Illustration by Jackson Rees.
Show Hide image

In which I suspend belief in Branson while contemplating the Virgin snack box

In this week's Real Meals, Will Self resists the parliamentarian-endorsed temptations of a mainline skeuomorph.

Sometimes I ask myself in all sincerity – is Richard Branson real? Please note, the question is not “Is Richard Branson for real?” (the sort of locution he himself might have used back in the days when he edited Student), but rather: “Does he exist in any meaningful sense at all?”

I continue to ask myself this question even though I have actually met Branson and shaken him by the hand. Seeing wasn’t believing – nor, it appears, was touching; Branson will have to work much harder than Jesus Christ, for instance, if he wants me to lend him any credence, let alone have faith in his heavenly transport. True, he does have important similarities to the Christ: both are depicted as bearded and long-haired; both are fair-skinned; both have a message for all of mankind. But in Branson’s favour: although I have only hearsay to go on when it comes to Christ’s catering, I have feasted on Virginal loaves and fishes many times.

All of this flashed through my mind the other day when a steward plonked a complementary Virgin snack box down on the Virgin table in front of me, and then strode on along the carriage of the 12.35 Virgin Trains service from Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston. “Wow,” I said to Barry Sheerman, the MP for Huddersfield, who’d come looking for the steward and found me instead, “that’s a hell of a snack box.”

And indeed it was: a foursquare little thing, its flimsy cardboard manifold cleverly printed with trompe l’oeil wickerwork, leather luggage labels and handle so that it resembled a miniature picnic hamper. I knew that as far as Barry was concerned fakery was the order of the day, because when he’d clapped eyes on me he said: “You’re an actor, aren’t you?” I had to spend some time disabusing him – after which we both had to spend a lot more time chatting, because Barry was taught by my dad at the London School of Economics, back in the days when there went out from Caesar Augustus a decree that all the world should be taxed.

To me the pseudo picnic box was yet more evidence of Branson’s unreality, and yet Barry believed the Virgin Richard’s corporeality was evidenced by a simple fact: “You realise he’s won the East Coast Line franchise, don’t you?” I did indeed know that, but I was still worshipping the iconic snack box, and although I tried to explain its significance, eventually Barry grew bored and wandered back to his own seat. I remained staring at the snack box – it wasn’t the most bizarre foodie-industrial skeuomorph I’d seen that week, but it was up there. As regular consumers of this column will know, a skeuomorph is a once-functional design element repurposed to be purely decorative. In the case of the snack box this was its printed wickerwork’s evocation of lazy afternoons on the river at Henley, with Montmorency performing tricks, and with the hamper’s lightweight yet sturdy construction keeping sandwiches and bottled light ale gently aerated.

Illustration by Jackson Rees.

However, my youngest son had spotted a weirder bit of trompe l’oeil earlier in the week: a Chicago Town Stuffed Crust Four Cheese Melt pizza box that had, printed along its edge, the fake edge of a cardboard box (two-ply cardboard, with a wavy cardboard line in between). We both examined this packaging mutation, marvelling at a world in which a product designer would choose to camouflage a cardboard box as a cardboard box. Mind you, the Chicago Town pizza itself was only masquerading as a pizza – yet this didn’t help much when it came to accepting the reality of the Virgin snack box and, by extension, the existence of Richard Branson. Abandoned by Barry Sheerman, whose ministerial experience might have shed some light on the problem, I fell balefully to examining the snack box. It inspired me to an act of epoché or “bracketing”, as defined by the philosopher Edmund Husserl: I suspended all judgements about the existence or otherwise of the external world, and therefore my own capacity (or Richard Branson’s) to act within it.

Thankfully this scepticism worked, and the reality or otherwise of box and Branson ceased to trouble me. Then I tried rebooting by examining the phenomena that were given to me immediately in consciousness – and the trouble instantly recurred, because the phenomena I perceived were: first, an idea of an egregious bearded entrepreneur; and second, a snack box printed so as to resemble a miniature picnic hamper. It was a devilish conundrum, one such as might have been devised by Descartes’s malignant deceiver. As to breaking the spell by, say, opening the snack box and eating its contents, such an action was anathema to me. What if it contained a Branson homunculus, one that tried to sell me Virgin Money?

I resolved instead to take the snack box home with me and keep it for ever, for ever sealed. It is sitting on my desk as I type this, and although it has the innocent appearance of a mass-market catering pack, I know that it is really a veritable Pandora’s box, from which all the world’s ills might erupt, should I be foolish enough to fancy a light bite.

Will Self is an author and journalist. His books include Umbrella, Shark, The Book of Dave and The Butt. He writes the Madness of Crowds and Real Meals columns for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 13 March 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Israel's Next War

Getty
Show Hide image

This is Theresa May's last chance to rescue the child abuse inquiry

A seventh lawyer has quit the investigation. 

When is a crisis not a crisis? After the departure of seven senior lawyers, three chairs, several survivors’ groups, £15m of public money, two years and little progress to show for it, Theresa May and her Home secretary are increasingly lone voices in their insistence that all is well on the child abuse inquiry that May, as Home secretary, rightly established in the wake of distressing revelations about Jimmy Savile.

It was always a daunting and complex task to shine a spotlight into institutions characterised by secrecy and cover up, where abusers were able to operate in plain sight without challenge or consequence. The inquiry spans decades, covers hundreds of institutions and relies on the accounts of many survivors who have struggled on for years without support. Now they must face the prospect of detailing abuse at the hands of the powerful, to the powerful. How to find a chair with the legal expertise and commitment to command the confidence of survivors, the public and the inquiry staff, a person with vast experience but without personal connections to the accused?

And yet it has been done. In Australia, a Royal Commission has begun to uncover the truth since it was set up in 2013. By contrast, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has been dogged by problems since the outset, losing its first two chairs within months because of connections to the accused, before being re-established on a statutory footing. The appointment of its third chair, Dame Lowell Goddard, was so rushed and confused that the Home Affairs Committee took the unusual step of releasing a report criticising May for potentially bringing “the whole process into disrepute”.

More worryingly, MPs said she was “not displaying the openness and transparency we would expect from the Home Secretary”. From the start it was unclear how appointments were made and how much key officials were paid. Over a year later when staff came forward to accuse Lowell Goddard of racism, bullying and non-attendance - claims she strongly denies – it became apparent that neither she, nor anyone else, will appear before Parliament to answer questions about it.

It has left a yawning gap in accountability, filled not by her, nor apparently by the fourth chair, Alexis Jay, who has asked the Home Affairs Committee to “consider carefully” before calling her to give evidence on the inquiry’s important work. Who will be held accountable for the ongoing dysfunction that left key members of the panel struggling to work with the chair, for significant sums of public money spent on salary, expenses and payoffs and for the apparent failure to investigate alleged disclosures of sexual harassment?

Not the Home secretary, nor the Prime Minister, apparently, who set up and have presided over this chaos but repeatedly refuse to discuss the inquiry, stressing its independence. The Home secretary must not interfere with the Inquiry’s investigation, but she is the only person with the power to hire and fire the chair and her department is responsible for its budget and staffing and supplies a fifth of its staff. The Permanent secretary meets with the Inquiry secretary regularly but says he only “formally” read about these serious, longstanding problems from a report in the newspapers. Meanwhile the Home secretary and Prime Minister appeared to suggest they had no knowledge of the problems that had emerged, only later to confirm that they did. For child abuse survivors this is too familiar a story. Independence cannot become a smokescreen or as we have seen, history repeats itself.

In the past week there have been calls by survivors’ groups for Professor Jay to resign. A seventh senior lawyer has quit amid reported concerns about leadership. The Home secretary has the legal right and a moral duty to investigate. Without delay she must establish whether the Chair and panel have the expertise, skills, willingness to challenge power and working relationships for the inquiry to succeed. But most of all she should learn from the mistakes of the last two years. The problems with this inquiry did not begin with the appointment of Jay and even if she leaves, they will not end. We need a detailed plan for how the inquiry will focus its resources and begin to make progress. This includes a commitment to transparency, including honesty about mistakes made in the past and a clear, published whistle-blower policy that guarantees concerns will be heard and acted upon. This may be uncomfortable for the Prime Minister but it is simply asking her to put survivors’ and the public interests before her own, and that is in itself a test of leadership.

Meanwhile as she stalls, those who have willed the inquiry to fail gather conviction. And as the clock ticks, many survivors wonder if they will live to see the truth emerge. This feels like Theresa May’s last chance to rescue the inquiry she set up. Will she?

Lisa Nandy is the MP for Wigan. She was formerly Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.