Othello's Soliloquy is as Real Today - Tortured Thoughts Seek a Scapegoat

Othello, Wikimedia Commons

One of the most graphic expositions of jealousy flowed from Shakeaspeare's pen when he wrote "Othello."

Othello's struggles for an explanation for the red mist of jealousy that consumes him leads through confusion, despair and madness to the need for someone or something to blame. It was written hundreds of years ago, yet is a lesson in modern-day psychology.

Othello's soliloquy betrays his extreme confusion, so that the reader/audience may anticipate the conflict to come. We know all too well that such extremes of passion are explosive and bound to erupt into physical violence. Othello's plight seems to be primarily one of confusion, indicated by his conception of Desdemona as the wonderful lady he married, who, in his eyes, turned into a deceitful wanton. His frustration drives him mad. 

It is clear from the start to the reader that jealousy is part of that confusion. 

"I had rather be a toad / And live upon the vapour of a dungeon / Than keep a corner in the thing I love / For others' uses."

The speed with which Othello's thoughts flit from one image to another intensifies the sense of insanity. These shifts in viewpoint, the changing rhythms of speech that inform those shifts, the alterations in pace and the use of run-on lines, all contribute to his loss of direction. 

There is the change from reflection "Haply for I am black..." to abruptness, "She's gone..."  Then he continues, "I am abus'd; and my relief / Must be to loathe her. O curse of marriage."

Foreshadowing

The soliloquy foreshadows the future action in other specific ways. Of Iago, Othello says: 

"This fellow's of exeeding honesty." The phrase has already been used: "Whip me such honest knaves." The reader is primed to question the value of this word when expressed by Othello in the first line of the soliloquy. By convention, a soliloquy reveals the character's true feelings. We know from Othello's nobility that his belief in Iago is sincere and that Iago's mischief will wreak havoc upon Othello's state of mind and, therefore, his actions. Iago knows exactly how to manipulate Othello, but his view of woman's nature is very limited.

The soliloquy also expresses Othello's insecurity, which feeds his confusion and jealousy as he begins to search for explanations: 

"Haply, for I am black / And have not those soft parts of conversation / That chamberers have."  

Othello is only too aware that his life as a soldier has not prepared him for courting a high-born and beautiful woman. He laments, also, his loss of youth, "...for I am declined / Into the vale of years."  

We understand that his nobility and his achievements no longer give him the confidence that he can hold onto the thing that he most loves, and so, he feels hopeless. This hopelessness contributes to his desperate state of mind, fuelling the anger at being, in his own eyes, betrayed.

Tortured Thoughts Seek a Scapegoat

Shakespeare's use of animal similes and metaphors add strength to the language. Desdemona, as Othello's captive hawk, to be released to fend for herself in revenge for his apparent betrayal, is an image which shows how his tortured thoughts are turning upon themselves. We know that he will, in his passion, harm the woman he loves. His conviction that he would "rather be a toad" shows how far he has sunk in his own estimation and how repugnant he finds his condition. The reader knows that Othello is not only insecure, he has also lost his reason, and so insanity must follow.

In the final few lines, he looks for a scapegoat and blames his situation on fate.

"Yes 'tis the plague of great ones; / Prerogatived are they less than the base / 'Tis destiny unshunnable, like death:"  

He has abnegated responsibility for his condition, which is another consequence of losing his reason. The violence of the language, for example, such words as "plague", "base", and "destiny unshunnable" shows the extreme violence of his thoughts. In the next line, the metaphor "forked plague" serves a similar purpose, revealing the force of his emotive language. "Even then this forked plague is fated to us." There may be a biblical allusion here, in the forked tongue of the evil serpent. The image is made all the more shocking by Othello's conviction that such a fate begins at conception, "When we do quicken."

The implication is that he can do nothing about it except tear himself apart, once again, foreshadowing the inevitability of the bloody confrontation to come.

Source:

• Shakespeare, William, Othello, the Moor of Venice, 1603.

Don't Hate Other People - They Probably Don't Exist Anyway. Sceptical? - Read On...

Husserl produced a brand new approach to philosophy that would influence such great thinkers as Heidegger and Sartre.

Born in 1858 in Prossnitz (now Prostejov, Czech Republic) into an Austrian Jewish family, Edmund Husserl converted to Roman Catholicism in 1887 at 29 years old. In his final years, due to his Jewish roots, he was banned by the Nazis from academic life. He was educated in Leipzig, Berlin and Vienna, and taught at the Universities of Halle, Gottingen and Freiberg.

Husserl's Revolutionary Approach to Philosophy

Husserl agreed in principle with Descartes that the one thing of which we can be certain is conscious awareness. While this was his starting point, he had a fresh approach to philosophy - simply, he claimed that everything is a "phenomenon" and he justified this by disregarding subject versus object and consciousness versus the world.

Instead of favouring the subject/object, says Husserl, we should focus on the phenomenal qualities of objects as they appear to consciousness.

Jonathan Culler in Literary Theory explains: "We can suspend questions about the ultimate reality of knowability of the world and describe the world as it is given to consciousness." 

From this, it appears that a work of literature is not necessarily objective, or an actuality. 

Husserl wrote: "The whole world, when one is in the phenomenological attitude, is not accepted as actuality but only as actuality-phenomenon. I exist, and all that is not-I is mere phenomenon dissolving into phenomenal connections."

It follows for example, that a work of literature is not objective, but is the experience of the reader. Readers may do the following:

• Analyse by making connections to produce meaning.
• Fill in any gaps.
• Conjecture and then have their expectations rejected or confirmed.

In other words, "things" are appearances rather than "things in themselves." Whether or not they actually exist should be put aside, and Husserl has a special word for this putting aside - "bracketing."

Thus, we should be focusing on pure experience whose premise is that reality consists of objects and events as perceived in human consciousness, without existing independently of it. This Husserl describes as "transcendental idealism"

Husserl's Critics Challenge his Theory

Husserl's critics accused the philosopher of producing a paradox. Jeremy Harwood, in Philosophy: 100 Great Thinkers, describes their objection as follows: "How could he possibly reconcile his claim that consciousness constitutes the objects to which it is directed with the fact that the external world has a reality of its own?"

Apparently, Husserl did not respond to this question. However, he became a major influence on Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre and other philosophers adopted some of his principles. He died in 1938.

Sources:

• Culler, Jonathan, Literary Theory, Oxford University Press, 1997.
• Harwood, Jeremy, Philosophy: 100 Great Thinkers, Quercus, 2010.

Stop Telling Pensioners they are a Burden on Society

Image Copyright Janet Cameron

There is a growing tendency in Britain for younger people, both in the media and out, to criticise pensioners for being a drain on the state. What they don't acknowledge is that most of us have, all our lives, paid our national insurance contributions, to support the older generation at that time, while preparing to receive the same privileges ourselves on retirement. 

That was how it worked - then. 

This is a point quickly taken up by the General Secretary of the Pensioners' Convention, Dot Gibson, who says: “Those who have paid their national insurance contributions for 30 or more years are entitled to receive their state pension and there should be no attempt to put further barriers in their way. We already have one of the lowest state pensions in Europe and one in five older people in Britain live below the poverty line." 

Ms. Gibson also makes the point that the division between younger and older people is false, because the real problem lies in the division between rich and poor.

This is true, with many older people living in fuel poverty - a term that means their heating to keep warm costs them more than 10% of their pensions. 

Time Invested by Retired People Helps the Country

Spokesperson for the charity, Age UK, Michelle Mitchell added that many retired people played a positive part in society as many of them, probably around one-third, were actively involved in volunteering, while others were devoting their lives to the care and needs of elderly relatives. Their work is unpaid, thereby saving the country millions of pounds. 

To bear this out, Jo Watkins comments on the Mirror Online article: "Does this idiot not realise how many grandparents care for their grandchildren because of the cost of childcare? Pensioners paid in all their working life for this pension, it is not a benefit, it was state insurance. This government is beginning to remind me of the NAZI poster which claimed that the disabled were a drain on the state. I am tired of being insulted by the fat cats in this government."

It's no wonder that retired people are angry by the way the parameters change and what little they receive is treated as though it is a "handout" from the state. An anonymous comment on social media yesterday made the following but valid point: 

"During good times, the Government should have built up a pension reserve rather than use our pension funds for vanity projects like the millennium dome." 

Anon is right! Pensioners are getting heartily sick of this one-sided argument. And many of the better-off pay hefty tax contributions.

Recently, I heard on the radio, a young woman proclaiming that she didn't see why she should have to work so hard just to support old people who hadn't bothered to put away something for their old age.

But we did, foolish girl, we did!

A Brief History of the Patriarchy in One Short Story - Meet Jeeves and Wooster

P.G. Wodehouse

P.G. Wodehouse – Indian Summer of an Uncle

"Indian Summer of an Uncle" is a short story by P.G. Wodehouse, in which women are excluded as complex characters and men are portrayed as being in league against women. The male characters are the victims who support each other as if repelling an unwelcome, alien force. What makes this worse is the degree to which this is seen, simply, as the "stuff of comedy." Paradoxically, Wodehouse's approach is Englishness at its most depressing.

Brief Synopsis of the Story

Bertie Wooster’s fat old Uncle George fancied himself in love with young Rhoda Platt, a “lowly” waitress. Discussing possible repercussion with Jeeves, Bertie revealed he feared the disapproval of Aunt Agatha. When Aunt Agatha called, having heard of Uncle George’s intentions, she demanded the affair was stopped immediately. Aunt Agatha told Bertie to negotiate a money settlement with Rhoda and gave him a blank cheque to go to London immediately.

In London, confronted by Rhoda’s Aunt Maudie, he learned that her young niece had influenza and that she was thinking over George’s proposal. Mission unaccomplished, Bertie returned home to explain to his furious Aunt Agatha. Then Jeeves suggested presenting Uncle George with Rhoda’s Aunt Maudie, with her orange hair and magenta dress, to influence him against the marriage. When the meeting took place, it transpired the aunt was Uncle George’s barmaid, whom he wanted to marry years before. The two met and Uncle George and Maudie became engaged.

Bertie discovered that Jeeves had already planned the outcome. He wanted to help an old friend, who was in love with Rhoda. Resourceful Jeeves had Bertie’s suitcase already packed to escape Aunt Agatha’s wrath, and so the car was speedily prepared for a quick getaway.

Englishness and the Snobbery of Class-Conscious Men

In the first instance, Bertie Wooster addresses the reader as a pal, assuming it is a “he” and not a “she.” Chattily, he says: “Ask anyone at the Drones…” This assumes that the reader knows that the Drones is a London gentlemen’s club, making it clear Wodehouse is not writing for the female gender. Throughout the story, the (male) reader is invited to share the joke. Women are referred to continually in a patronising way, for example as “this female,” and more specifically as “the recent aunt,” and “Add the aunt.” Even more overtly, his own Aunt Agatha is described as “The Family Curse.”

There are dismissive, contemptuous allusions to working-class girls, showing stereotyping and English class-consciousness. “It is notorious… they always endeavour to marry chorus girls,” and “his intention of marrying some impossible girl from South Norwood.” This latter remark was addressed to Aunt Agatha, who “…comes sticking her oar in,” and who, on discovering her brother’s prospective love-match is a working-class waitress, emitted: “…a screech… like the Cornish Express.” Agatha is a caricature of an aunt.

Need to Exclude Women even Overcomes Class-Consciousness

Apart from involving the reader as a fellow-victim, the men in the story support each other, against women, even overcoming barriers of class. Aristocratic Bertie and manservant Jeeves are united in the cause of protecting the male sex against female idiosyncrasies. Jeeves, in sympathy, speaks of “gentlemen… yielding to a sentimental urge,” that he goes on to describe as “The phenomenon…” These comments echo Bertie’s own description: “The last bloke in the world… a victim to the divine pash.” Finally, after Jeeves has manipulated events to his own ends and persuaded Bertie it is all for the best, there is still the formidable Aunt Agatha to consider. Again, aristocrat and manservant unite; the suitcase is packed and they are: “…off over the horizon to where men are men.” The men have successfully thwarted the schemes of women by guile, cunning and cleverness, and they escape to avoid retribution. On balance, without wanting to mitigate Wodehouse’s tired and stereotypical presentation of women, the men, in their turn, are presented as effete and on occasion, as objects of scorn.

Sources:

“Indian Summer of an Uncle,” Life with Jeeves, P.G. Wodehouse, Penguin Books, 1988.

Literature in the Modern World, Ed: Dennis Walder, Open University Press, 1990.

The End of Suffering, Eckhart Tolle and the Power of Now

A celebration of balance and harmony, Tenerife,
Image Copyright Janet Cameron

Okay - so everyone gets stressed out from time to time with other people's issues, moans and irrationality. It's good to let off steam, but sometimes it's also helpful to step back and take a breath.

What can you do about it?

Anger, and its flip-side, depression, are caused by our belief that our minds are our true essence. This misidentification of our deepest spiritual Being with Mind is the root of all our neuroses. Or so says Russell E. DiCarlo in his Foreward to Eckhart Tolle's philosophical work, The Power of Now, a book awarded the "Kindred Spirit" Spirituality Book of the Year, 2001. At an advanced level of spirituality, we would not be at the mercy of the incessant and destructive chatter in our minds, an ongoing drama that can make us miserable.

There are good reasons why we should not believe ourselves to be our minds; that we should strive for separateness so that we can watch that mind-chatter and comprehend it for what it is.

But, naturally, we ask for some proof of this greater reality, a proof that is elusive and that cannot be pinned down. "Ultimately, proof lies not in intellectual arguments, but in being touched in some way by the sacred within and without," says Russell E. DiCarlo. The most stunning revelation in looking at the way human beings operate is that many ways to Enlightenment turn out to be just one way - but by slightly different paths.

Eckhart Tolle: Thinking is Out of Balance

Eckhart Tolle says he has little use for the past and doesn't think about it. Instead, he seeks personal transfomation, devoid of illusion, where everything that is false is discarded. To begin with, we need to look at the way Tolle uses terms of reference. "Being" for example, is your deepest self, your own true nature, the eternal, ever-present One Life. It is beyond and also within every form at its indestructible essence. It can be felt but never fully understood.

"Thinking has become a disease," says Tolle. "Disease happens when things get out of balance... Used wrongly the mind becomes destructive... you usually don't use it at all. It uses you."

Buddhism says that life and death are in the mind, and nowhere else. Mind is the creator of happiness and of suffering, of what we call life and death. The mind is a dualistic, thinking mind that can only function in relation to a falsely perceived external reference point. "This is the mind that thinks, plots, desires, manipulates, that flares up in anger, that creates and indulges in waves of negative emotions and thoughts," says Sogyal Rinpoche in The Tibertan Book of Living and Dying.

Tolle explains that most human pain is unnecessary and is self-created from non-acceptance, or unconscious resistance, to what is. Emotionally, it is negativity. Our minds want to escape the Now, to identify with our past, or to contemplate a future where everything will suddenly come right. This denial prevents our Now from functioning without time. Time and mind cannot be separated.

We Abandon the Now for the Past and Future

What happens is that while our minds try to escape the present moment by dwelling in the past, or striving towards the future, we are depriving ourselves of the precious Now. Tolle accepts that while there may be pain in the Now, that pain can be accepted and acted upon, but only if we allow the present moment to be. Yet all too often, the accumulated pain of the past is carried within us, creating a negative energy field, or a state of "unconsciousness." This is the default position of most people in the world and the reason for wars, conflict, inhumanity and suffering.

But being free of your past is not enough. You also need to be free of striving towards the future for your fulfilment. If you live in the Now, then tomorrow's bills, disputes, or even death, are not the problem. Time is an illusion and your past and future are not your identity.

Tolle advocates techniques of meditation, the most accessible of which is a simple breathing meditation as practised in many religious and community centres across the world. It also helps learning to watch the thoughts that go on in your head, in a detached way, as though you are an observer. Once you make things conscious that were formerly unconscious, you are in charge of your life. "To know yourself as the Being underneath the thinker, the stillness underneath the mental noise, the love and joy underneath the pain, is freedom, salvation, enlightenment," says Tolle.

The Revolutionary Insight of Buddhism

Rinpoche describes the nature of mind and its innermost, hidden essence that is untouched by change or death, and he uses the delightful metaphor of the clouds being shifted by strong gusts of wind so that we can see the sun shining and wide-awake in the sky. But this innermost essence, Rinpoche asserts, is not exclusive to our minds only. It is in the nature of all things, described by Christians and Jews as God, by Hindus as the Self, Shiva, Brahman and Vishnu, and by Buddhists, the buddha nature.

By following this path to enlightenment, your mind loses its compulsive quality to judge and to resist what is, so that conflict and new pain cannot arise - you have made room for love, joy and peace.

Sources:

·                                 Tolle, Eckhart, The Power of Now, Hodder & Stoughton, 1998.

·                                 Rinpoche, Sogyal, The Tibertan Book of Living and Dying, Harper San Francisco, division of Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. 1992.

Wash Your Whiskers - You've Just Touched a Human

Public Domain Wikimedia Commons

Brave, resourceful, hardworking, fastidious, sociable and a thoroughly loving and dedicated parent - if you cited those qualities to describe a human being, most people would think, "Wow, that person is something really special!" You might even be inspired to try to emulate those qualities, to become a better, kinder and more rounded human being yourself. But this is not a description of a treasured national icon of great integrity and intelligence.

It is your average rat.

The Bubonic Plague

The Bubonic Plague, also known at the Black Death, reached its peak in Europe between 1348 and 1350. The word "bubonic" is derived from a Greek word, "bobo" which means "swollen gland." There are two reasons not to blame our innocent brown rat for the fearful spread of this terrible disease that, allegedly, wiped out one third of England's estimated 14th century population of 3 million inhabitants.

The Bubonic Plague and the subsequent Great Plague of London in 1665 were caused, not by rats but by fleas that were unwittingly carried by the rodents.

The infection was actually carried by the black rat, an entirely different species.

There were smaller, regular outbreaks of Bubonic Plague between 1348 and 1665 at around ten year intervals, but the brown (or Norwegian) rat had nothing to do with any of them. Although sometimes called the Norwegian rat, it actually originated in Asia.

Let's Hear it for the Rat

In his article, "They are clean, intelligent and cuddly. Let's hear it for the rat," Andrew Martin suggests that rats need some decent PR and we should start with the common name "rat" which is misleading and has negative connotations, for example "Love rat" and James Cagney's famous line, "You dirty rat!" Andrew Martin becomes rather lyrical here:

"It needs to be longer, gentler, more mellifluous and right now I'm thinking "Womble." 

Although, as Martin adds, it would be necessary to look into copyright, but there are several analogies between the rat and the fictional womble.

Both are rodent-like creatures with brownish fur and a sharp snout.

Both live in burrows under Wimbledon Common. (And, of course, most other places!)

Both make good use of the things that they find / things that the everyday folks leave behind.

There are, however, two positive representations of the rat in classical children's literature. One is Ratty in The Wind in the Willows, who is small and neat and quite a hero, rescuing other creatures from difficult situations and even death. The other is the friendly rat in the fairy tale Cinderella, who ends up as a coachman thanks to the Fairy Godmother.

In his poem " An Advancement of Learning" the Irish poet Seamus Heaney addresses his own revulsion for a rat with interesting consequences.

Yet, unfortunately, most people think of rats as those dirty, creepy, underworld creatures that appear in horror films in sudden ghastly swarms, noses and whiskers all a-quiver. The rat is not going to live down its image anytime soon!

Wash Your Whiskers - You've Just Touched a Human

Even so, rats do have their fans. Eric Jukes is honorary secretary of the London & Southern Counties Mouse and Rat Club. He says:

"A rat is highly intelligent and will come when it's called by name. They like to be handled, but if you pick it up and put it down, it will immediately clean itself. I mean, a rat thinks you're dirty."

The trouble is, as Eric Jukes explains, rats don't necessarily like living in sewers. "But it's safe for them down there. A rat isn't going to be attacked by an owl in a sewer."

Sources:

"They are clean, intelligent and cuddly. Let's hear it for the rat" by Andrew Martin, The Independent on Sunday, 12 June 2011.

History of Great Britain by Sir George Clark, edited and with additional material by Dr. J.N. Westwood, Octopus Books Ltd., 1987.

Do Innate Properties Predict and Determine our Actions?

Children are born with linguistic patterns. Photo by Janet Cameron

If we have no free will, because our innate qualities predict everything we are and know, then can we be blamed for being mean? Or praised for being good? Is there any sense in being a misanthrope, if no one can help their behaviour?

Is the Human Mind Hardwired with Innate Rational Knowledge?

Radical philosopher Noam Chomsky, born in 1928, believes that language reveals the nature and the essence of the human mind through the vehicle of thought.  His views are unpopular with many thinkers, and yet, despite the controversy, most agree his contribution to the subject has been revolutionary. Chomsky denies the empiricist view of the mind as a “blank” or “clean” slate, informed by experience. According to Chomsky, all languages share a “fundamental universal grammar, which is hardwired into the human brain.”  This grammar does not need to be learned.

Transformational grammar, according to Chomsky, contains two elements:

The surface structure – this applies to the specific language spoken or written.

The deep structure – this is hardwired into the human brain.

Studies of Children “Prove the Rule” According to Chomsky

Eventually “transformational grammar” became known as “transitional linguistics.”  It had been observed by child psychologists that some very young children develop an ability to apply grammar in advance of their language skills and Chomsky took this to prove his argument that these did not have to be learned, because they are innate.  Following on from this came an event weightier concept, that our innate properties predict and determine everything that we are and know. For Chomsky there is absolutely no such thing as free will.

Another advocate of the theory is the psychologist and philosopher, Jerry Fodor who, according to the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, claims that "...mental properties are functional and defined by their role in a cognitive system and not by the physical material that constitutes them."  He insists, also, that our minds possess innate concepts.

Jerry Fodor - A Notorious Theory?

In his book, The Stuff of Thought, Steven Pinker says, of Fodor:  "His (Fodor's) notorious theory that we are born with some fifty thousand innate concepts... makes an appearance here, not as a player in the nature/nurture debate, but a player in the debate over how the meanings of words are represented in people's minds."  Pinker continues by explaining how Fodor regards words to relate to "atoms" that cannot be split. (sic) The meaning of kill is "kill" - and not "cause to die." The meanings beneath words are not assembled of parts. Therefore, Fodor concludes, they must be innate.

According to the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:  "Fodor has articulated and defended an alternative, realist conception of intentional states and their content."  The article continues by explaining Fodor's nativism, which opposes empiricist theories, arguing that all lexical concepts are innate. 

Nativism is; ...the theory that concepts, mental capacities, and mental structures are innate rather than acquired by learning.

Even here there is a difficulty, since the term "innate" can mean: a part of one's nature, or hard-wired into one's mind from the beginning.  

This, the article points out, "is reminiscent of Descartes' position that some ideas are innate, such as the idea of God, of infinity, etc."

The Battle of the Bollard - When Cars Matter More Than People

Photo Copyright Janet Cameron

Another story of just how mean people can be when their sense of personal entitlement is challenged.

It took four years of cars parking across a lower ground floor flat entrance, a change of house agent, four months of dedicated wrangling and around 200 emails, to ensure a resident could rely on proper access to her home.

The quarrel between the owner of Flat 1 in a conversion building in Brighton, East Sussex, and the other six owners in the villa became so heated, that she was told:

"You are being very selfish. You have to think about people needing to park their cars."

How many people would be willing to allow parked cars to obstruct them from entering their home?  Or unfazed at not being able to get their possessions up to ground level?

Apart from this was the added difficulty of having visitors who might be disabled. Once such a visitor arrived and had great difficulty getting down to the front door. Having to manipulate your body around vehicles in order to enter your home seems a gross imposition, apart from the ugly appearance presented by the crazy parking.

When the resident first moved in, there were two parking spaces only - the rest of the rights of way in the drive belonged to the next-door conversion - and these were available on a first come / first serve basis.  Later tenants arrived with much larger cars, and the two spaces extended to the space in front of the steps to the two lower ground flats. A few derisory measures were taken, appealing to people by word of mouth and email. 

After about three years of this nuisance, a sign saying "No Cars Beyond This Point" was erected, but it had little effect.  The entrance, which led down around ten steps continued to be blocked. At times, there was no possibility of accepting a delivery, or taking a shopping trolley down the steps and certainly not a bicycle.

This was also a safety hazard, since having to manipulate around the cars meant it wasn't easy to grab onto the safety handrail in order to descend.

It would seem that there would be no problem in installing a bollard for the safety of the owner. The argument was that the size of the cars would mean only one could park on the drive. Despite this, the managing agent strongly recommended that the problem should be finally solved by this means, and agreed that appealing to people's good nature simply didn't work. 

Eventually, after much wrangling, the erection of the bollard was agreed - with great reluctance.

Attempts were made to make the owner of the flat pay for the bollard - in spite of the fact it was two other owners and their visitors who had actually caused the problem.

The bollard cost £130. This sum, divided by six, amounted to around £22 each, so that one woman would have the right to enter the home she owned without hindrance.