DEAR Angry,
I’m writing to you to express concern at the political reaction to the deactivation of my bongs.
As much as I appreciated all the attention paid to me, I couldn’t help but feel that the MPs who sent heartfelt tributes my way have a lot more important things to worry about than yours truly. I mean, I realise that I tell the time and all, but since nothing in London runs on time anyway, I’m not sure why anyone should care about my chimes. Surely humans should be more interested in the wellness of their species rather than the condition of a titanic timepiece such as myself?
Certainly, one has to wonder just how far MPs are willing to take this new custom of mourning landmarks. Will tears be shed if a pigeon poops on the Duke of Wellington? Will the city grind to a halt if the London Eye needs a contact lens? Will people feel ashamed if Tower Bridge can’t get it up? If you ask me, this is a slippery slope to madness. Moreover, I’m not terribly hot on the idea of people outside of London paying for my repairs. That seems unjustified as nobody can hear me much past the Thames. I, for one, would be annoyed if I had to shell out some hard earned cash to fix a crack in Edinburgh Castle. Don’t get me wrong, I’m used to a good windup, but all of this just feels like a bad joke!
Big Ben, London
DEAR Ben,
In my experience, large size results in great humbleness and you are no exception. As much as you downplay your clockwork contributions, I personally believe that timepieces play a vital role in society. They wake us up, serve as a reminder of when we start and finish work and even advise us when we should stop drinking. Clocks do all of these things without intruding in our personal lives or creating unnecessary wars.
As such, I fully understand how unflattering it must be for an ancient clock tower like yourself to be coveted by a bunch of malodorous, unpleasant MPs. You have dutifully told the time to members of the public and public servants for more than 150 years. By contrast, Westminster has constantly lied to the public for over 300 years. The difference is simple: one monument tells the time; the other lies about it. And I know which one I’d rather save!
Sadly, you – a perfectly pleasant London landmark – have been tainted by the delusionary mind-set of your neighbouring legislators. Indeed, people have been so outraged by the political response to your muting, that it’s resulted in the good name of Big Ben taking some unwarranted flack. In the past week, you have been written off by many people as “just a clock”. This may be true, but it feels unnecessarily derogatory. The issue is not your iconic status in London society, but many Westminster MPs’ complete lack of perspective of said society. As much as your bongs should be valued to some extent, I think you’d agree that holding a vigil for their silence whilst showing little emotion for the victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster is nothing short of senseless.
You raised the point that humans should put more stock in the betterment of their kind rather than the preservation of objects. This is valid. However, it seems the concept is beyond many Westminster representatives, who have made a habit of dehumanising the public whilst becoming emotionally invested in statues, boats and even paintings.
Unfortunately, Ben, British politicians have come to recognise you as part of the fabric of their culture and, as such, you will be revered by the upper echelons of their clique, who place more value in king-sized chronometers than in citizens. They say time flies when you’re having fun, but it’s hard to imagine that your four-year silence will feel terribly speedy in the wake of Brexit and a multitude of other MP-led calamities. Calamities that only serve to punish the public.
As far as payment for your repairs is concerned, I wholeheartedly agree that they should be funded by those who directly benefit from your hard work – the people of London. Thankfully, your work does actually have some benefit, which is more than can be said for the freeloaders living in the palace down the road from you. As a clock, I’m sure you’ll recognise when something is cuckoo, and all hands point to the politics of London as cause for alarm. As much as you are in need of maintenance, I feel that the British establishment might need to be replaced entirely. Indeed, at times I think that you are the only bellend in Westminster worth saving!
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel