the antithesis of that.  And to achieve this, he placed the emphasis on social realism and the inevitable fall-out when families have to deal with the weight of everyday living.

So we got politics.  Not just the odd murmur about the cost of a pint of milk. Real politics. Discussions, arguments about the issues that were genuinely affecting the people tuning in.  The despair of unemployment, the impact of redundancy, the emasculation of trade unions, the conflicts and consequences of industrial action, the alienation of the young, the black economy, the NHS, the impact of religion on personal relationships.   All played out against a backdrop of Thatcher’s ideological war on the north, its industries and its social values.  It may not sound like a recipe for prime-time success but for a while it made for compelling television.  And it showed that a soap could be gritty and serious and issues-led whilst maintaining the personal interactions and lighter touches that viewers had come to expect.  Over at the BBC someone was clearly taking notes, as within 3 years Eastenders was launched, eager to poke its head through the door Brookie had kicked open.

Of course, it would have been easy to dismiss Brookside’s approach as patronising and opportunistic, had it not been for the quality of its contributors and the artfulness and conviction with which they brought the storylines to life.  It became a breeding ground for a generation of writers and actors who went on to achieve great things and who are rightly acknowledged among the best in their field.  People like Jimmy McGovern, Frank Cottrell-Boyce, Shaun Duggan and John Godber, all of whom cut their writing teeth on the Close.  People like Sue Johnston, Ricky Tomlinson, Amanda Burton and Anna Friel, whose skills were honed and whose careers were launched via Brookie’s suburban dramas.

While we’re at it, it also threw up some of the most intriguing, well-developed, perhaps morally ambiguous, characters yet to be seen on British television.  Of course there were the staples, the Grants (the anchor and heart of the programme for its initial years), the Jacksons, the Collins’s and the Corkhills.  But even on the periphery Brookside was a treasure-trove of charismatic wannabe gangsters and loveable oddballs, encapsulated by the formidable Tommy McArdle and personal favourite, Gizzmo Hawkins, a greasy teenage mix of Roy Cropper and Bobby Gillespie.  We will never see their like again.

Inevitably, it had its faults.  At times, it was guilty of portraying a questionable attitude towards female characters.  Perhaps reflecting the struggles of a society in transition, the Close’s women were frequently defined solely in terms of their relationships with men and, as such, largely excluded from any position of economic power.  Attempts to advance beyond the traditional confines of the kitchen resulted in their on-screen ‘punishment’, through any combination of rape (Sheila Grant), guilt-tripping (Patricia Farnham), domestic violence (Mandy Jordache), accusations of infidelity (Doreen Corkhill), murder (Sue Sullivan) or the eventual side-lining and departure of the character (Chrissy Rogers).  Though this also served to highlight the insecurities of the male protagonists, its main function was only to reinforce established gender stereotypes.  It represented a chance missed.

____________________________



For a programme that had blazed a trail in the 1980s, its decline and eventual demise were a symptom of both a changing political climate and a shift in the media landscape.  The introduction of the Brookside Parade, a development of shops, restaurants and bars, marked a geographical shift away from the Close and mirrored the growing national obsession with entrepreneurship.  It also marked the point at which Brookside abandoned its political and social roots and began the evolution towards increasingly outlandish, melodramatic plots.  As quickly became apparent, there’s a fine line between cutting-edge drama and gratuitous sensationalism.

Perhaps the battles of the 80s had all been fought and there was no more call for a programme documenting what were largely working class concerns, particularly when the working class was, to all intents and purposes, in retreat.  Thatcher had gone, to be replaced by John Major’s neutered, cardboard cut-out approximation of a Prime Minister.  The viciousness of Tory ideology had ostensibly softened (or rather, had gone into hibernation before brutal rebirth 20 years later), leaving in its wake a watered-down facsimile that inspired apathy rather than outright hostility.  In the eyes of the media, we were all middle class now.   And, so the premise ran, we wanted to be entertained, not preached at.

And, as the battle for viewers intensified, we got ever more ludicrous storylines.  Incest, the body under the patio, sieges, the lesbian kiss, Lindsey Corkhill the drug smuggler, religious cults, a killer virus, Lindsey Corkhill the gun-toting gangster, bombs, explosions, more sieges.  When Lindsey Corkhill (of course Lindsey Corkhill) got embroiled in a lesbian love triangle with her own mum, it was clear that Brookside hadn’t so much jumped the shark as parascended over Sea World and pissed in Flipper’s eye.  And when a police helicopter fell from the sky onto the Parade, it seemed as much an act of mercy as a desperate grab for ratings. 

So, after 21 years, it was yanked off our screens.  Oddly, in its death throes it managed to recapture at least some of the spirit that had once made it essential viewing.  In the final minutes of the final episode, with the darkness, and the credits, closing in for the last time, uber-scally Jimmy Corkhill held court in an armchair on the lawn like a Scouse Canute, raging, raging against the dying of the light.  In a scattergun polemic that could have been titled ‘Phil Redmond’s Last Stand’, Jimmy rails against all manner of power structures and cultural elites – television, newspapers, the ruling establishment, food distribution, drugs policy, religion.  Yes, it was self-pitying, self-serving and frankly all over the place ideologically, but it was also kind of thrilling.  It harked back to a time when Brookside wasn’t afraid to confront the political consensus head on and offered one of the few dissenting voices in the mainstream media. And it serves as a reminder that Russell Brand wasn’t the first drug-addled scruff to shine a torch on the failures and hypocrisies of the governing class.   Jimmy Corkhill was there ten years before him.  Face it, you never got that with Ian Beale.

But then Brookside always was a different kind of soap.  It might have moved away from its roots; it might have turned into the kind of programme it initially offered an alternative to; it might have ended up pulling its punches. 

But for a while, at least it knew who to punch.  And that’s no bad thing.


Thursday, 12 September 2013

All Apologies


[This article originally appeared in Well Red magazine, September 2012, in the wake of the publication of the Hillsborough Independent Panel report.]

It’s always the same.  You wait 23 years for an apology.  Then loads of them turn up at once.

In other circumstances that might well be a cause for frustration, perhaps even fury.  But this was different. This was unchartered territory. Instead, the overriding feelings were ones of incredulity, righteousness, and immense satisfaction.

The findings of the Hillsborough Independent Panel were of such clarity, such magnitude, that the urge to apologise to the families of the victims and, by extension, to the city of Liverpool as a whole, spread like wildfire.  That such an urge had been absent for so long only made it more remarkable.

David Cameron set the ball rolling. A Tory Prime Minister expressing his regret at the actions of an establishment that, to all intents and purposes, he was a product of. And the possible collusion of a government he holds as a shining beacon of modern conservative ‘values.’  And doing so with what appeared to be genuine sincerity and commitment.  All this from a man who, less than a year earlier had compared the campaign for justice to ‘a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn’t there.’ From that moment, we knew that we were witnessing something truly momentous. 

Ed Miliband quickly followed suit, reminding us that his party too had singularly failed to support the Hillsborough families.  Jack Straw, who, when Home Secretary, judged there was insufficient evidence to sanction a fresh inquest, shifted uncomfortably in his seat.

The floodgates opened.  And the authorities who had long been complicit in negligence, incompetence and blame shifting were queuing up to get in on the act, as if desperate to offload vast reservoirs of empathy and compassion, reservoirs which have lain untroubled for 23 years and now, we were expected to believe, were overflowing with earnest and heart-felt remorse.

Sheffield Wednesday FC, whose ground was woefully ill-suited to stage such an event, who failed to ensure a valid safety certificate was in place and whose primary concern, according to the Hillsborough Panel, had been “to limit costs.”  Sorry.

The current Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, David Crompton, who, in fairness, made no attempt to diminish the well-documented failings of those whose actions had now unequivocally been shown to have led to the disaster.  Sorry.

Boris Johnson.  Loveable, bumbling, victim-blaming gobshite Boris. Sorry.

Dominic Mohan, editor of The Sun, bravely seeking to bolt the stable door 23 years after the horse gleefully dropped its muck all over the people of Liverpool.  Sorry.

Kelvin MacKenzie. Vermin. ‘Sorry.’

The FA, whose culpability for the catastrophe has long been underplayed, be it in neglecting prior concerns as to the suitability of Hillsborough, ignoring crowd safety issues at previous semi-finals, or failing to insist that the safety certificate was in place.  And who pressured Liverpool into making a decision on replaying the match or face expulsion from the competition within days of the disaster.  Sorry (“…that the tragedy occurred at a venue the FA selected.”).

Irvine Patnick, whose eagerness to believe the most vicious lies without a shred of evidence (and who made damn sure the media were fully aware of them) went a long way towards establishing the narrative of drunken corpse-robbing, police-beating hooligans that was to run for more than two decades.  Sorry.

Norman Bettison, who appears hell-bent on instigating a cover-up to hide his involvement in the original cover-up, issued a statement reeking of arrogance and self-preservation, and which refuted his need to apologise. Then he apologised for it.

What is it they say about sorry being the hardest word?  Not anymore. Not when we’ve seen those pricked by a guilty conscience or terrified that their collusion may be exposed practically falling over each other to profoundly, solemnly, sincerely, profusely declare their deepest contrition.

23 years.  What kept you?

After all, it’s not as if this was all a big surprise.  Most of the evidence has been in the public domain since the interim Taylor Report was issued, just four months after that dark April afternoon.  There was no grey area, no obfuscation.  Taylor spelled it out, without caveats or provisos: “The main reason for the Disaster was a failure of police control.”

Where were the apologies then?  When they might have actually counted for something?

Hillsborough Panel member, Phil Scraton, has written a number of books outlining the causes.  He highlighted the systemic police campaign to discredit the Liverpool supporters.  He pointed out that all the victims, children included, had been tested for alcohol consumption.  He revealed that scores of statements which threatened to portray a negative picture of police competence had been doctored.  He spoke passionately of institutional complacency and gross negligence by those in positions of power ….and deceitful allegations that attempt to shift responsibility onto the victims and their families. “

So why have the families been running into judicial brick walls for 23 long, painful years?  I guess it’s just a lot easier to hide behind collective apologies after the fact.  Saves all that messy ‘liability’ business.  And if the reputation of an entire city is dragged through the gutter in the process, that’s a small price to pay to maintain the Establishment equilibrium.

At this point, what does an apology mean anyway? Beyond an attempt to salve individual guilt?  And possibly try to head off any further repercussions down the line?

Although anything that helps to give the families comfort, and smoothes their path to a form of justice they are able to accept, is to be welcomed, ultimately it’s not apologies that we want.  It’s proper accountability.  It’s a fresh inquest.  It’s explanations. 

We know the police were negligent, that the FA and Sheffield Wednesday were complicit and that the media were happy to spread misinformation.  The Independent Report spells this out – logically, clinically, devastatingly.  Thanks to the Panel everyone now knows what happened.

We need to understand why.  Who gave the orders? Who was at the heart of the cover-up? How high did it go?

Because this matters.  Don’t let people tell you it doesn’t.  Watergate brought down a President yet ultimately it stemmed from little more than a bungled break-in at a Washington hotel.  At Hillsborough, 96 people lost their lives.  No-one in authority lost so much as a day’s pay.  Is that the kind of society you want to be a part of?

The Truth is now out there.  Those who continue to ignore it or actively choose to believe their own self-concocted vitriol have been thoroughly discredited.  They’ll probably always be around, twisted by hatred, compelled by tribal loyalty, nourished by ignorance.  But now they are the ones who are out of step, marginalised, derided.  If the apologies have done anything they have established a new consensus and, for once, it’s on our side.

The reaction within the city brought back memories of a Liverpool I used to know.  Not the self-pity city of media legend.  Not the benefit claiming, militant bogey-man of the right wing press.  Not the Liverpool of brand optimisation, soundbites and PR-enhancing documentaries.  This was a city defiant, proud and, above all, united.  A city that refused to give in when told again and again that this was a fight it couldn’t possibly win.

And those who have been at the forefront of the fight will always have our heart-felt thanks.  To the lengthy roll-call of glorious names in our club’s history, to Shankly, Liddell, Paisley, Dalglish, Hunt, Hughes, Rush, Barnes, Gerrard, we must now add the likes of Aspinall, Williams, Hicks, Coleman, Rotherham and Burnham.  Their tenacity, commitment and unswerving determination to uncover the truth warrant the highest possible recognition.

The bereaved will never get over the pain of their loss.  All we can hope is that the wheels are now firmly set in motion and that they finally receive the answers, the comfort, and the justice for which they have pleaded for so many years.

They deserve so much more than apologies.