Prompt: The Deflated Balloon

As I looked down at the ground and saw the deflated balloon, I said out loud, “I wonder where this came from.”

It lay there with an air of having given up, collapsed into itself as though embarrassed by its own presence. I had the strangest notion that the balloon had been waiting for me to notice it.

The texture was wrong for a balloon. That was the first thing I noticed. It wasn’t rubbery; it wasn’t translucent; it didn’t have that faint shimmer that balloons usually make when they collapse after having been expanded. This one was matte and thick, the surface faintly creased like a water-skin that had seen desert weather. When I nudged it with my toes, it didn’t bounce or slide away. It resisted, soft but stubborn, more like leather than anything else. It was warm, too, which startled me enough that I jumped back.

I remember thinking, very clearly, this doesn’t belong here.

The garden was ordinary in every other way. A sagging fence, the apple tree that never bore fruit, the compost heap my father promised would one day become soil and never did. Mulch that had dried out. The balloon sat in the middle of it all like a mistake that had decided not to correct itself.

Shall I pick it up? The thought arrived fully formed, immediately followed by another, less reasonable one. Maybe it’s poisoned. I had recently learned the word ricin from a documentary I wasn’t supposed to be watching, and it floated up now, important and dangerous. Maybe touching it with my toes was already enough to kill me. Maybe it was one of those things you only read about later, after the damage is done.

Or maybe it would explode. I imagined mines buried just beneath the skin of the earth, waiting patiently for the wrong foot, the wrong hand. The balloon could be a trick, a soft invitation masking something violent and precise. I stood there for a long time, arguing silently with myself, the way children do when they don’t yet know how to trust either their instincts or their bravery.

In the end, I compromised. I always did. I still do.

I found a stick. It was dry and snapped easily from the hedge, light enough to drop if something went wrong. I poked the balloon once, gently. Nothing happened. I poked it again, harder this time, and the surface gave way with a sound like a sigh finally released.

The balloon burst open.

Not popped; opened. The side-seam split neatly, as if it had been waiting for permission. From inside, something unfolded itself with great care, stretching arms and legs as though waking from a cramped sleep. An elf climbed out, brushing bits of golden lining from his hair, which stuck up in earnest, unhelpful directions.

He looked at me and smiled, entirely unafraid.

“I am,” he said, with the seriousness of someone announcing a very small but very firm truth, “the modern version of the genie of Aladdin.” I waited. Even then, I understood there was meant to be more. “But,” he continued, raising one finger, “I don’t grant wishes.” This seemed important. I felt an unreasonable disappointment anyway. “I help with maths homework,” he said. “Specifically yours. Since you are in great need of such a thing.”

I opened my mouth to argue, then closed it again. He wasn’t wrong. “I will also give you private lessons,” he added, “so that you will get at least a B in the next test. Not a D.”

The way he said D made it sound terminal.

And sure enough, he did.

Henry, because that was his name, though I don’t remember asking, came to live quietly in my room. We made him clothes from old socks and scraps of fabric I got from buying clothes from the charity shop [Janet assumed they were for my dolls, and I didn’t gainsay her], and he insisted on buttons, which I made from dried tangerine pips, and sewed on badly, and often crooked. He ate little, mostly bread and fruit, and claimed cracker crumbs were his favourite food because they were already humble.

Each afternoon, he sat with me at my desk, legs swinging, explaining fractions in ways that made sense, drawing tiny diagrams in the margins of my notebooks. He was patient without being kind about it, which turned out to be exactly what I needed. When I sulked, he waited. When I tried, he nodded once, as if ticking something off an invisible list.

I kept him a secret. Not because he asked me to, but because he felt like the sort of magic that would vanish if spoken aloud. Secrets, I learned, can be a form of shelter.

Years passed. Tests came and went. I grew. I got a Doctorate in Applied Mathematics. Henry stayed the same, ageless in the way small, necessary things often are. He mended his own clothes, hummed unfamiliar tunes at night, and sometimes stood at the window, looking up, as if listening for something very far away.

Twenty years ago, though it feels like both yesterday and another lifetime, I woke in the middle of the night to a soft creaking sound. In the garden below, illuminated by moonlight, a big golden leather balloon rested on the grass. This one was whole, its seams shining, a bag attached to its side, like a promise.

Henry stood beside my bed, dressed neatly in his best clothes.

“It’s time,” he said, not sadly.

We didn’t hug. We never did. He waved once, jumped out of the window, climbed into the basket, and the balloon lifted itself with quiet confidence, floating up and away, clearing the apple tree with ease.

I watched until it disappeared.

Now that I am grown, I remember these things fondly. Not with disbelief, but with the calm certainty that some help arrives exactly when it is needed, takes an unexpected form, and leaves without applause.

Sometimes, when I struggle with something that feels too large, I look down at the ground, half-expecting to see another deflated balloon, waiting patiently to be noticed.

Murder in ICE-Cold Blood

“When the Police say ‘Stop’, you stop. That is all.”

Victim-blaming statements like this, are being used to justify murder.

ICE officers are not Police, albeit ICE has been granted the same level of secrecy as the FBI. The distinction isn’t just semantic; it shapes how the public understands power, accountability, and the limits of authority.

Under U.S. law and policy, when deciding whether to shoot, or chase and arrest, there are clear delineations.

Local police and federal agents, including ICE officers, are required to use the least amount of force necessary, and may only use deadly force [shooting] when they reasonably believe there is an immediate threat of death, or serious bodily harm, and no safer alternative is available.

In situations including vehicle encounters, the correct procedure is to avoid shooting, and, rather, pursue, contain, or arrest, using non-lethal tools when possible.

Many agencies now prohibit or severely restrict firing at moving vehicles, because it rarely stops them, and often increases danger to bystanders. Officers are trained to move out of the way, instead of shooting at wheels or windscreens.

The praxis is to emphasise de‑escalation and containment, through using distance, cover, and communication, whilst calling for backup.

ICE is held to the same constitutional standards as local police regarding deadly force. However, their internal policies differ.

ICE has not adopted some of the modern restrictions and best practices that many police departments use, especially regarding shooting at moving vehicles. This is obvious, given the recent controversial shootings.

Local officials and eye-witnesses claimed the shootings appeared reckless, and inconsistent with modern police policy. Experts noted that many police departments explicitly forbid the tactics ICE use.

ICE is a federal immigration enforcement agency, not a general law‑enforcement body. They do not have the same mandate, training, or community‑oriented responsibilities that local police departments have. Therefore, when media or officials casually refer to ICE agents as “police” it blurs important boundaries. Police enforce criminal law and serve the general public, whereas ICE enforces civil immigration law, and focuses on deportation and detention.

Police departments are typically accountable to local governments and communities. They provide services such as welfare checks, traffic control, etc.

ICE is accountable to federal executive agencies, and has no community‑service role. Their mission is enforcement, detention, and removal.

Calling ICE ‘police’ creates fear and undermines trust in actual police. It gives  ICE officers an aura of authority they do not legally possess; indeed, some of them appear to believe that appearance confers legal status. Some cities even have explicit policies telling their officers not to cooperate with ICE precisely to maintain this distinction.

Why do ICE agents often wear uniforms that resemble police gear? Why do their vehicles have lights and markings similar to law enforcement? Why do they conduct raids or arrests that look like police operations? Is this meant to blur the lines, if only in the people’s perception?

The legal mandates of ICE vs. Police are completely different.

The police [Local/State Law Enforcement] enforce criminal law, protect public safety, and respond to emergencies. They investigate crimes, arrest suspects, and maintain community law and order. They operate under state law, local ordinances, and the U.S. Constitution.

ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforces federal civil immigration law. It focuses on deportation, detention, and immigration‑related investigations. Most importantly, it operates under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and has no general policing mandate.

When it comes to arrest powers, the police can arrest someone for any crime (be it a felony or a misdemeanour), committed in their presence, or with probable cause, just as they can detain individuals temporarily, and frisk them, based on reasonable suspicion (Terry stops, which are lower than probable cause, but higher than hunches). They can execute arrest warrants issued by courts.

ICE can arrest individuals only for immigration violations, or specific federal offenses related to immigration fraud, smuggling, trafficking, etc. However, immigration violations are usually civil, not criminal. ICE is not a general law‑enforcement body. It cannot enforce state or local laws.

They can arrest without a warrant only if they believe the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Otherwise, they must use administrative warrants, which are signed  by ICE supervisors, not by judges.

Police need a judicial warrant to enter a home, unless the homeowners consent, or there are exigent circumstances; the destruction of evidence, danger, a crime being committed, etc. Their warrants are issued by neutral judges.

An ICE administrative warrant does not give ICE the right to enter a home without explicit consent, or a judicial warrant, which they almost never have. ICE’s own administrative warrants do not authorise forced entry.

Police jurisdiction is local: city, county, or state, because their authority is tied to the community they serve.

ICE jurisdiction is national, but limited to: immigration enforcement, customs violations, and some cross‑border crimes.

Police and ICE may appear similar, but  their legal powers, responsibilities, and accountability structures are fundamentally different. Distorting the line between them erodes public trust.

Understanding this distinction is essential for any discussion about enforcement, rights, and the limits of state power.

Fleur u Lee – Il-Mappa

Id-dar tal-Belt li darba kienet tan-bużnanna Lina kienet ilha aktar minn tletin sena ma tinfetaħ.  Minflok ċavetta, in-Nanna Kitty kellha muftieħ daqsiex.  Saħansitra mill-isprall tal-kantina kien qed jixref il-ħaxix ħażin.  X’riħa taqsam ta’ umdu ħarġet meta nfetaħ il-bieb!  L-għamara kienet kollha mgħottija b’lożor daqs dinja, li darba kienu bojod, iżda issa miksijin bit-trab. 

Fleur u Lee ħassewhom li kienu fil-film Ghostbusters, u f’kemm ilna ngħidu, telgħu u niżlu mis-sular ta’ kif tidħol, sa fuq il-bejt, u sal-kantina, xi tliet darbiet.

Kellhom subgħajhom jikluhom biex jaraw x’kien hemm taħt il-lożor.  In-Nanna Kitty qaltilhom, ‘Neħħuhom bil-mod għax inkella jtir ħafna trab.’

Daħlu fil-kamra tas-sodda, li kellha t-tieqa tagħha tagħti għal fuq il-baħar. Fleur u Lee żammew il-lożor mit-truf, u twewhom flimkien bil-galbu biex it-trab ġie n-naħa ta’ ġewwa.

Lee, ta’ kurjuż li kien, beda jiftaħ il-bibien tal-gwardarobbi u l-kxaxen tat-twaletta u tal-armarji.  Induna li r-raba’ kexxun, dak ta’ isfel,  tal-gradenza ma setax jinfetaħ. Għalxejn ġebbed u ġebbed … kien weħel.

Fleur, bil-ħlewwa kollha, reġgħet għalqitu, tatu xi żewġ skossi ħfief, u ppruvat tiftħu… u din id-darba nfetaħ. Indunat li kien hemm invilops mitwija pulit fih.  “Ara! Għalhekk kien qed iżomm, mela!” qalet.

In-Nanna Kitty fetħet l-invilops u fih sabet mappa. Pjanta ta’ dik l-istess dar, u salib aħmar kbir bil-kelma ‘Hawn!’ ħdejh. X’ħin raw il-mappa, It-tfal bdew jaqbżu bl-eċitament. Flimkien, ippruvaw isibu l-post fejn kien jidher bil-kelma ‘‘Hawn’’ ħdejh fuq il-mappa, iżda kien kollu għalxejn.  Fejn suppost kien immarkat li hemm armarju, ma kien hemm xejn ħlief ħajt vojt.

Lin-Nanna Kitty ħebbritha qalbha, u ħabbtet ħelu ħelu mal-ħajt.  Il-ħoss tat-taħbita wera biċ-ċar li dak ma kienx ħajt solidu tal-ġebel, iżda njam miżbugħa eżatt bħat-tliet ħitan l-oħra, biex kollox ikun pariġġ. 

In-Nanna Kitty xejret daqtejn ta’ siġġu mal-ħajt.  Għamlet toqba kbira bid-daqqa li tat, għaliex bl-umdità l-injam kien sar tabakk. Neħħew il-bċejjeċ minn madwarha, sakemm deher biċ-ċar li l-kamra tas-sodda, qabel kienet ħafna akbar.

Kien hemm armarju moħbi wara t-taparsi ħajt, li fil-kxaxen kien fih ħafna boroż b’muniti li t-tewmin qatt ma kienu raw bħalhom. Kien hemm borża mmermra tal-ħarir li fiha kien hemm ħafna ċrieket u ċpiepet u msielet tad-deheb, imżejna bil-ħaġar prezzjuż.

Kulħadd baqa’ ssummat. Ħadd ma qal xejn. Kien jinstema’ biss il-ħoss tal-baħar ta’ taħt is-sur, donnu kien irid ikun jaf x’qed jiġri. In-Nanna Kitty u t-tfal ħadu kollox fuq is-sodda.

“Din… din mhux xi ħaġa li taqbad u toħodha, qisek sibt €2 barra,” qalet bil-kemm tinstema’. Għajnejha mtlew bid-dmugħ, għax ħasset il-piż li waqa’ fuq spallejha.

Fleur, li kienet sensittiva għall-bidliet fil-vuċi tan-nanna, resqet eqreb lejha. “Imma nanna… issa li d-dar hi tiegħek, dawn ukoll tiegħek, hux hekk?”

In-Nanna Kitty tbissmet tbissima ċkejkna, għaqlija. “Mhux dejjem hekk jiġri,  qalbi.”

Qagħdet bilqegħda fit-tarf tas-sodda, u ħadet nifs ‘l ġewwa. “F’Malta, jekk issib teżor, speċjalment jekk hu qadim ħafna, jew jidher li għandu valur storiku, il-liġi titlob li tinforma lill-awtoritajiet. Mhux għax iridu jeħdulek kollox, imma għax dak li hu antik, hu parti mill-istorja ta’ kulħadd.”

Lee fetaħ għajnejh beraħ. “Allura ma nistgħux inqassmuhom lil min irridu?”

“Lanqas inbiegħuhom, kieku?” żiedet Fleur, b’leħen aktar kawt.

“Ma tarawx,” wieġbet in-Nanna Kitty bil-ħlewwa. “Skont il-liġi, kull skoperta bħal din trid tiġi rrappurtata fi żmien qasir lis-Sovrintendenza tal-Patrimonju Kulturali. Jekk dawn il-muniti u l-ġojjelli jkunu antiki biżżejjed, jistgħu jitqiesu li huma teżor nazzjonali.”

Waqqfet ftit, u mbagħad kompliet, “Imma l-liġi mhix bla qalb. Normalment, min isib dik li jgħidulha “trovatura”, u min hu s-sid tal-post, ikollhom dritt għal kumpens, jew premju. Mhux dejjem bil-flus biss… kultant bl-għarfien li tkun għamilt dak li hu sewwa.”

It-tfal ħarsu lejn xulxin. L-eċitament kien għadu hemm, imma issa kien imħallat ma’ rispett ġdid, u forsi xi ftit diżappunt, ukoll.

“U l-bużnanna Lina?” staqsiet Fleur. “Għaliex ħbiet kollox?”

In-Nanna Kitty ħarset lejn il-ħajt imkisser. “Min jaf? Forsi kienet għaddejja minn żmien  diffiċli. Qatt ma tat ħjiel ta’ xejn. Forsi kienet qed tipproteġi dak li kellha. Kien x’kien, illum, ir-responsabbiltà hi tagħna.”

Qamet, u għalqet il-kxaxen tal-armarju bil-mod. “L-ewwel nagħmlu dak li suppost. Mhux illum, imma, għax ma nħossnix sew, bil-qatgħa li ħadt. Imbagħad naraw x’se jsir. It-teżor veru,” qalet, waqt li poġġiet idejha fuq spallejn it-tewmin, “hu li nafu nkunu onesti, anke meta ħadd ma jkun qed jarana.”

U l-baħar ta’ taħt is-sur donnu ħabbat mal-blat b’ritmu iżjed kalm.

L-għada filgħodu, id-dar tal-bużnanna Lina kellha awra differenti. Mhux għax laħqu naddfuha mill-għanqbut u t-trabijiet, iżda għax issa kienet taf li s-sigriet li kienet ilha ġġor bejn erba’ ħitan, kien inkixef. In-Nanna Kitty qamet kmieni ħafna, u reġgħet marret fid-dar. Perrċet it-twieqi beraħ, u ħalliet id-dawl jidħol fuq l-għamara, fuq it-trab, u fuq il-ħajt miksur li kien żvela kollox. Ftit wara, waslu t-tewmin.

Bil-kalma tagħha tas-soltu, għamlet telefonata. Leħinha kien ċar u sod. Kellmet lil min kellha tkellem, u spjegat x’sabet, fejn, u għaliex kienet temmen li s-sejba kienet importanti. Ma għaddiex wisq ħin qabel ma qalulha li kienu se jibagħtu lil min jifli s-sit.

Malajr waslu ż-żewġ uffiċjali, wieħed b’fajl mimli dokumenti, u l-ieħor b’żewġ kameras mdendla ma’ għonqu. Fleur u Lee reġgħu ħassewhom qishom f’film. Din id-darba, però, ma kienx hemm Peter Venkman, Ray Stantz, u Egon Spengler, għax din kienet storja ta’ vera.

L-uffiċjali investigaw, kejlu, ħadu r-ritratti ta’ kull borża, u ta’ xi uħud mill-muniti, u kitbu ħafna noti twal. “Dawn, araw, huma ta’ perjodi differenti,” qal wieħed minnhom. “Xi wħud jistgħu jkunu ta’ valur storiku kbir.”

Lee ma felaħx ma jistaqsihx, “Allura se teħdulhom kollha?”  

L-uffiċjal ħares lejh u tbissem. “Nieħduhom biex jiġu studjati u protetti. Imma dan ma jfissirx li min sabhom ma għandu ebda dritt fuqhom.”

Aktar tard, meta l-uffiċjali telqu, u fid-dar reġgħet waqa’ s-skiet, in-Nanna Kitty qagħdet bilqiegħda fuq is-siġġu tal-kċina, b’tazza te quddiemha. Wiċċha kien seren, għax kienet għamlet dak li kellha tagħmel.

Ftit ġimgħat wara, waslet l-ittra. Parti mis-sejba kienet ġiet iddikjarata bħala teżor ta’ importanza nazzjonali u kienet ser tinżamm fil-mużew, b’nota ċara li kienet instabet fid-dar tan-nanna Lina. Oġġetti oħra, li ma kellhomx valur storiku dirett, setgħu jerġgħu lura għand in-Nanna Kitty. Kien hemm ukoll kumpens; mhux xi eluf kbar, imma biżżejjed biex ifakkar li l-onestà għandha wkoll rikonoxximent.

Fleur u Lee għenu lin-Nanna Kitty tqassam ftit mill-ġojjellerija. Brazzuletta lil Katrin, munita antika lil Ċikku… “Hekk, il-ġid jinqasam,” qaltilhom. Fleur u Lee għażlu ċurkett kull wieħed.

U d-dar, li għal tant snin kienet magħluqa, bdiet terġa’ tieħu n-nifs. Tindifa papali, purtieri ġodda… u post ieħor fejn jiltaqgħu flmkien meta jkun il-waqt.

Civil Disobedience: Righting Wrongs

David Marcus lumped all women [well most of us anyway] into ‘organised gangs of wine moms’ who ‘listen to too many true crime podcasts’. He thought he was subtle, but he may as well have said winos. 

Hell hath no fury like a woman. It is acceptable to go beyond peaceful protest in response to ICE enforcement, and we believe in civil disobedience as way more than an art form.

He said the women are cos-playing; an unfortunate choice of word, seeing that t-shirts and pants are our ordinary habille. He calls us wannabe revolutionaries, and warns [threatens?] that Renee Good will not be the last to die. He forgets that women are the heart and spine of society.

As civil disobedient, we accept the legal consequences of what we do. But not when the law is made more malleable than chewing gum. A broken chair, is not for a person who is blinded for life, or a person with  a disability  dragged out of a car, or a pregnant woman who is knelt on, or cold-blooded murders.

We have tried boycotts and land occupation. They have tried coercion and force. They have tarred civil disobedience and criminal lawbreaking with the same brush. Women are victimised for being serious, sincere, selfless, and fighting for the underdog.

We have learned from the best; women refusing to comply with police orders have been rubber-stamped “troublemakers”.  Over the years, women have used civil disobedience strategically, deliberately, and often at great personal risk. The global tradition of refusal, courage, and strategic disruption is nothing new. Neither is publicity-as-visibility.

In the United Kingdom, the Suffragettes used escalating civil disobedience; protests, property damage, and hunger strikes, to demand voting rights. Their motto was “Deeds not words”, and their actions included lawbreaking and hunger strikes, resulting in brutal force‑feeding. They were mocked and lampooned as  “hysterical women” They achieved what they wanted.

In Iran, the Woman‑Life‑Freedom Movement created a civil‑disobedience front by refusing to wear the mandatory veil, even under threat of arrest, violence, and execution. They are called “lawbreakers”. This movement intensified after the killing of Mahsa Jina Amini in 2022.

Feminist civil disobedience in communities of colour is evident in modern feminist movements. They use sit‑ins, boycotts, and public disruption to challenge racial and gender injustice. These actions are part of a long tradition of nonviolent resistance, and yet, they are called “agitators”.

Rosa Parks is one of the Big Four. Her refusal to give up her seat  on the bus wasn’t spontaneous; it was a calculated act of civil disobedience that ignited the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

The Women of the Civil Rights Movement; Diane Nash [who led sit‑ins and Freedom Rides; Ella Baker [who organised grassroots resistance]; Fannie Lou Hamer [who used nonviolent protest to challenge racist voting laws] led the way for today’s activities.

Kudos must be given to the women of Standing Rock, the Indigenous women who led peaceful blockades and prayer camps to resist the Dakota Access Pipeline. Ironically, they were called ‘trespassers’.

The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo (Argentina) defied a military dictatorship by marching weekly to demand the return of their disappeared children.

We also see women like Kathrine Switzer, who was the first woman to run the Boston Marathon. It was not forbidden in the rules – simply because no one had the foresight to expect that someone would attempt it.

I would say that, with the current emphasis on mental health, David Marcus stopped short of labelling women as ‘insane’, and resorted to another insult instead. He decided that these women could not be allowed to get away with being called harmless eccentrics; they have to be criminalised.

Historically, women who engaged in civil disobedience have always been mocked, physically attacked, dismissed as hysterical, labelled immoral, and treated as criminals rather than political activists. So when modern American women refuse to comply with police and get labelled winos, this fits into a long pattern of gendered framing. Women’s resistance is trivialised as lulz-seeking… unless it becomes impossible to ignore, in which case, it needs to be squelched.

Civil disobedience, nonviolent resistance, or satyagraha… it has often been crucial role in obtaining justice, and  social and political change. Fighting for ‘rights’ means that there have been ‘wrongs’, too.

We have seen the actions of women deliberately misinterpreted. Rep. Ilhan Omar’s words, “You all have insisted that this resistance is not one that can be intimidated.” Have been flagged as an incendiary call for insurrection.

In a democratic society, civil disobedience is not a crime. Technically, someone is not punished at law for “civil disobedience” per se, but for other charges, such as trespassing, damaging property, disturbing the peace, and so forth.

“This madness needs to end, and it needs to end right now.” Wise words indeed, David Marcus.

What’s Your Emergency?

A recent post on social media featured an empty waiting area at the Emergency Department of Mater Dei.  The poster said it was ‘proof’  that people tended to avail themselves of the service ‘needlessly’, sometimes, and implied that the place was empty exactly for this reason.

This, of course, put out the fire with gasoline, because the response was immediate.

Those of us who have had to use the service, for our loved ones or for ourselves, had much to say, starting with the simple fact that if you go to a local clinic where the is not doctor in attendance, or where there is no X-Ray machine, the chances are that you will be told to go to the Emergency Department, anyway.

Many emergencies are not dramatic or visible, and do not involve bleeding or broken bones. People often attend because delay could be dangerous, not because they’re trivialising care. There are many legitimate reasons someone may need emergency hospital care, many of which are commonly misunderstood or minimised by people who have never experienced them, and this is a key point worth stating explicitly.

Emergency services are not only for immediate collapse or visible trauma. They are also for:

  1. Acute psychosis or severe agitation;
  2. Allergic and respiratory emergencies;
  3. Anaphylaxis or severe allergic reactions [including bee stings];
  4. Burns (including chemical or electrical);
  5. Complications arising from attempted abortions;
  6. Chronic conditions where delay could worsen outcomes;
  7. Extreme distress with loss of control;
  8. High blood pressure symptoms in pregnancy (headache, visual changes, swelling, possible pre-eclampsia);
  9. High fever with confusion, rash, or stiff neck;
  10. Inability to care for oneself due to mental illness;
  11. Infections that flare up;
  12. Infections in immunocompromised people;
  13. Mental health emergencies, including suicidal thoughts;
  14. Neurological and cardiac symptoms;
  15. New weakness, numbness, or paralysis;
  16. Overdose, poisoning, smoke inhalation;
  17. Pain, swelling, warmth, numbness, redness in limbs (thrombosis or  embolism);
  18. Palpitations with dizziness or fainting;
  19. Rectal bleeding;
  20. Reduced or absent foetal movements;
  21. Risk of harm to others as in bi-polar episodes;
  22. Serious eye injuries or sudden vision loss;
  23. Severe abdominal pain (e.g. appendicitis, ectopic pregnancy, bowel obstruction);
  24. Severe abdominal pain in pregnancy (threatened miscarriage);
  25. Severe asthma attack not responding to usual treatment;
  26. Severe back pain with fever or neurological symptoms;
  27. Severe dehydration from vomiting and / or diarrhoea;
  28. Severe pain or sudden change of type of pain;
  29. Severe vomiting and dehydration in pregnancy (hyperemesis gravidarum);
  30. Sudden collapse;
  31. Sudden swelling of lips, tongue, or throat;
  32. Sudden testicular or pelvic pain (torsion);
  33. Sudden vision loss or double vision;
  34. Sudden, severe headache (possible brain bleed or meningitis);
  35. Suspected blood clots (leg swelling, chest pain, sudden breathlessness);
  36. Suspected sepsis (fast heart rate, fever or low temperature, confusion, low blood pressure);
  37. Uncontrolled pain in someone with known serious illness;
  38. Vaginal bleeding (not during pregnancy);
  39. Very high or very low heart rate with symptoms.

Many people call their personal physician, who tells them that they must go to hospital. Some attend emergency departments because they don’t know yet whether something is life-threatening; that is exactly what emergency medicine is for. Emergency services exist for situations where symptoms are severe, sudden, frightening, or could become life-threatening if not assessed urgently. Early assessment can prevent serious harm, and even death.

A “terrible headache” sounds like an exaggeration, until it isn’t, and emergency clinicians take it seriously enough to do a lumbar puncture, which is not done lightly.

People should not be discouraged from seeking emergency care. Many serious conditions present with symptoms that initially appear “minor,” and only trained clinicians can safely assess the risk.

I am very uncomfortable with the implication that people attend emergency services “for nothing.” Many serious conditions present with symptoms that sound mild, until properly assessed. Emergency departments exist precisely because people cannot safely self-diagnose. Encouraging people to hesitate or feel judged risks harm.

We must mind our language. Most people don’t attend emergency departments casually; they attend because something feels wrong or frightening. My friend’s son had concussion, although the teacher had dismissed his fall as ‘a small bump’.

I went in with a blinding headache and ended up having a lumbar puncture, because meningitis was suspected. If I’d dismissed it as “nothing,” the outcome could have been very different.

Emergency care is about ruling out serious illness early, not just treating dramatic injuries. We should not have to justify ourselves about using the service.  

Snack Attack:

Pastizzi vs. Tinned Pasties

Colour, texture, taste, appearance, ingredients… where do I begin?

It was recently decreed that a tinned pasty is the same as a pastizz. Just like a candle is the same as the sun, or even a 1,000 watt bulb, and instant coffee is the same as Panama Geisha or Ethiopian Yirgacheffe.

Actually, a tinned pasty and a pastizz are categorically different foods, and definitley not variants of the same thing. Pastizzi are constructed on laminated, hand-worked dough that creates shattering layers through folding, re-folding, and fat distribution. That structure is essential to how they eat, and how they smell, and how they sound. Just for the record, the word pastizz was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in its January 2026 update. It never was a ‘cheesecake’, anyway. The word was first recorded in English as early as 1910.

A tinned pasty has no lamination in any meaningful sense. Its casing, which does not really deserve to be called pastry, is structural containment, not a crafted architecture.

One is engineered to fracture; the other to survive transport and indefinite storage. This is a difference of design philosophy, not just quality.

Freshness is a by-word, a defining property, where pastizzi are concerned. You buy them, and you eat them standing up, from the bag, in the middle of the street. Or else, you order them with your coffee at the corner café, and eat them at your leisure as you watch the world go by.

Pastizzi are a time-sensitive food. Their ideal eating window is measured in minutes after baking. Room temperature, let alone staleness, are failures. On the other hand, a tinned pasty is defined by shelf stability. Its success is measured in months, or years, or even decades. That alone puts them in different culinary classifications.

Pastizzi are the here and now; ephemeral and immediate. Tinned pasties are the needs-must-when-the-devil-drives of food; preserved, deferred, a last resort.. necessity over preference.  Pastizzi rely on fat that melts explosively in the oven, steaming the layers of pastry apart. This process leaves the pastry dry, but rich. Tinned pasties rely on fat that remains stable at room temperature, and migrates into starches over time, probably emulsifying into the filling.

The mouthfeel isn’t just “different”; it’s governed by entirely different fat physics.

In a pastizz, the filling and pastry remain distinct, be it ricotta, curried mushy peas, spinach and anchovies, or any of the new-fangled stuffings. It is contained, not absorbed, and some leakage is a bonus – acceptable, even desirable.

In a tinned pasty, the filling and casing partially merge, because moisture migration is unavoidable. Homogeneity is a feature, aided by the ‘gravy’, not just a flaw.

One celebrates contrast. The other accommodates compromise.  Pastizzi are intended to be held in one hand, with a beverage or a book in the other, and bitten from multiple angles, according to preference. Tinned pasties are shaped for sitting down and having a go at them with a knife and fork, or even a spoon, if they have turned into gloop and the stuffing has partly emulsified with the casing.  

Sound and fracture are not just the poetic explanations for a pastizz. A fresh, hot, pastizz crackles. You hear it before you smell it before you taste it. That audible fracture is part of the experience.  A tinned pasty makes no sound worth mentioning, except the gasp, and wheeze, and final wet slurp as it leaves the cannister. This almost-silence is not chance; it’s the result of moisture and compression.

Pastizzi are traditional social, habitual, cultural… and delicious, tied to bakeries, not packaging. Tinned pasties are emergency food, lazy food, transport food, storage food, existing for when life does not go as planned. Both are made of pastry and filling, but that’s as far as the similarities go.

Pastizzi are made to be a good moment in time, and tinned pasties contingency plans, made to exist in aeternum.

The Hose

[prompt]

”As I looked down at the garden hose, I smiled at the possibility for fun on this hot summer day.”

There were about ten of us ten of us [you could never be sure, because we came and went], all under 10 years old. In those days we did not have computers, so we made our own entertainment, a hobby that often looked Death in the face, and laughed.

I was the ringleader, and I decided we would have a splash party. We dragged out tarpaulins from the garage for waterslides.

Granny, of course, was inside making sandwiches and orange juice, and grandpa was tinkering with his truck, as usual.

But try as we might, we could not get water out of the hose.  We thought the tap was closed, but found out that was not it. Mrs. Agius’s false teeth clicked like castanets as she leaned over her garden wall, watching us with the intense focus of a vulture. The plastic daisy pinned to her sunhat trembled as she shook her head. “That hose hasn’t worked since the Cauchi boys tried to siphon diesel through it in ‘22,” she announced, as if this explained everything.

We stared at the long green rubber snake lying on the grass. Rusty nozzle, two suspicious bulges near the middle, and a smell of wet pennies.

Granny’s kitchen screen door squeaked open. A plate of peanut butter sandwiches slid onto the porch railing, followed by Granny’s voice. “Don’t have any accidents!” she barked before the door snapped shut again. The sandwiches were delicious.

Carlos was already running home, bare feet slapping hot pavement. His house had that thick fireman’s hose… the one his dad used to spray down their three-legged dog, and the trellis. We all knew the rules: if you borrowed the yellow hose, you had to return it before Mr. Sammut noticed. The unspoken second rule was that somehow, Mr Sammut always noticed, and pretended to be angry.

Meanwhile, Sophie grabbed the limp hose and shook it violently. Something rattled inside, a dry, hollow sound like bones in a tin can. Then came the smell. Not just wet pennies now, but something rotten and sweet, like old fruit left in a gym bag. We all stepped back.

The hose twitched. Not like water pressure building, but a movement, like a skipping rope. The nozzle lifted an inch off the ground, oozing black sludge. Then it spurted out in splotches. Mrs. Agius’s false teeth stopped mid-click. Amanda screamed, and Grandpa came running from the garage, his wrench clattering to the cement.

Then Carlos came sprinting back, the yellow hose coiled around his shoulder.  “Dad says we gotta…” He froze, and pointed. The green hose was arching now, the bulges pulsing. A sound came from inside it; not a hiss, not a rattle, but a wet, guttural click-click-click gurgle that made my stomach drop. The last time I’d heard that noise was when Grandpa cleaned out the septic tank.

Sophie, still gripping the hose, looked at us with wild eyes. “I think,” she said very slowly, “it’s alive…”

The first bulge burst.

A spray of black gloop, smelling like a septic tank that’d been bottled up for decades, hit Sophie squarely in the face. She screamed. Not the high-pitched kind we made during tag, but a raw, primordial noise that sent Mrs. Agius scrambling backward into her rose bushes. The second bulge convulsed, stretching the hose’s rubber until it split with a sound like tearing denim.

Out plopped the snake.

Not some ordinary garden garter snake, either, but a thick, glistening thing the colour of bile-green mould, uncoiling in the dirt with a wet slap. Its scales weren’t smooth; they overlapped like shingles on a rotting roof, crusted with something that might have been algae or old motor oil. The head lifted, swivelling toward Timmy with angry vertical pupils.

Carlos dropped the yellow hose. “Run! Inside!” he yelled, but our feet were rooted. The snake’s tongue flicked out, tasting the fresh air, and suddenly I understood why the Cauchi boys had abandoned their diesel siphoning.

Grandpa ran back to the garage, and came back with… a brass broom. Meanwhile, the snake’s body kept coming, pouring from the hose in a seemingly endless loop, its belly leaving a glistening trail that sizzled faintly on the hot concrete.

Sophie, still dripping, grabbed the nearest weapon… a towel. She hurled it over the snake’s head. The snake’s head jerked sideways, but he did not manage to dislodge the towel.  Grandpa seized the opportunity, and struck the snake a million times, until it did not move any more.  

The screen door banged open. “What’s all this hullaballoo, fit to wake the dead?” she asked.

“I hope not!” said Grandpa.  

From the hose, another wet click-click-click echoed. Something else was still in there.

Fleur and Lee – Of Castles and Pies

‘“Look, children,” said Miss Marija, as she unfurled a poster with a picture of a castle floating between the sky and the sea. “Which would you rather have, a castle in the air, or pie in the sky?”

Fleur’s hand shot up. “They’re both figures of speech, though!” she said.

Julia sighed. “There she goes, clever-clogs…”

Miss Marija leaned against her desk, one eyebrow raised. “All right,” she said, flicking a crumpled piece of paper into the paper-basket. “Let me put it in a different way, to begin with. What’s the difference between pie in the sky and a castle in the air?”

Josefa snorted. “One’s dessert, the other’s architecture.” The class erupted into laughter, but Miss Marija didn’t smile. She just waited, as she always did, until the noise died down.

From the back, Gerard cleared his throat. “Pie in the sky’s something you hope for,” he said slowly. “A castle in the air’s something you build.” The room went quiet again, but this time it was the kind of quiet that felt heavy, like the air before a storm. The children were thinking.

Miss Marija tilted her head, and pointed toward the ceiling. “And how would you build a castle in the air, Gerard?”

He hesitated, tapping his pencil against his cheek impatiently, as if that would make his ideas flow faster. “You don’t,” he admitted finally. “That’s the whole point. They’re both impossible. But the pie would be easier to handle.”

“No money spent on repairs of turrets, battlements, or the drawbridge.” Lee sniggered, and continued, “We’d just grab the pie, slice it up, and eat it…”

Sephora leaned forward. “But isn’t that a contradiction in terms?” Her voice was soft, but it cut through the room. “A castle’s solid. You can still see it, even if it’s not real. Pie’s just… gone when you eat it.” She traced a finger along the edge of her desk.

Miss Marija’s lips twitched, the closest thing to a smile she would show at the moment. “So which one’s worse?” she asked, standing up and pacing in front of the desks. “The dream that disappears, or the one that stays just out of reach?”

The children were stumped. Outside, the wind picked up, and it began to rain. Rosanne groaned. “I have swimming practice this afternoon…”

The clock ticked, and Miss Marija crossed her arms, waiting for the discussion to continue.

Then, from the corner, Pauline, who rarely spoke, muttered, “It depends if you’re hungry.” The class exploded into laughter again, but this time it was nervous, like they’d all just realised a philosophical truth.

Miss Marija didn’t stop them. She just watched, hers eyes twinkling. Marla stared out of the window, deep in thought. Violet whispered in her ear. “I have an idea,” she said. “Castles don’t stay out of reach. You just need the right ladder.”

Marla glanced at her. “What ladder?”

Before she could answer, James interrupted them. Having heard only the word ‘ladder’, he said “Jacob’s ladder of course!”

“Don’t be silly,” Marla said. “That was a stairway to heaven, like in the song. Stone steps, not a ladder with rungs…”

“And how would you know? That’s just what the artist depicted…”

Marla opened her mouth to argue, but she didn’t get the chance. Three desks over, Frankie perked up like a meerkat.

“Oh! Oh! It is a ladder, for sure,” he declared. “We have the album at home. Jacob’s Ladder, by the Hallelujah Chorus. The one with the angels going up and down.”

Violet nodded vigorously. “Yes! With the glowing rungs! My brother plays it all the time.”

And before Miss Marija could intervene, Jade launched into song with the confidence of someone who had never once questioned her pitch:

Climb, climb, climb the rungs of liiiiight…

Just believe, don’t look behind,

Heaven’s close, just hold on tiiiiight…

Others joined in, off‑key but enthusiastic. Jael child attempted harmonies that should have been illegal.

Miss Marija closed her eyes for a moment, and took a deep breath. A very deep breath.

Step, step, step where the angels tread,

Till dreams are where your footsteps led.

“Children,” she said, raising a hand. “This is an English lesson, not a concert rehearsal.” The singing faltered into giggles.

“But Miss,” Violet insisted, “if there’s a ladder to heaven, then castles in the air aren’t impossible. You just climb up with the bricks and mortar and stuff, and build them.”

Gerard groaned. “That’s not how metaphors work.”

“Maybe not,” Violet said, “but it’s how songs work.”

Miss Marija pursed her lips, but her eyes were bright. “All right,” she said. “Let’s try this again. No ladders, no stairways, no heavenly construction projects. Just the question.” She tapped the poster with one finger. “Let me remind you… Castle in the air… or pie in the sky?”

The room fell quiet, briefly, precariously, like a seesaw balancing on a pivot, deciding which end was to go up, and which was to go down.

Then Pauline whispered, “Depends if the castle has a kitchen.” The class dissolved into laughter all over again.

Then Lee, who never knows when to stop, added:

“What about the second verse?” Before anyone could intervene, he belted out out:

Step, step, step where the angels fly…

Beyond the clouds up in the sky…

Sabrina joined in. Sephora tried to beatbox. Jael clapped on the wrong beat.

Voices in the air, calling soft and clear,

Climb on up, there’s nothing to fear.

Miss Marija pinched the bridge of her nose. “Right. Enough. P.E. time. Take your backpacks, since it’s your last lesson.”

As they lined up at the door, Miss Marija clapped her hands once, not loudly, but with the practiced precision that cut through the first syllables of  Way on high in the heavenly realm…

She said, “Since today’s discussion has taken us from dessert to architecture to celestial transport systems, your homework, for tomorrow, is as follows: a composition of at least four hundred words on today’s topic. Pie in the sky, castles in the air, or ladders to heaven. I don’t care which. Surprise me. Oh… and no song lyrics to make the word-count…” She waved them toward the corridor. “Off you go. And think, while you run to the gym.”

The class stampeded out. Groans. Protests. One delighted gasp from Fleur, who had already written half the composition in her head.

Lee muttered, “Four hundred? She’s trying to use up all our free time.”

Fleur’s essay, of course, had a grandiose title: On the Relative Merits of Pie, Castles, and Ladders.

“When Miss Marija asked us whether we preferred pie in the sky, or a castle in the air, I realised immediately that this was not a question about food or architecture, but about the nature of imagination.

A pie in the sky is something promised, but not delivered, usually by someone who wants you to stop asking questions. A castle in the air is something you imagine for yourself, even if you know it cannot be built. One is given to you as a distraction; the other is created by you as a dream.

If I had to choose between them, I would choose the castle in the air, because at least it belongs to me. A pie in the sky is someone else’s idea of what I should want. A castle in the air is my own idea of what I could become. Even if it is impossible, it is still mine.

However, after today’s discussion, I think there is a third option that is more interesting: the ladder. Not because of the song (although Lionel insists that angels are always right), but because a ladder is a tool. It connects solid ground to the impossible. A ladder is not a dream or a promise; it is a method.

If you have a ladder, you can climb toward the castle in the air. You may never reach it, because it is imaginary, but the act of climbing still changes you. You become stronger, braver, and more determined. Even if the castle disappears when you get close, you will have climbed higher than you were before. You never know; you may even get to see the castle in the Jack and the Beanstalk story.

A pie in the sky disappears the moment you try to eat it. A castle in the air disappears the moment you try to touch it. But a ladder remains real the whole time. It is the journey and the effort that matter, not the destination.

Therefore, my answer is that I prefer the ladder. Not because it is easier, because I may fall if it is not an A-frame ladder, or at least solidly attached to the ground, at the base, but because it is useful.

Dreams are important, but so is the work we do to reach them. A ladder is a reminder that even impossible things can inspire real steps. Even if you didn’t get there, you’d have learned something along the way.

Also, if the castle did have a kitchen, as Pauline suggested, then the pie problem would solve itself.”

Trumping Trump

Trumping Trump

‘The only person who can stop Trump is Pope Leo’, as per The Independent headline.

Really? Because they are both American, and both powerful, the their own way? What about the spinless gits paying Homage to Trump as if he were the Second coming?

Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State? Or does this not matter when the ‘Church’ is foreign [as in The Vatican]?

Let’s stop with the theatricals, which included, but were not restricted to, a depiction of Trump crucified, with the American flag [isn’t it illegal to use the flag as clothing?] for a loincloth. Sacrilege as propaganda. Blasphemy as bravado.

We have to ask; why is the person who ‘stops Trump’ not a President of another country, as he himself has done? Is this a case of ‘call Leo XIV’ because all those who ought to have been accountable, decided to play possum… making an art of selective obliviousness, the strategic nap, the I‑saw-nothing-I-heard-nothing routine deployed with theatrical innocence. Corporal Schutz himself could not have done it any better.

I would say that when Trump said he would be a Dictator on Day One, he meant ‘…and thereafter…’ His inner circle knew it wasn’t a joke, but laughing along felt safer than being the one who said, “Hold on, that’s not funny.”

The Courts failed. Who would want to taking a stand, when this would cost them influence, access, or comfort, as they saw happen to those who challenged ‘might is right’?

Parties failed. Things would get worse before they get better. They waited, and moved so cautiously, slower than Flash the Sloth in Zootopia, that by the time they were ready to react, it was too late, and now the consequences are baked in.

Media failed. They treated Trump either as The Messiah, or as a joke. He said ‘no abortion’, so he was deified. The latter knew that poking fun at him  protects them from having to confront the seriousness of his statements, and their own complicity in normalizing it.

Institutions failed through their obscene performative obliviousness. They did not want to be forced into an uncomfortable moral or political position.

The consensus was ‘ignore it, and it will go away’. It’s an old political reflex: your leader says something alarming, and it’s easier to pretend the words were harmless, or a joke, than to grapple with what it would mean if he meant it.

So, enter His Holiness Leo XIV. He, at least, has moral gravitas, not just constitutional mechanisms. “Because they’re both American”, so, apparently, they cut off the same bolt of cloth. Even though we have the Pope’s assertions that he does not see eye-to-eye with his brothers, politically. Even though he has gone on record  criticising Trumps’s sycophants, and spoke his mind about immigration, the poor, justice, and other issues.

That is superficial, lazy,  misrepresentation. We are no longer in the Middle Ages, when Popes wielded significant political power, including deposing monarchs [now there’s a thought].  Trump’s power is transactional and performative. A pope’s authority (even for non-Catholics) is symbolic, ancient, slow, and moral. The contrast shows that the writer is a show-off who plays with words, rather than one who has his ducks in a row.

The spineless gits with their ritualised submission and performative loyalty tests around Trump are a major part of the issue. They might not really believe that he is the Second Coming, but they pay homage anyway, because to stop doing so, or actually dissent, would mean social, political, and economic ruin for them.

The public genuflection of his fan base and the cult they belong to, is another factor.

Trump isn’t a lone aberration who may be ‘stopped’ by a singular counter-figure. He’s also a symptom of outrage rebranded; institutional breakdown; people who replaced principles with polling; voters who hero-worship him because they yearn for what he has, and thus confuse domination with strength.

The people who could have stopped Trump already threw away several opportunities to do so. There were the Republican leaders who chose cowardice over consequence; the media figures who chose access over accountability; voters who confused hatred, payback, and resentment with policy.

A Pontiff is an Untouchable; not persuadable by business deals, primaries, donor access, and cable news, freebies, committee seats, being  part of the in-crowd.

Why do so many people pretend Trump is all-powerful? Why is their grovelling submission strategy framed as realism? Why is opposition dismissed as naïveté? Why are collaboration and cowardice dressed up as pragmatism and realism?

Journalists, judges, immigrants, dissenters; they are all traitors. All because Trump is said to be unstoppable. Not because he is powerful, but because too many people have calculated that resistance costs more than submission.

Inevitability is the story collaborators tell themselves, to sleep at night.

Of Pasty Pasties…

The tin makes a promise. A woman with good posture and pioneer cheeks smiles from the label, holding out a pasty like a minor miracle. Canned Pasty. Fully Cooked. It says what it is. Or rather, it says what it wants to be. What it is supposed to be. What it is promised to be.

This is where Katie Melua comes in, humming “What It Says on the Tin”, ever so politely. This gentle, affectionate track from her 2007 album Pictures is a love song built entirely around the British idiom “does exactly what it says on the tin” meaning someone is honest, reliable, and exactly who they appear to be.

We desperately want to believe her, because belief is easier than doubt when you’re hungry.

Then the lid comes off. The can births the… thing… slumped and shining, a beige splotch coated in what looks suspiciously like snot. It does not so much fall as arrive, escorted by gravity and a slick of lubricating gloop. The gunk is enthusiastic. It clings. It drips. It has opinions. Calling it gravy feels optimistic; calling it mucus feels accurate. This is food that has spent too long thinking about itself. Perhaps it was trying to disintegrate.

This is where it becomes a metaphor for life, whether we like it or not.

Because life, too, is often sold packaged, sealed, and confident, with typography and heritage colours. Life says: career, relationship, plan. Fully cooked. No further preparation required. And then you open it and something slides out that needs swabbing down, maybe apologising for, definitely baking or even deep-frying.

Life, like this sorry excuse for food, is something you weren’t expecting, something vaguely familiar but wetter, more fragile, much less photogenic.

You forgot to glance at the ingredients list. You wonder what’s inside. Meat? Potato? Regret? The label is irrelevant, now. You’ve opened what may be worse than a can of worms, and so you can’t take the tin to the shop for a refund. The woman on the tin does not look away. She has seen worse. She knows that containment is a temporary state.

Perhaps it will be good. This is the lie we tell ourselves, the hopeful one. Because we are hungry. Perhaps heat will fix it. Perhaps enough time in the oven will thicken the gloop into something respectable. Perhaps the mess is just part of the process, the necessary slime between intention and outcome.

Perhaps life will always be like this; a soft collapse, requiring biting one’s lower lip, paper towels, and resilience. Something you didn’t ask for, that still expects you to make a meal of it.

In the end, you plop it onto a tray. You commit. You put it in the oven and wait. The kitchen smells like wet dough and uncertainty. You are, after all, already here. The tin is empty. The promise has been opened.

The thing on the tray culinary betrayal variety of just what it says on the tin. The glossy, golden, perfectly crisp pastry on the label… and then the reality: a nondescript taupe-ish, gelatinous, semi-circle that slithers out with a noise you can feel in your sinuses.

The pastry on the label was a lie. The gloop, lying by masquerading as something from the gravy boat, was the truth. That is life, sometimes, too.

And maybe that’s the point. Not that it’s horrible, but that it insists on being dealt with. Life doesn’t stay neatly labelled. It slithers. It asks for heat. It asks for patience. It asks you to look at the goo and decide whether you’re still hungry.

It leaves a faint, inescapable tinny, acrid taste in your mouth. Slightly nauseating, faintly philosophical, and stubbornly human. The metallic echo that lingers even after you’ve eaten, and drunk your effervescent Vitamin C, and told yourself it’s fine.

The food, like life, has the flavour of compromise. Of convenience, mistaken for care. Of something that’s been preserved a little too well and now wants credit for surviving. You can season it, you can drown it in heat, but there’s always that background note: iron, memory, the inside of a mouth bitten by accident. Perhaps some gagging thrown into the mix.

And life does that too. No matter how warmly you plate it, there’s often a trace of the container left behind. The job you took, because it was there, and there was nothing better at the time. The relationship that fit on paper, but not in actuality. The version of yourself that was stored for one fine day, which suddenly became the here and now.

You gulp. You swallow. You nod. You say it’s not bad, actually. But the tin has already marked you for a nightmare in between bouts of insomnia.

Which is fine. Most of us are walking around with a little metal in our mouths, pretending it’s seasoning.

You make a resolution to try the chicken-in-a-can, and the Christmas Tinner. Because a whole chicken emerging from a tin is the natural sequel to the pasty; same genre, higher stakes. There is something uniquely unsettling about a bird that has forgotten gravity and learned the shape of its container. Chickens should not be cylindrica. They are not liquid, like cats. This a betrayal of physics and trust.

Christmas Tinner is not food, that’s performance art. Layers of “stuff” compressed into a single festive column like geological time, but ostensibly ‘edible’. Turkey sediment. Sprout strata. A gravy fault line. It’s Christmas reduced to a cross-section; tidings of comfort and joy stacked so tightly there’s no room for air, let alone escape. You don’t eat it; you excavate it with a spoon.

This trilogy of tins forms a theology:

The pasty is daily life: messy, disappointing, still, technically, nourishment.

The whole chicken is ambition: too much, wrong shape, shouldn’t have fit ,but somehow made to. Like four whole mackerels in those narrow red tins.

The Christmas Tinner is ritual: tradition stripped of context, preserved long past its emotional expiry date. Life on a loop. Force of habit.

All of them insist on the same lesson: containment changes things. Not always for the worse… but never without consequence. The tins leave an aftertaste, a regret, a silence where steam should be. Compressed existence.

A chicken should be like life; three dimensional, awkward, knobbly, a bit confrontational. You deal with the innards like an adult. There is no label promising emotional completeness, stuck to the chicken you get from the poultry shop… or to life. There is the need for heat, time, attention, flavour.

Cooking from scratch is a refusal to believe that life comes pre-packaged. It defies the belief that nourishment can be fully outsourced. That flavour survives compression without loss. That life improves when you remove air, context, taste, and choice. You chop onions and they make you cry. Not because they’re tragic, but because they’re honest. The Maillard Reaction changes things in front of you, not secretly, in a factory that smells of sweat.

You start with something recognisable, slightly vulnerable, undeniably real. You transform it, but you don’t maul it out of recognition. erase it. You know what went in. You accept responsibility for what comes out.

I prefer my meals to be recognisable for what they are, just as I want a life without the lingering taste of tin.

I am a square peg. I don’t want to be put in a cylindrical hole.