Sign of The Times

For several years I had a simple weekend routine of going down to a newspaper kiosque in Rolle. There were several of them in Grand Rue, just a 10 minute walk from the flat and I normally picked up the Saturday issue of The Times and Financial Times Weekend issue. Those 2 papers gave me enough of leisure reading for a couple of days. Normally, I would go over the news, look through book reviews, read interviews and football analysis and previews. There would always be interesting periphery material too, from descriptions of remote destinations to business news and analysis, which never failed to make me feel guilty of not advancing my understanding of business matters to fully appreciate the contents of the business pages. Almost every weekend I would be guaranteed to be annoyed enough with what I read in the papers or the manner of reporting the news or a particular angle of approach to analysis.

Because of this habit, one of my presents for the 45^th birthday was a copy of The Times dated June 2, 1973. To this day I have not taken it out of its pretty frame but I did go through the front page, of course, learning the obsolete news of the day I was born as reported in The Times. On that day Greece abolished the monarchy, a loaf of bread became half a penny more expensive and the top football flight adopted the rule of 3 clubs relegated to be replaced by 3 clubs promoted from the lower division. The football rule is still relevant as I write this.

Then, in February 2019, after buying the usual set of papers, I looked at the front page of The Times to see something that I had to read more than once to make sense of it. I must admit, which I do without shame, that many of my readings did not help me understand what that particular piece of news really meant or why it had to be printed. However, that which was completely beyond my understanding quite unexpectedly shown a very bright light upon the source of my annoyance and irritation: I was completely out of time with the reality as reported by the papers.

Indeed, the world has changed in between the two issues of the Times, both published on a Saturday, leaving the news that I could understand and relate to, such as loaves of bread becoming more expensive or a country changing its format or the promotion and relegation rules, completely overshadowed by this free speech guidance:

Feb 7, 2019

Free speech guidance:

Why would anyone want to see that on the front page of a newspaper, I cannot say. Uncaring as I am about the situation, I am left wondering if the same free speech guidance concerns non-feminists with the same beliefs or they would be treated differently. I am uncertain if the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the NUS ever considered non-feminists. Why any views about transgender women would break the law is another mystery. I have not thought much about transgender women, to be quite honest, but if I were to make a start, was I putting myself in a legally dangerous situation by believing transgender women were tractors? or, maybe strawberries? Much as I was ignorant, I did not bring myself to read the full feature, partly because transgender women presented no interest to me, but more largely because I could not help concluding that this version of the reality was not one I was willing to accept.