Kissing cousins
 It's hard to remember who's who today, but it was even tougher for the Victorians |
My elder sister rings and asks if I've heard the sad news about Cousin Gerald. It doesn't take me a moment to realise that this is a test. Over the years my sister has become the custodian of our family's history. She not only knows the names and ages and addresses and personal predilections of aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews and first, second and third cousins, but also jumps at any chance to display her superior genealogical knowledge.
"Cousin Gerald," I say, desperately trying to picture our family tree and locate a branch named Gerald. "You know," says my sister. "Harold's eldest. The one who went off with Grace after Uncle Ron died. He's your first cousin."
 | FIND OUT MORE  Hear Laurie Taylor's Thinking Allowed on Radio 4 at 1600 on Wednesdays or 0030 on Mondays |
The only name I can grab hold of in this litany is Harold. Uncle Harold, Dad's brother. The one who my mother didn't care for because he smoked a smelly pipe and always stood with his large bottom towards the fire so no-one could ever catch a glimpse of the warm flames.
"Ah, Harold's eldest," I say with just enough assurance to suggest that he is rarely from my thoughts.
"Yes, Cousin Gerald. He's had a bad skiing accident in Canada.""Really," I say. "And will he be well enough to get back home?" "He is home," retorts my sister. "Cousin Gerald lives in Canada with Grace. He's lived there for nearly twenty years."
I mumble something about confusing him with another cousin but my sister isn't listening. She has more urgent matters to address. "Now," she tells me, "you may not remember Cousin Gerald but he was always very fond of you. And so it would be very nice if you were the one to ring Michael and give him the sad news."
|  I can only be grateful, I suppose, that my family is not even more complex  name here |
"Michael?"
"What is the matter with you today? Michael is Gerald's son. The one doing metallurgy at Leeds. Your first cousin once removed. But when you ring Michael - yes I'll give you the number again - when you ring Michael, whatever you say, don't ask him to pass on the news to Simon because as you'll remember he hasn't spoken to Simon ever since he dumped Alexandra and went off with his so-called researcher."
"Simon dumped Alexandra?"
"I just said that. So you'll do that little thing for the family?"
"Yes," I said. But I lied. I still haven't quite found the time or energy to ring my first cousin once removed and tell him that his father, or my first cousin, has had a skiing accident in Canada and that he's the first one of the family to know because of course.I haven't mentioned a word about it to my other first cousin once removed, Simon.
I can only be grateful, I suppose, that my family is not even more complex. Imagine trying to cope with some of those upper middle class Victorian families - families like Charles Darwin's - where marriages to your own cousins were positively encouraged.
If I can't even manage Harold and Gerald and Michael and Simon, how would I ever cope with the product of such cousin marriages - or, heaven help me, cross cousin marriages - in which a mother's brother's daughter could at the same time be a father's sister's daughter?
It all rather reminds me of that old musical hall song. How did it go? "If your father was your mother would your sister be your brother. Remember dad on mother's day."
Send us your comments using the form below.
The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Learning to Live
Learning to Live
Excerpt from Learning to Live (1964) - courtesy of the BFI
| STOP LOOK LISTEN The Magazine's sex education film festival |
This film is neither one thing nor the other.
It is not completely consistent with the simple moralising of earlier films, but at the same time it never really recognises the approaching age of sexual liberation.
Learning to Live combines both footage of teenagers socialising with animations explaining the biology of reproduction.
| STOP LOOK LISTEN  The Magazine's sex ed film festivalFive excerpts from films from the BFI's DVD The Joy of Sex Education - one a day for a week. The films so far:  |
It's clear that the makers wanted to take a reasonably modern stance, with the narrator insisting that a moral tone is not the aim.
But this is contradicted by a number of assertions in the script.
"We must recognise that our society accepts the married state as right and regards sexual intercourse outside marriage as irresponsible and possibly disastrous," says the narrator.
The film is also full of lines that may cause raised eyebrows among the modern viewer, particularly in its description of the effects of puberty.
"She will find that a well developed bosom becomes a part of her charms
Monday, February 16, 2009
The joy of sex education
The joy of sex education
| STOP LOOK LISTEN The Magazine's sex education film festival |
Remember sex education films? Remember feeling a little on the embarrassed side? Jude Rogers takes a nostalgic look back at a state-enforced rite of passage, while at the bottom of this page you can find Whatsoever a Man Soweth, the first of our sex education films drawn from a DVD collection from the British Film Institute.
When did you first find out about the birds and bees?
Did your parents sit you down and explain the mechanics of how you were made? Or did a friend giggle like mad while they whispered to you about the things they had learned from their big sister or brother?
| Young military men were warned about the dangers of loose women, and how venereal disease would spoil them in the eyes of their family and country |
Or were you one of the innocent souls who learned about mummies, daddies and babies on a screen in your classroom?
Learning about sex is a momentous part of any child's life, and sex education is a tricky business indeed - especially for the teacher burdened with the task of telling schoolchildren what exactly goes where. But in decades past, some help was at hand from the overhead projector, the video recorder and the sex education film.
Sir or Miss would inevitably be hovering by the play button with a crinkle in their brow, not knowing whether their pupils would laugh, blush or keel over at what happened next, but their mission to unleash the lessons of a lifetime began here.
Sinful desires
And the roots of the modern sex education film go back a long way.
Early examples were deeply moral movies made in the shadows of war, where young military men were warned about the dangers of loose women, and how venereal disease would spoil them in the eyes of their family and country.
In other films, teenage girls were told that their sexual desires were sinful, and that they would be blamed for their unwanted pregnancies. Rarely were men or women given any practical advice about contraception, or told how they could manage these feelings themselves.
 She's unhappy because she had sex out of wedlock |
But after the 1960s, things started to change. The contraceptive pill, sexual liberation, and the first waves of feminism started to change social attitudes towards the genders, and sex education films became less heavy-handed.
Many were gentler affairs, where sex was characterised as an enjoyable activity in a natural world - one in which animals and plants also mated happily. But nature was king, and sex could only be blissful when reproduction was its intention, with personal pleasure being a fortunate bonus.
 They're happy because they waited till they were married |
As ever, there was a fear that sex education films would encourage sexual interest - and initiation - among younger people. But even in the 1970s and 1980s, most of them did the opposite. These films were often shown to children in their last years at junior school, when they often had some ideas about sex already.
Many had snuck a look at a book or heard about sex from friends, while the more cavalier characters in class might have encountered pornography in magazines or in films. As sex education films often glossed over penetration into a sanitised narrative, smirks would accompany these films just as much as grimaces.
The laughter didn't stop when dainty cartoons of the human anatomy showed what happened inside us, rather than between us. But occasionally, some films would show very progressive material. A few memorable films showed the experience of childbirth, prompting gasps and stunned silences and, in some cases, fainting.
Rarely did films show sexual acts. Dr Martin Cole's 1971 film Growing Up, is one of the few that broke with convention, showing masturbation and intercourse acted out by real people. By attempting to dispel the shame and guilt that clouded sexual behaviour, he received some positive feedback from teachers and pupils.
Novelty value
But the film also triggered national controversy. It was banned by Birmingham City Council and criticised heavily by the Sun newspaper.
Whatever their content, educational videos still had novelty value for children in the 1970s and 1980s. For starters, visual material was rare in schools, and it is easy to forget that televisions at home had only three channels until 1982.
 In the 1970s the protagonists became a lot hairier |
Sexual images and debate were also less common. There were tighter controls on TV and magazines, and the availability of sexual resources on the internet, both in terms of health and pornography, was still many years away. But these films also had novelty value for teachers.
While obviously saving them the embarrassment of explaining the mechanics of sex to minors, they also brought to their classrooms an engaging new tool. After a class watched a sex education film, and thought about the interesting images and ideas they had encountered, they could then pose questions to their teacher about what they had seen, and healthy debate could be encouraged.
In many cases, this actually happened.
Many would argue that sex education films are needed more than ever today, especially while teenage pregnancies continue to rise, and sex continues to be so prominent in popular culture.
And for those of us looking back to the sex education films of our childhoods, remembering messages both vivid and vague, it is obvious that any education is better than none - even if it might cause the odd guffaw or grimace.
This 1917 film warns soldiers against consorting with prostitutes
This stark and unpleasant tale is a bit more Shakespeare than sex education.
Made in 1917 to prevent Canadian soldiers travelling to World War I catching syphilis and other sexually-transmitted diseases, it tells the story of Dick, a plucky soldier in London.
We see Dick accosted by a prostitute in the street. As they talk another Canadian intervenes and warns Dick away from the woman, giving him the card of a doctor he can visit.
The doctor takes our hero on a tour of hospital wards where he sees the lesions and other unpleasant symptoms that syphilis can cause. Dick realises the ladies of the night are not for him.
But back in Canada, it is revealed that Dick's brother Tom has not been so lucky. The film shows a flashback of Tom being robbed by a prostitute and it becomes apparent that Tom's wife has caught syphilis from him.
Tom is cured of the disease, but when his wife gives birth, the baby is blind.
"The film - as the biblical title suggests - is essentially a straight sermon, a form that its target audience would have found familiar both from church at home and during their military service," says Bryony Dixon, curator of silent films at the BFI.
Send us your comments using the form below.
The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Keeping up with criminals
Keeping up with criminals
 And another...? |
"Another large whisky for you, Laurie?" I could tell from the tone of Geoff's voice that he wasn't so much offering me another drink as testing the limits of my capacity.
Even though I'd been doing a pretty good job disguising the effects of the four large whiskies I'd already consumed, I knew from the feeling in my legs that I'd be hard pushed to take another one without betraying the hard drinking image I was so anxious to maintain.
Geoff was a highly successful confidence trickster, one of a small bunch of criminals I was researching for a book on professional crime called In the Underworld.
| FIND OUT MORE Hear Laurie Taylor's Thinking Allowed on Radio 4 at 1600 on Wednesdays or 0030 on Mondays |
On that particular night, nearly a decade ago, he was sharing the bar of the West End club with two of his working makes, Mike and Bing.
I'd only been able to make contact with such people because of the introductions that had been provided for me by a friendly ex-criminal. But once the introductions had been made I was often left to my own devices.
I had to prove to these working criminals, to confidence tricksters, drug dealers, robbers and assorted gangsters, that I was not some remote desiccated academic but someone who could at least, in part, identify and even sympathise with their way of life.
Heavy drinking was a vital part of this introduction process. Almost from the first day of my research I realised that one of the many ways in which these men marked themselves off from the rest of the world was by their capacity to consume considerable quantities of drink without displaying any sign of its effect.
| I very quickly learned that handling alcohol wasn't my only research problem. I also had to deal with drugs |
In a way it was an adaptive necessity. Professional criminals could only operate successfully if they enjoyed total loyalty from those around them.
They not only had to know for certain that their mates would never grass them up to the authorities, but also that they were capable, whatever the circumstances, of never saying a word out of turn.
No questions
At my first meeting with Geoff, I'd ingenuously said that I wanted to ask him a few questions. "Questions?" he said, "Sorry Laurie, I don't do questions. Never have done. Never will."
An ability to have your wits about you and keep a lid on your tongue after consuming several large whiskies and a bottle of expensive wine marked professional criminals off from the small time "Jack the lads" who shared their drinking spaces.
 Marijuana was regularly smoked |
I very quickly learned that handling alcohol wasn't my only research problem. I also had to deal with drugs.
In several of the clubs I visited, members smoked marijuana with much the sort of aplomb that ladies munch cream cakes in tea shops.
Burning spliffs were passed around the group without comment. Nobody spoke of feeling high or showed any appetite for sweets or other "munchies".
Later at night hard drugs were more evident. Small packets of cocaine were silently passed across the table and members of the group took it in turns to visit the toilets and sniff their lines.
This at least made life easier for me. I could duly take my turn in the toilets, spend a requisite few minutes behind the closed door, and then return the unopened package to its owner.
Keeping cool
As far as their behaviour was concerned all the other members of the group might well have been following my practice. Even after several lines, it was considered bad form to chatter excessively in the usual manner of cocaine users.
You had to stay cool. Keep yourself together. Show that you could take it.
 The Kray twins drank heavily |
I was so impressed by the capacity of these men to fight off the effects of drink and drugs that I once dared to ask Geoff why any of them bothered to indulge in the first place.
It was, of course, a question: the very form of discourse he most abhorred. But on this occasion he at least replied with another question "How'd you mean drink and drugs, Laurie?"
"Well," I said, "All that drink and all those drugs you did at the Gimlet club the night before last."
Geoff gave me an old-fashioned look. "Can't say I noticed, Laurie," he said, "Can't say I noticed."
And I realised I'd just failed another test.
The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Do the eyebrows have it?
Do the eyebrows have it?
| AD BREAKDOWN The Magazine's review of advertising |
THE ADVERT: Cadbury's eyebrow children
THE SCHTICK: Get an advert which will have the same impact as the infamous drumming gorilla
THE BREAKDOWN: Two awkward-looking children do clever tricks with their eyebrows in time to Freestyle's 1986 tune Don't Stop the Rock.
 New gorillas |
Good thoughts, and the correct responses are: yes, it was intriguing; yes, it did make you want to join in; it was a man in a suit; yes, it was for Cadbury's, and it might have been coincidence but chocolate sales went up after the advert.
What made the advert great for Cadbury's is what lots of advertisers will be looking for in these straitened times - getting an advert to "cut through" all the rest of the advertising noise, get it noticed, get people sending it round to each other on the internet, get it accepted as a cult classic - anything to make the advertising pound stretch as far as possible. And all this on top of the standing requirement that people should want to rewind the advert and watch it again and again.
Cadbury's has obviously studied these requirements carefully and thinks with its dancing eyebrows it has a winner. A spokesman said the ad was designed to "encourage involvement and imitation", and indeed one TV comedy show featured such an imitation last week. As if to make the point, a photo-sharing website offers people tools to add weird eyebrows to their photographs and then have them printed on the side of coffee mugs.
And yet there is clearly the risk of feeling over-manufactured; if an advert develops a cult following it's surely better if it grows organically rather than being planned as part of the campaign. There's a risk of an advertiser hoping just a bit too hard for the public to take an advert to its heart, a bit like someone trying to encourage others to use an affectionate nickname.
The advert has probably done enough already for it to get noticed. But the point of this advertising has been to encourage the notion that these adverts are a treat for the viewer, associated with a celebratory moment of reward, just like chocolate. The drumming gorilla certainly had that quality. But do the eyebrows have it?
THE BLOGGER'S VERDICT: Rob Mortimer, a planner at CheethamBellJWT, says "The ad sets its stall out to be entertainment, so we judge it differently. And in this campaign the benchmark is very very high. The problem seems to be that the tone of the humour doesn't quite fit with the idea. It's trying to be Vic and Bob with serious faces and silly movements, but it just feels too forced and lacks the emotional quality that made Gorilla great. Besides, the joy of Gorilla was that you felt the joy of the moment even if you didn't understand the message; but here that joy just doesn't hit."
Ad Breakdown is compiled by Giles Wilson
Add your comments on this story, using the form below.
The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.
What if you had a racist friend?
What if you had a racist friend?
What do you say when a friend or colleague utters a remark that could be regarded as racist? Whether or not Carol Thatcher's use of the word "golliwog" was racist, comedian Jo Brand found it so offensive she walked out of the room.
It is an awkward conversation to have. One minute you are chatting away to an associate when out of nowhere they make a comment you find offensive. Knowing what to say in response, and how to behave towards them in future is not simple. So, what to do about it?
The reaction of comedian Jo Brand to just such a situation led to a slew of headlines last week. After an edition of the BBC's One Show, in which Brand had appeared, she was unwinding with crew members who included Carol Thatcher - an occasional reporter for the programme.
| He was a really nice guy - it was just really out of character Jerry Dammers |
It's reported that Brand stormed out of the room after challenging Thatcher.
The flood of complaints over the decision to sack Thatcher from the show suggests that many think Brand's reaction, and the BBC's later response, was over the top. Nevertheless, many others will have found themselves in a similar quandary at some time in their life - unsure how to challenge an offensive remark, if at all.
One such person is Jerry Dammers, once the lead songwriter in the 1980s pop group The Specials and then The Special AKA. It was under this second incarnation that Dammers performed one of his best-known songs, Racist Friend.
Cut him loose
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House, Dammers says the song was his way of dealing with a friend who "just suddenly used to come out with racist comments".
"Apart from that he was a really nice guy - it was just really out of character. It didn't make any sense," he says.
The Special AKA perform Racist Friend
Apart from penning the song, Dammers also stopped seeing this "friend" - an approach echoed in the song's chorus: "If you have a racist friend/ Now is the time, now is the time/ For your friendship to end."
But for Dammers, who confesses he is "not a confrontational person", the song was substitute for a more direct challenge. He never actually got to tell the person why he had broken off contact.
"He actually died a few years ago. I didn't see him for years and years afterwards. When I heard that he'd died, I felt terrible that I hadn't told him that the song was about him, and why I'd cut myself off from him."
This tactic might work sometimes, but for others the idea of cutting adrift someone dear to them is understandably extreme.
Professor Roger Crisp, fellow of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, says in the case of friends you should make the most of your relationship with them to try to change their views.
"Some philosophers have had some pretty implausible views on friendship. Aristotle thought that only virtuous people could be friends. A racist couldn't be your friend according to him."
"Us and them"
But musician Tom Robinson, who, like Dammers, was known for his activism, is wary of the motives of so-called racist friends. When someone shares a racist remark with you, it is a form of conspiracy, says Robinson; a way of them seeing it as "us" talking about "them".
 Carol Thatcher's "golliwog" comment did not go down well |
"They are involving you, trying to make you collude by saying it to you."
And if the associate in question has very extreme views then it would seem unlikely a firm friendship could have been formed without this opinion having been apparent early on and causing difficulties.
"If the person is a virulent racist, disliking black people perhaps, then there is a difficulty for the non-racist friend," says Professor Crisp. "Then you think 'imagine I was black' then this person wouldn't like me."
Although racism in the UK is less overt than it once was, it still exists. People's views are shaped by those around us, and those that we are aware of - celebrities, politicians and others in the public eye.
"A minor racist joke or comment that seems innocuous filters down, especially if it's made by a powerful person. It goes much further and influences much more people," says Dammers.
There is no obvious response to hearing a friend's racist comments, but from Jerry Dammers' experience it is a good idea to share your feelings.
"If you don't confront it, you will regret it, I can assure you that much."
Below is a selection of your comments.
I believe to use such a word as 'nigger' would be disgraceful as it is clearly a racist word and has always been so. However I am sorry but the word 'Golliwogg' evokes memories of a loved toy or a vague recollection of a character in a book. I just do not relate it to anything else. If 'Golliwog' is now a racist word then how many other words are now abusive or racist for example 'stick thin' a clearly abusive attack on appearance or ' stupid black' clearly racist and an attack on mental capacity. Do we now ban the words stick, thin, black or stupid? It is the context and always the contex that matters and to suggest anything else is to impose one person's opinion on another. If we ban words is that next step to ban books or burn them? How far do we go?E Morris, Ulverston
What do I do? I brush it aside as their opinion not mine. Unlike so many other people in the UK I accept that people have differing views but am not so wet as to let them effect how I think and feel. And would people be so outraged if their friend's remarks were anti-religion (any of the hundreds in the world) or sexist in one way or another? Or anti-North/South? It's all blatant discrimination. Racism is wrong. So is excessive control of people's thoughts and actions.Em Jay, Tyne and Wear
If I cut off everyone I knew who thought something or other I found objectionable I'd have few friends. If my friends had done the same thing, then I'd still think some things which I now know are stupid. Of course it's important to challenge harmful points of view when we encounter them, and of course sometimes someone says something which makes you realise they're not who you thought they were, but no-one ever learned anything from a refusal to explain.Hugh Parker, Birmingham
Why is Aristotle's view that only nice people could be your friend "implausible?" I can't imagine being friends with someone who makes unpleasant remarks that they can't justify, which includes racism. People have made racist remarks in my presence, in the we-all-think-this-really-only-we-can't-say-it kind of way. I always challenge them.Isabella Jackman, Munich, Germany
My step-mother is racist and homophobic and not shy about it. She's also 81, and says she's too old to change her views. I've tried challenging her, but now I put up with it. I see her generation dying out, and hopefully these ideas will to die out with them. Rachel, London
The problem now is that for many people racism is associated with very strong, very obviously hostile statements and acts. A lot of almost 'PC' racism has slipped under the radar and people may say it without even considering it to be offensive. For instance: I was having a conversation with a group of friends recently when they all agreed that 'Asians' can't sing in tune. I knew this was a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact; however they were quite upset to be confronted about it, and certainly didn't agree with me. Tim, UK
I used to pride myself in the fact that I always tackled racist remarks made by "friends" & associates but, am ashamed to admit, in recent years have given up owing to the fact racism seems more widespread. Post "9/11", more & more people seem to think they have some justification in making racist comments. Many see it as a way of dealing with the "War on Terrorism", by adding their own form of propaganda. History has shown us that, in times of recession (or depression) racist views increase; when the "have-nots" look around at those who have wealth with envy that turns to rage. I worry that an increasing number of our society will start to display more obvious racist tendencies in the following months ahead & wonder just what solution we have to this age-old problem.Lol Lambert, Chelmsford UK
Friday, February 6, 2009
Would you let him carry on?
Would you let him carry on?
 Stop now, or keep on sawing? What would you do? |
In today's "cotton-wool culture", children, it's often claimed, are rarely left to learn from life's hard knocks. Instead, adults tend to adopt a safety-first approach, even if the risk amounts to little more than a grazed knee.
But the photo on the right is being used to challenge this reluctance to take risks. It is all part of a new approach to improve the lives of children in care, called social pedagogy, which is currently is being piloted by the government. The term is used to described a form of child development aimed at increasing a child's personal responsibility.
As part of the approach, carers are asked to look at the picture and consider what's the worst that could happen. But they are also required to consider the benefits of letting the child carry on sawing.
So what would you do if confronted with the same situation? Here, four people with an expertise in child development offer their views.
| FRANK FUREDI - AUTHOR OF PARANOID PARENTING
One of the best ways for children to learn is from experience, it helps them manage problems around them. An adult's instinct is to say no, but people should just relax and let the boy carry on if there is no real danger. There is a relationship between action and outcome. Even if that action is a bit painful, the outcome can be positive. If the child learns from the experience then that's a good thing. In today's society we are programmed to always imagine the worst-case scenario. Every new experience with a child seems to come with an elaborate health warning. Things are at absurd proportions and we are now seeing an unprecedented level of parental insecurity and anxiety. It's hard to let go of this way of thinking, but people need to. They are adults and are able to judge situations for themselves.
| | SUE PALMER - AUTHOR OF TOXIC CHILDHOOD
Boys need to take risks, it's in their DNA. If he isn't in danger and you are happy for him to keep on sawing, then let him. By being so risk adverse people are denying children the opportunity to learn how to make assessments about what is dangerous and what is not. Throughout history and across all cultures, the way a child has learned what is safe and possible is by going out to play and taking some risks. If you don't allow them these opportunities to learn they will grow into adults who lack resilience. The British are particularly over protective. It was never a problem in the past. I was allowed to play in bomb sites when I was young. My grandfather would just tell me not to touch anything that was metal. This change of attitude is partly down to today's litigious culture. |
PENOLOPE LEACH - PSYCHOLOGIST AND CHILD SPECIALIST
My gut reaction is to hope an adult would point out why sawing the plank he's standing on is not a good idea. If he decides to carry on, and the adult doesn't think he is any serious danger, then let him. I think the issue of encouraging children to take risks is very complicated. It's all about how serious the risk is and that can a be such a grey area. It's hard to arrive at a definitive answer. Take the incident this week when a girl was killed in a sledging accident, I wouldn't dream of banning sledges because of this. But I would ban children from riding bikes without safety helmets because we have the statistical evidence that it is dangerous. | | PROFESSOR JOE ELLIOTT - CHILD EXPERT
It's crackers to keep children isolated from risk, they will end up with no notion of danger. By wrapping them in cotton wool and not allowing them to learn about the element of risk you are doing them more harm than good. If the person with the boy doesn't think he is in danger, then let him continue sawing. Such situations are always a balance and are never black and white. This is why children need to learn about making an informed decision. It is also why exercises like this are good. It's about exploring the issue, not just saying yes or no. Part of the problem is that people are so cautious in today's litigious society.
|
Add your comments on this story, using the form below.
The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.