I Am Not A Number, is written and moderated by writer, broadcaster and lecturer, Chris Jury
After studying at Drama & English at Hull University, Chris started his career as an actor appearing predominantly in fringe theatre before becoming best known for playing Eric Catchpole in over 60 episodes of the BBC’s antique classic, Lovejoy.
He then became a producer, writer & director working for 15 years in theatre, film & TV before being appointed as the Senior Lecturer in Recorded Media in the School Of Music & Performing Arts at Bath Spa University in 2008.
His interest in philosophy began in 1994 when he casually read, The Everything You Need to Know About Philosophy Book. Since then he has been pursuing the subject as an enthusiastic, not to say obsessed, amateur. He has attempted to engage with professional academic philosophy on 2 occasions; in 2001 embarking on a Philosophy MA with the Open University and in 2008 embarking on an MPhil at Hull University. In both cases he realised that the narrow and highly abstracted nature of the study would never satisfy his broad cross-disciplinary interests and in both cases he withdrew, choosing instead to pursue his interest in the subject through freelance writing, broadcasting and blogging.
I Am Not A Number 
Bravo Chris, keep up the good work, I enjoys reading your work.
Thank you Johnny. Much appreciated.
This is what I expect to read from you Chris. Challenging and compelling reading. Like your blog – Agitpop is also intelligent and unpatronising. Crikey – do you think this will ever catch on? Please don’t stop!
Hear hear! I second the comments. Yer on course swabee, steady as yer goes – Arrg!
You have an interesting blog. I don’t agree with all your views. Anarchy is bad, I didn’t much like the riots. Power doesn’t always corrupt, we have a little power as bloggers. I agree that ultimate power corrupts ultimately. E live in a corrupt society and the corruption is at the top of society with politicians, bankers and loan sharks. It is also at the bottom of society with thieves, drug dealers and loan sharks.
Pingback: Agitpop – Protest and Social Change in Popular Music – Chris Jury
Everyday we hear the banks are not lending to small businesses, yet Mervyn gives the banks et al, Quantative easing (teasing) money to stick under their mattress like my granny did, (she never trusted banks), well here is a different approach: Small businesses give (and I’m being generous with the give, only because tax inspectors don’t carry guns, yet, this might change in future generations) the revenue a few billion quid a year, right!
How about, the government allows inland revenue to loan businesses a percentage of tax paid over a certain period, say five years, and Tom Bloggs Web Design services, has paid £70,000.01 tax over this time, the taxman loan him £20,000, they then increase his corporation tax to 32%, the 12% is loan repayment, its a win, win, for both, and bugger the banks…. 32%, the 12% is loan payments, until tax loan paid off,a win, win for both.
He applies for a tax loan of £20,000 for marketing/expansion/buy non perishable stock in at a commercial discount etc, etc, and the revenue goods in bulk.
My Great Great Uncle Alderman Reuben Farley was the first Mayor of West Bromwich in C19th and a friend/rival of Joseph Chamberlain. He/they were two great Victorian Municipalists and would be turning in their respective graves at politics today :
http://www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/News/Remembering-Reuben-Farley-West-Bromwich-benefactor–2.htm?id=430096
Pingback: Coventry Converstaions « shakirashakira1
Chris, there is a big incoherence between your postulations and that image that says “Men in suits cannot be trusted”, including apparently a lawyer (I don’t know the other characters). It responds to an unfair stereotype valid only for ignorant people, just like any other stereotype. Perhaps that’s one of the myths to be debunked. I am not talking only about “not everyone is the same”, “some lawyers are the professions’ biggest problem…” I am talking about History, the most important and permanent breakthroughs in human rights and rights in general have been made thank’s to law related professions, and mainly lawyers. I don’t know if Nelson Mandela, Gandhi or Thurwood Marshall say something to you. Their are only an example, there are hundreds. I was a follower, till I saw that ignorance manifesto. By the way, it looks like you are wearing a suit in that picture.
‘Men in suits’ is a humorous and rhetorical reference to corporate management, still massively dominated by white men in suits. But it also refers to our political class which is again massively dominated by white men in suits. Indeed, the suit’ as a mode of dress is a uniform that limits individually and indicates membership of a group and designates an acquiescent or collaborative relationship to structures of power. That all of us at some time or other have to wear a suit – for a job interview, wedding, funeral etc merely indicates that these events are formally or nominally related to the power structures we live under. As a uniform many of us are expected to wear ‘suits’ at work even if we do not politically accept the ‘meaning’ of the uniform, thus obviously there are decent individuals who wear a suit to work. BUT if you are poor or from an oppressed group it remains true that it is white men in suits who are responsible for keeping you in that poverty and oppression.
Point taken but still not accurate enough, in fact that stereotype might cover a major danger: confusion about who the enemy is. For sure many of the so-called oppressors may wear suits, and suits may be for some, a symbol of power (I, for example don’t see it that way), but that image makes for instance hypster-casual marketers feel absolutely unreliable for the big problem. As well as so many young consumers, who feel they are combating the system with an esthetic they haven’t even created, not by contributing to society (with a suit or with overalls) with their hands and their brains, having a critical and personal point of view and thinking where and how they spend their money. The technological and advertisement field is full of indy/hippy/alternative/non uniform wearing individuals which are as responsible as the CEO’s of the companies they work for; no power status there, only the creators of consumers brainwashing.
Humorous rhetorical is sometimes appropriate, not however in todays society where image is so much more important than the plain truth and masses are so easily manipulated and confused. It is difficult to make people stop and think for themselves when reductionisms are so much easily understandable.
Excuse my English please, it is not my mother tongue.
Drama in East Anglia.. hahaha.
All the best 🙂
-Anders
?
Hi Chris, can you get in touch please, about contributing to a new arts/ culture website I’m developing? Liked your article in the MStar today.
The ultimate Labour luvvie? Moved from bad acting in Lovejoy to bad politics.
Typical moronic Troll…