#time4change 5 Years On

TW: This blog discusses mental illness, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, anxiety, OCD plus a healthy dose of ignorance about all the above!

Last week I had the absolute pleasure of chatting to Hazel Leishman, one of my 2020 graduates, on an instalive as part of a series that The MTA's been running called "In Conversation". Mostly I just get to catch up with my graduates during these discussions. Sometimes the graduates have asked to use the platform to get certain messages out there eg Eva Bortalis a 2018 grad used it straight away after the George Floyd murder in order to air her views about the then growing BLM movement, or Paris Hoxton, also a 2018 grad who used it to raise awareness of living with bipolar. In fact we've had quite a few mental health awareness discussions, Sarah Hjort (2019) discussed living with anxiety and David Murphy (2017) had a hugely thought provoking chat about living with depression. In fact David's words have really stuck with me. When asked what were his early symptoms of depression his replied without hesitation - always looking happy. A stark reminder that we shouldn't assume that the depressed person who's at most risk, is the one rocking in a corner.

Last year when we started the series Hazel had commented that we should have somebody speaking about Eating Disorders as part of the series.  Now that's easier said than done as I would never ask somebody to speak about a mental illness, the impetus and request must always come from the 'guest'. At the time Hazel dallied with the idea of going 'live', but I actually stopped it, as I didn't feel that she was well enough to do it. Whilst she was clearly over the worse of her own experience at that time, I always feel that the best stories that would have the most positive outcome are the stories from the people that have truly got their illnesses under treatment, or in remission, or indeed cured. So we agreed to shelve it.  Cue Hazel coming back to me this year to tell me how well she had been doing and how she was about to launch a social media platform on which she was going to be open about her own EDs, with the aim of helping people that found themselves in the same position as she had found herself in, and so she was now ready to have the conversation.

So little is known about Eating Disorders, the misconceptions around how they start are legendary, Hazel went straight into myth busting mode, naming from the outset that the majority of EDs come from a place of needing to be in control. In fact they're very similar to OCD insomuch as control is often the major contributing factor.  For sure other things can trigger them, but the widely perceived logic that people just want to look smaller is often miles off the mark (yet I guess easier for people to try and make sense of loved ones starving themselves to death, or binging, or . . . well . . you know the rest). EDs, like OCD, PTSD, schizophrenia are often the ugly side of mental illnesses that people don't really like talking about - they've never made the popular list.

Even after the recent high profile death of Nikki Grahame this insidious illness still managed to hide in plain sight. As a few posts started to go online about the ludicrous situation that people suffering with EDs had to be essentially 'ill enough' to even start treatment (and by 'ill enough' please understand that sometimes that translates to 'too ill to treat effectively) within a few days it had crept away again to a few niche posts. 

Then fast forward to this week and on another social media platform I watched one of those autobiographical "A Day in the Life of a dance/drama/music Student' videos. I always find it interesting to see a day from the students' perspective. What I didn't expect in this specific "A Day in the life of  Dance Student" was this sentence "then we went to get weighed".  In fact I watched the video several times thinking that I must have misheard it.  Then I read the comments. Lots of people had also questioned this part of their 'average day' - even more alarmingly the people posing the question of WTF were "reassured" that this was part of this particular college's strategy to PREVENT eating disorders!! By regularly monitoring the students' weight they could spot an issue before it arose.

I immediately did my usual twitter rant to find out if everybody knew about this practice, but as per usual those posts never really 'take off' and promote the discussion that's actually needed. I mean interestingly pop up a post about wanting to see more 'normal' shaped people in roles and they go viral in a heartbeat, as of course 'self interest' will always prompt a viral response. 

Heigh ho, the post did prompt a few interesting private messages though. So did you know that some colleges and some work places (specifically cruise companies) will make students/casts sign a contract which essentially ties them into a specific weight (give or take a few pounds)? That's right you did read that correctly - people are made to sign a contract to keep them within a certain weight parameter. Let's not discuss hormonal weight flux, or muscle mass etc, let's just pop people on a scale to see how they're doing.  Believe it or not - this is meant to be helping mental health in the workplace or during training. I'm going to chose not to share some of the techniques and secrets that were shared with me that people did in order to get around some of these conditions, as I know that people with EDs are clever sods who are always on the look out for a get around - however let's just say that you should never undermine the intelligence & creativity of a person in the middle of an ED, those illnesses are bloody crafty.

Let's quickly recap back to Hazel's opening gambit - EDs are usually about control. Notice the bloody massive issue here?

However that's not all I've learned recently. I've also discovered that certain cruise companies are STILL not issuing contracts to people who have named that they're on anti-depressants.  I mean it makes sense doesn't it? People that are on a treatment for depression should not be permitted to work in the middle of the ocean.  Far, far better to essentially force people to either lie, or indeed (and I've witnessed this myself) make people chose between a treatment or a job. I mean - that's never named, but I've known people that have chosen to come off a treatment dose that is helping them in order to fulfil a contract on a cruise ship. The thinking being that work, sun and sea will essentially do the work of the medicine, failing to understand that vitamin D helps all of us feel a bit happier, but for many people they require a much more robust chemical treatment in order to recover from a mental illness. Those same people wonder why they're in their dream job, in a luxurious part of the world, having a mental health crisis. 

So next time you're reading all the positive posts about people being more open about mental health and mental illness these days, next time you're celebrating the 50th person you know becoming a Mental Health first aider, please know that at a very basic level, during training and during jobs, our industry has a hell of a long way to go in order to get on top of this epidemic. 

Next time you see the "It's OK not to be OK" mantra that's become so popular, or the "My DMs are open" invitation to chat to an understanding mate, what would be better is if we actually dealt with mental illness (not just look at mental health, it always has to be both, and) at a grass roots level, because you know what's better than being OK? Being well or being in recovery.

This and that

 As BAFTA still feign surprise at the Noel Clarke allegations, I'm struck by the dilemma that we all seem to find ourselves in. . . we all know the names but none of us can do anything with the information. It's not as if people aren't trying, take the recent list put up outside various theatres. A bold move which of course couldn't be shared anywhere publicly for fear of libel action or fear of hindering a police investigation - and so it continues.

I was struck by the dilemma a few times this week as I've watched quite a few of 'those' people rather brazenly posting online about what they're up to, or contributing to other conversations. Like most of us in the industry I've watched them go from job to job with (seemingly) no repercussions from past actions. I literally shudder when I see some of the things that 'they're' involved with as they raise serious safeguarding concerns, yet somehow we're helpless to stop them.

There's so much noise at the moment thanks to the Guardian article and everybody seems determined to make a change - but is such a systemic change even possible? Take 'that agent' that everybody discusses with disdain, the one that's never named, but as soon as a post goes out discussing them, everybody knows who it's referring to. Why does 'that agent' still secure clients? Surely enough people know about their reputation to warn performers off them. Well interestingly seemingly not - as they're still invited to drama college productions with a view to representing the most vulnerable in our industry - the graduates. CDs still use them, even though they might have named privately that they don't actually like dealing with them. Hands are tied and the cycle continues.

Or let's take 'that creative' that we all know. The stories and anecdotes increase every year, every so often somebody will hint heavily at them online, we all think that everybody knows . . . yet they still get the gig don't they?  'That producer' or 'that production company' will keep using them even though they've witnessed the fallout.  Even more interesting is if you speak to the powers that be about this person's reputation - they simply shrug their shoulders and keep hiring 'them'. 

The particularly interesting thing here is that some of the people that are shouting for these people to be named & shamed actually know the names themselves and STILL use them. Hoping I guess that 'they'll' be OK in their production. So some of the people trying to incite change are confusingly the people that are facilitating the toxicity that we all want removed from the industry thereby perpetuating the cycle. What a bizarre industry we work in

Or what about 'that actor' that we all know - the one that is high maintenance, who treats everybody else in the company like they're sh*t? Well. . . everybody except the director or the producer possibly. How do they go from show to show creating the most toxic atmosphere? We all know 'them'. . . just like the CDs do, and the production companies - but 'they' still get hired. Their bums on seat value is higher than the welfare of the company. Regardless of how loud the shout for change is, I guess theatre is a commercial venture so it'll be profit above people.. So in fairness to these toxic individuals who walk amongst us in plain sight why would they change? Are they actually receiving any feedback? 

All students love 'that teacher' that will socialise with them as they're just too cool for skool aren't they? It's the sign of an adult education environment when you can have a boozy evening with the 'teacher'.  Where's the boundary between professionalism and personal? As we've heard quite a lot recently, these blurred boundaries can very often turn into something much more sinister. Yet still, it continues.

All of us can make poor choices, all of us can make mistakes, but we all also have the possibility to change and evolve, but how can anybody do that if they're neither receiving the feedback plus continuing to secure the jobs? What impetus is there for self-reflection and change? Surely we want to create a safe environment where this feedback can be given and heard. For people to have the opportunity to do the work on themselves. The chances are that they're not 'happy' either, and their own trauma is coming out sideways perpetuating abusive cycles.  If the actions are criminal then we should be an industry where people are encouraged and supported to report incidents to the Police, not the industry that likes to sweep it under the carpet and pretend that it didn't happen.

Do we talk about 'that' casting director who seems to have missed the fact that the casting couch is yesterday's news? We all know 'them', as the Principal of a drama college I warn my graduates about 'them'. Are we to believe that 'we' all know 'them' but the production companies that hire them are simply not aware of their reputation? 

It truly feels like a Catch 22 situation. Throw in an added caveat that as small a percentage as there is, some people will also lie about their experiences. So we also have to proceed with caution on hearing and acting on rumours. That said it shouldn't take 20 people coming forward about an individual for serious questions and investigations to take place.

Catch 22 appears to be the mantra of the industry though as I wrote about quite recently here. It's really hard to see a way out of the environment that has dominated certain areas of the industry for decades. Today the focus is on Noel Clarke, however, he is definitely not alone. It's time to widen that spotlight and reform the industry.

How long should you train for?

 How long is too long to be training? Well in reality we are essentially training our whole lives, aren't we? We are forever the student trying to hone our skills and develop new ones.

In the US it's standard practice to do a 4-year undergraduate course. The UK has traditionally always adhered to a 3-year model (working in terms not semesters), then of course in 2009 I popped up with The MTA and completely challenged that again fast-tracking the training into a 2-year model.

However back in the early noughties, the UK started up this thing called a foundation course (apologies if they've been running for longer, but that's certainly the time that I started to notice them popping up). I guess for the bigger colleges it made financial sense. You're seeing people for your 3-year course who are blatantly not quite ready, but with a bit more training, using the resources that you're already paying for, you could get them ready for a 3-year course (potentially). Then lots of other people saw a sensible business model for purely training pre-undergraduates and a group of independent colleges suddenly opened.

So maybe we really did need to be doing a 4-year course after all - just like the US system?

Foundation courses and colleges quickly moved into mainstream thinking when it came to planning your future career. All the courses varied, some running in the evenings, some over concentrated periods, but all essentially training you to er, train.  

Over the years we've accepted lots of students that have had some sort of pre-training, and there are certainly some foundation courses that we inherently 'trust', insomuch as their students invariably always seem to be ready by the time that we see them for the audition. So they're clearly doing what they say on the packet. Then there are the students that we've rejected in one year, who've gone away, done some further training and have come back to us the following year and we've accepted them without hesitation - so a big yay to the training that they've received in that year.

However, I do have a couple of serious concerns around it all. 

The foundation course is entirely focussed on getting students ready for a traditional undergraduate programme which runs Sept - July (or in our case Oct - Sept), yet their courses all run to the same academic calendar year, meaning that they've started training in Sept, and within 3 months they're likely to be applying for their undergraduate course. Surely it would make more sense for the foundation course to run something like Jan - Nov? That way people that had got rejected have got time to look around for the best foundation course for them, they would have 10 months of training behind them before they've started to apply to other colleges?

As all the foundation courses are supposed to be preparing you for further training, you would be surprised at how many of them actually discuss all the options available to students. Some are great and seem to get all the colleges in to do some sort of outreach, or their course leader will be calling us to ensure that they have the right information for entry onto our course. However, some of them are purely fixated on the more established colleges.  That's always struck me as a bit elitist and even slightly gate keeperish. The number of colleges that we've approached annually to ask to speak to their students about the 2-year model and have had our request ignored is actually quite shocking.  Even more shocking when you look at our stats - we have a 10-year track record for getting all of our students out into the industry with agent rep, so regardless of your personal feelings, our results speak for themselves. A 2-year model works - but those pathways stay blocked (until one rogue class member comes to auditions for us and tells all of their friends about their experience)

Then there's the issue of brand awareness. Lots of young performers grow up knowing that they only want to really train in the one college. Their dream college. Their entire focus is on that dream. They've gone to see shows and keep seeing 'that name' in the programme, they believe that this is the only place that will get them industry-ready.  The big audition comes but they're not accepted on the dream course BUT they do get offered a place at the college, but on their foundation course. Here's the rub. In my experience, a lot of the people that get offered foundation courses at the major colleges would probably get straight offers onto a 3 year training programme at another college. Over the years we've auditioned lots of people from one of the 'major colleges' foundation courses, and we've pretty much been able to accept them all. You could of course argue that the larger college had done an exceptional job in training them ready to be . . . er, trained, or you could hypothesise that they were always ready to be trained somewhere (just not their 'dream college').

Over the years I've always been amazed by people who have turned down offers at ours and at other really reputable drama colleges because they've also been offered a foundation course at their 'dream school' - such is the draw of the 'dream'. A concept that our industry thrives on. A quick caveat here that of course not all courses are suitable for all students, so 100% people should be turning down places on courses that they know that they wouldn't thrive at. . . but that's very different by being blindsided by 'the dream'.

Now these foundation courses do not come cheap. Training performers is expensive. Yet suddenly parents are paying out for this additional course in the hope of what? That their child will be accepted onto their 'dream course' - whereas in reality from what I've heard, all the colleges are really honest about the fact that their foundation course is not a guaranteed pathway onto their main course. Even more than that it would be fascinating to find out the percentage of people that actually do go from a foundation course straight onto the undergraduate course, as from hearsay it doesn't seem as high as you'd expect.

I understand that some people opt for the foundation course as they believe that they'll be more likely to secure funding such as an elusive DaDa so they believe that the cost of the foundation course is essentially an investment - but of course DaDas are hard to come by, and the majority of people just end up spending a load of money that they haven't got before needing to find a load more money that they haven't got. It strikes me as a very risky gamble and with foundation courses costing anything from £6k to £10k this is not a cheap gamble.

So do foundation course work? 100% yes, but are some students paying out on an additional year unnecessarily - absolutely. Surely after paying out for a foundation year that student should be guaranteed a place on a course . . . somewhere. You should only be taking the students that you can clearly see have the potential to train but who are just falling short in one area. 

We should be seeing stats from all colleges about progression (which I've been shouting about for bloody years). I believe that students should be applying for foundation courses, not being offered them as the consolation prize (as that plays into the false promise, albeit unwittingly), and of course . . . I believe that all auditions should be free, which would allow students to apply for a wider range of colleges, which might open their eyes to other possibilities. 

Temper Tantrums for the Entitled

My four-year-old can often be found these days acting like some sort of cartoon character, stamping his foot because he can't get his own way. As his parent it's my job to hold the line and teach him that in life you don't just get everything you want and you certainly don't get it because you're screaming the house down (as much as you sense that all your neighbours are begging you to give in as much as your decibel busting child) Sometimes you have to work for it, sometimes it's just not yours to have. In the age of helicopter parenting, mindful parenting is a minefield. Are you being too harsh? Should you just give in as you don't want to 'damage them for life'? What about the fact that you don't want spoilt children though? Shouldn't we be teaching them to be resilient? The questions that you're facing long outstay the incident that precipitated them.  

Since watching the Social Dilemma on Netflix I've become fixated on changing the narrative on my social media timelines (stick with it. . . I swear that it's all related). Our self-serving echo chambers do nothing to make us aware of other people's opinions, which in turn leaves us believing that 'we' (and that is very much a 'we' of the plural variety) must be right in our thinking as EVERYBODY agrees with us. In fact nowadays if you move outside of your social media safe lane, and dare to challenge somebody's narrative, you are automatically lumped into the 'other' category with everybody assuming you to be a sharer of 'fake news', which is a fast track to 'troll city'. 

Creating an echo chamber prevents personal growth. Whilst we all prefer an easier life, and let's face it, we all hope that we're speaking with authority, the reality of life is very different. Were I to employ a senior faculty that just went along with everything that I said, my little college would be all the duller for it. I'm not infallible, I need to be challenged, and sometimes, when trying to think outside of the box you can literally catapult yourself to a different planet. You need people around you that are challenging in order to progress and develop. Damn it, you need people around you that will say 'no'. 

The world of social media needs to be the same fertile space in order for us to grow and develop as emotionally intelligent humans. However, have we stunted this growth due to years of privilege? A world where well-meaning parents overindulged and protected their children, meaning that as soon as they're in an environment that challenges their narratives they hit a huge wall which results in people calling out injustice. Remember the fuss a few decades ago when it was suggested that at sports days we should stop having winner and losers? We were encouraged to tell our children that it wasn't the winning that was important, it was the taking part? However couldn't we have been sold the double narrative? It's great to take part in something, and we should be really thrilled if we win, or conversely, the taking part is everything and let's not worry too much about losing. If you want to do better next time, try training for the event? You might not ever win it, but you could see yourself improving? 

The obvious question now is - does it really matter as long as everybody's happy? Shouldn't I 'give in' to my son's demands just to keep him happy, after all, in the big scheme of life, the thing that he's crying for has now become a matter of principle? I've come to realise that I believe that it really does matter, as we're nurturing a society of people that believe that they can't be challenged, that losing isn't what 'they' do, who deliberately shut down an alternative truth because they want to protect their echo chamber.

Let's take an example . . . if his critics are to be believed this is the case with Donald Trump.  A privileged, spoilt man who always got his own way. Learned how to play the system and not get caught. Then suddenly in 2020 somebody (US democracy) told him 'no'.  He lost the presidentship and seemingly copied my son. He stamped his foot, refused to believe that he could have possibly lost and the rest is history, fast forward a few months and we have the assault on Capitol Hill. Old Donald didn't like the narrative, all the evidence supports the fact that he did in fact lose (albeit with a lot of support, which I believe supports my argument of teaching the taking part and losing/winning narrative as of equal importance). He protected his echo chamber by shouting down the other narratives as 'fake news', and his followers believed him . . . after all, why would anybody create such a monumental lie?

As part of my social dilemma experiment, I've been challenging narratives that I believe to be dangerous online. Always respectfully, never resorting to insults, yet interestingly the people consistently throwing out the most dangerous content also all seem to play the DT game. They protect their echo chamber at all costs. I've now lost count of the number of private messages I've received from people who are all pushing an alternative truth to the fact that we've been in a pandemic. So I've questioned the narratives around 5G, anti-lockdown, anti-mask, QAnon, the Great Reset, etc. They all see their 'followers' as their weapons, setting them onto people that don't agree with them. Yet privately they all ask you to stop disagreeing with them? Their private messages are all the same, they literally name that they don't like being challenged, they all 'threaten' you with being blocked unless you toe the line, then when you point out that their discourse is fighting to protect liberties and freedom of speech and therefore their private message is the antithesis of everything they claim to be fighting for . . . they block you. If they find you particularly challenging, they publicly block you so that their followers will give you a bit of grief for a few days. 

Are they trying to change the world, or simply get what they want? Are they well-meaning or just narcissists building up their empires? Where is their resilience to be challenged, or have they created an echo chamber so bubble-wrapped that they've started to believe their own narrative? Why do they cancel the opposing viewpoint as opposed to engaging in a healthy, respectful debate?

I don't know what the answer is, and I think that this toxic narrative of entitlement reaches out into some pretty murky areas, however, I do believe that this is something that we all need to grapple with a bit more. As parents, we have to show our children that life isn't always what 'they' want, we have to teach them to be resilient. We have to demonstrate curiosity for the other viewpoint to enable our children to grow both physically and emotionally. Most of all, when we're teaching our children that they can be or do anything they want, we have to make them aware that their path isn't some fairytale destiny, it's a path of challenges that they need to work through. My biggest thought of all though is to get some noise-cancelling headphones/pods when you're grappling with these concepts with your young children.

Where's the revolution?

Why is an industry that is full of liberal people desperate to do right so afraid of change? Why do we all doff our caps at the same organisations and people with gratitude when they've deemed to give us a crumb or two?

I wrote last time about the carousel of annoyance that swings by social media about once every 6 months that is the 'drama school audition fee' scandal - yet nothing changes. Several colleges have stopped charging altogether but they don't get a look in as the world goes crazy about one of the old guard colleges reducing their audition fees from £££ to ££. We're meant to be grateful that one of the 'big guys' has decided to open up for the 'poor people'. Press releases go out, social media celebrates the drawbridge going down (not acknowledging that it shouldn't have been up in the first place, and also not acknowledging that you still need a metaphorical ladder to reach the lowered bridge). With the exception of one or two constant voices, we are satisfied & grateful with the tiny step. 

There are various well-meaning organisations attempting to make some of these dinosaurs more accessible to a more diverse group of people (both ethnicity and socio-economic), blindsided by history and completely ignoring the fact that younger beasts have been growing and maturing and who might actually 'fit' this Utopian diverse industry more. Nobody invests in them though - so we mould the 'diverse' to fit into the establishment. We see that as liberal progress. We celebrate the pathway, not question why the destination is always via the same address.

The stories that hit every so often of the same businesses within our industry that have a monopoly over us. The independent businesses built entirely off people looking for work, which have somehow gained a complete monopoly over our industry with nobody coming close to rival them in spite of various attempts. So powerful is their position within the industry they act as gatekeepers.  Again social media posts pop up every so often which everybody piles on in agreement, whilst the majority of people keep their annoyance on the down low just incase they ruffle the wrong feathers. I mean the industry is tough enough isn't it, without making enemies? One brave soul will put their head up above the parapet, the industry paper doesn't cover it (yet another independent business with a monopoly within the industry, though of course that makes a bit more sense as we are, after all, a niche topic), the companies keep their head's down knowing that within the week it'll blow over.  It was never a fair fight as after all . . . they are the gatekeepers. 

Having campaigned for greater mental health for years, the pandemic has obviously swung the spotlight onto this issue now. Interesting to see the people that once told me that I was pandering to the 'eccentric' now positively gushing in their acknowledgment that mental health is a 'thing', and indeed a thing to be dealt with.  Once again the PR cogs work their magic and press release after press release pop up around who's doing what when in order to help our industry's 'mental health'.  Why aren't we questioning what took them so long? Why are we so easily sated? Why are we just forever grateful for the crumbs, when if this topic had been taken more seriously years ago, we might have been a bit more robust as a whole to deal with the sh*tstorm that is the Tory government dealing with a pandemic. 

In the first lockdown, the BLM movement completely highlighted the systemic lack of diversity in our industry. We were all up in arms . . . we all acknowledged that we had to do better. Posts were shared and apologies given for the 'sins of the past'. Did the revolution happen? Absolutely not. Many of the people that understood in that moment that representation matters, didn't join the dots to realise that representation matters throughout the industry and impacts every diverse group.  We'll all fight for a cause, but won't really make the sacrifice for it. So what if your cast/production isn't fully representative of the world today. You're not going to make a fuss from within as 'they' won't like it. 

The same argument stands around neurodiversity, ableism, size, anything other than the perceived 'norm' - which of course isn't 'normal' at all. It's a whitewashed, photoshopped world that has never really existed, but one that they believe that the 'aspiring' public wants to see. Negating to see that time and time again when we give people representation, when we put the mirror up to our audiences, the audiences will turn up in their droves to see themselves on stage.

It's a vicious circle of blame, performers periodically call it out, lots of people agree, but where's the root of all of this? Who is it that's sat in an office declaring what the 'perfect' cast member looks like? I ask the question as every time one of these hot topics come up seemingly everybody across the board agrees, from producers, casting directors, agents, drama colleges. . . yet somebody, somewhere has perpetuated these 'myths' and kept them going. How many conversations are taking place offline that contradict what people are saying publicly, because that is 100% the issue here, and those offline conversations are the ones with the real power to change - whatever their public face is telling us.

The industry is still such a clique, and the members of that clique guard it with their lives. They form new bodies and organisations all the time in order to form a 'wall' that nobody else can breakthrough. They've got each other's backs, the private businesses that are our gatekeepers won't lead the revolution as they're too busy fleecing our pockets in the name of commercial enterprise. . . . and we won't say anything as 'we' want to work. 

When Thatcher destroyed the unions forcing us out of a closed shop scenario that was meant to free up our industry - allowing everybody a fair bite of the pie. Some 30 years on it feels like we never opened up anything, other than a revenue stream for the few to deprive the many. We see the same faces, we see the same organisations and companies all telling us that they're not controlling our future, all pretending to evolve, with the press coverage celebrating the smallest of movements but where is the real change, and I guess as importantly, who the hell is sitting on the top of all of this refusing to budge and maintaining the status quo?