For Gaza, for Hamas, for Discussion

 

The young man in the photo above is called Abdullah Al-Yazouri. He is the news at the moment because he was the presenter of  the BBC documentary " Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone". I have watched the programme, and have to say that, for a 13-year old boy, he did a good job. The programme focused upon several Gazans and their struggles for survival in the midst of the war. There was a young boy who lived in a hospital, helping with patients. There was a young woman who was bringing up her newborn child in a draughty tent. The programme depicted the plight of Palestinians suffering from Israeli bombing, as well as the pressure on ordinary Gazans to change location when directed by the Israeli army. What I did not know was the fact that Abdullah is the son of a Hamas leader - Dr Ayman al-Yazouri, the deputy minister for agriculture. According to other reports, he is the grandson of a Hamas founder member.

The investigative reporter who discovered this, David Collier, has said;  

'The naivety, stupidity and arrogance of our media has long been apparent. It has allowed Palestinian propagandists to turn our legacy channels into foolish outlets blindly spouting Hamas lies 24/7.'

By "our media", Collier means the BBC, and the backlash against the BBC has been one of increasing fury. Danny Cohen, the ex- BBC director said: 

'The BBC appears to have given an hour of prime-time coverage to the son of a senior member of the Hamas terrorist group. Either they were not aware of the terrorist links because they did not carry out the most basic journalistic checks or the BBC did know and misled audiences about the family's deep involvement with terrorism.'

Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has expressed her disquiet, saying that she will raise the matter with BBC management:  "particularly around the way in which they sourced the people who were featured in the programme".

 

The former Tory Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has joined the chorus, saying: 

"I’m the Home Secretary that prescribed Hamas, so I don’t need to add much more to that at all," Dame Priti told Nick Ferrari of LBC on Thursday."And I think the BBC has been under a great deal of scrutiny over their reluctance, let’s put it this way. Their reluctance to call Hamas a terrorist organisation - which is exactly what they are."

The BBC has responded, some might think feebly, by saying that they had not been informed of the family connection by the independent producers. The Beeb has apologised for the omission, and has been forced to issue a statement, saying: 

"We followed all of our usual compliance procedures in the making of this film, but we had not been informed of this information by the independent producers when we complied and then broadcast the finished film... a powerful child's eye view of the devastating consequences of the war in Gaza which we believe is an invaluable testament ... and we must meet our commitment to transparency."

Despite calls to ban the film, the BBC has refused to axe the programme, adding a cautionary information message.

Personally speaking, I agree that the Beeb should have done their homework, but I think they are right not to delete the programme. I would have watched it, even had I known of  Abdullah's parentage, though it would have forewarned me that there was a propaganda purpose to the film. Unlike the BBC, I have no hesitation in describing Hamas as a terror organisation, and I hope that previous posts of mine on this topic make that clear. It was obvious that the programme was intended as an emotionally persuading piece of work, with its depiction of casualties, destruction and indiscriminate bombing seen through the eyes of children. But this is standard practice for propagandists, as Britannica says:  

"Propagandists have a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these, they deliberately select facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and present them in ways they think will have the most effect. To maximize effect, they may omit or distort pertinent facts ..."

And it didn't take much to see that this film fitted the bill admirably. No mention was made of the Hamas incursion of 7/10/23, nor were the atrocities of Hamas or the Israeli hostages. Cleverly, one Gazan was shown who did make a brief criticism of Hamas. It was a nod to impartiality and I hope the person interviewed didn't suffer for it afterwards. Yet, the overall impression was of a beleaguered, united people standing firm in the face of aggression. 

I saw nothing to cause me to revise my view that Hamas are to blame for the present war by their murderous invasion of Israeli territory. I agree that the the Israeli campaign is excessive and indiscriminate, but, I say again. Hamas knew this would happen and wanted it to happen, as I have expounded elsewhere. My concern here is that the BBC has played into the hands of its critics (much as the Israelis have played into the hands of Hamas) and there will be further attacks on its status, which is happening now, over this issue.

 

Happy Faceless Men : Survival is Success?

 

If I can be forgiven for exercising artistic license, the picture above shows a faceless and anonymous group of men. We do not know their identities, but they must exist. They are three representations of the secretive planners of Hamas military strategy. They must exist, because Hamas would have been unable to launch their attacks on Israel on October 7th, 2023, without meticulous preparation. This preparation was evident in the way that Hamas fighters were able to breach Israeli defences and inflict severe civilian casualties. It was evident in the taking of hostages and the provocative killing of innocent people. And it was especially significant in the construction of an extensive and elaborate network of tunnels in Gaza, where Hamas fighters could take refuge from Israeli retaliation or military action. On all these counts, I think we can agree that the Hamas planning staff achieved a high degree of success.

The principal criteria for success came from the inevitable Israeli retaliation to the Hamas atrocities of 7/10/23. At the risk of quoting myself, in my blog post of 13/10/23, I said that the Hamas crimes were part of the strategy of provocation: 

"...the provocation by said (guerrilla) movements against their stronger and/or occupying enemies... It involves attacks by the terrorists that sting their enemies into using excess force as retaliation, in order to alienate the civilian population. The retaliation, such as it is, will cause deaths to innocent and uninvolved civilians and thus lead to an increase of support for the guerrillas".

Well, I got that right. The Israeli military response, which has lasted over a year, has inflicted far more casualties upon the Palestinian population of Gaza than Israel suffered on October 7th. As Reuters observed on January 15th:

"Palestinian health authorities say Israel's ground and air campaign in Gaza killed more than 46,600 people, with just over half of identified victims being women, children or older people".

Despite this, a Hamas official told the BBC on January 16th that the fact that Hamas had endured, despite the Israeli onslaught constitutes a victory: 

"Israel promised to eliminate Hamas, but now they are sitting in the same building with Hamas leaders and negotiating with them," a senior Hamas official told me (Rushdi Abualouf) in a phone call before the ceasefire was announced".

Predictably, and like other guerrilla groups before, civilian casualties matter little to Hamas, who are, as some say, a death cult. The unnamed Hamas official said:

"In terms of numbers, Gaza has paid an unimaginable price. But in terms of gains and losses, Israel failed to break the will of the Palestinians, the resistance, or to push the people out of the country."

Oh, well, that's all right then, at least for Hamas. This is because the high Palestinian death toll has brought significant benefits for Hamas and all the militant Palestinian groups. The huge number of civilian deaths has brought widespread international condemnation of Israel, galvanising the already extant anti-Zionist movement worldwide who have added to their numbers considerably. According to Asian Eye, a survey conducted last year found: 

"A majority of Britons surveyed (71%) felt it was fair to label the Israel military force's actions in Gaza as ‘genocide’"

And, as we know, there have been huge demonstrations in support of the Palestinians and calls for the UK to ban arms sales to Israel. There has also been an increase in antisemitism   as well as in Islamophobia. This has the benefit for Hamas of an increase in social tension in a major Israeli ally. But the most tangible strategic benefit for Hamas has been the number of future recruits it can garner from the relatives of the thousands of innocent people who have died in the Israeli onslaught on Gaza. They will have many more recruits for their future attacks on Israel and that must afford the Hamas strategists a great deal of satisfaction. The fact that their attack on 7/10/23 started this whole destructive process and claimed so many lives will not trouble them. By and large, and by their own ruthless standards, they have survived and succeeded.

Which leads to my conclusion. Many years ago, I read a book on guerrilla warfare by one Robert Taber: "The War of the Flea". It is largely forgotten now, but was once said to be required reading for US Special Forces officers. Taber was an American Marxist who admired the Cuban Revolution and actually fought with Cuban forces against the CIA-organised Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, 1961. Taber was wounded in the fighting, but recovered to write his panegyric on revolutionary guerrilla warfare. One sentence from the book is relevant here:

"The guerrilla succeeds because he survives"

That quote is highly appropriate to the present Hamas situation. Despite all the suffering and death resulting from the October 7th attack, and despite a protracted Israeli military offensive, Hamas have survived. They are still intact as a fighting force and have paraded triumphantly during their recent release of Israeli hostages. The faceless strategy planners will have learned from the struggle and will doubtless be planning future actions.

Looking at my picture above has suddenly given me a sinister, creepy feeling. I can almost imagine those happy, faceless men quietly laughing to themselves...

The Southport Murders: Some Thoughts

 

It's difficult to think of something new to say about the Southport murders and the sentencing of the killer - Axel Rudakubana (AR), seen above in an appropriate location. All I can do is to provide a personal perspective. When I first heard the news back in July of how the three small children -  Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, Bebe King, six, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine - had been slain, like everyone else, I was consumed with shock. Although I don't live in Southport now, it is still my home town and I could not believe that such a thing could happen there. It's the sort of thing that happens here in London, so I thought, remembering the London Bridge and Westminster Bridge attacks. "Why", so I wondered at first, "would a terrorist want to strike in Southport?". Now, as we know, AR was apparently not a terrorist, still less a Muslim. Not that this awkward fact stopped the Fash from using the attacks as an excuse to launch racist rioting, but that's not relevant here.

What I found of interest was the way that AR conducted himself at his trial, and the weeks leading up to it. As we know, he has never expressed any remorse for his crimes. As The Guardian says: 

"The Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, said “I’m so glad those kids are dead” after he was arrested for the “sadistic” murder of three young girls and attempted murder of 10 others".

In the courtroom, His sentencing was halted as he shouted that he felt ill before the judge ordered him to be removed from the dock. Now, this drew shouts of "coward!" from the public gallery, but it gives me pause for thought, as did the revelation (at least to me) that he had planned the attack for some time. Even his purchase of two knives from Amazon had been planned with care. It seems that he had used special software to get round Amazon's security checks. This causes me to wonder why he unexpectedly pleaded guilty and if there was another reason for his court outbursts, other than cowardice. Perhaps he simply wanted to appear to be in charge of proceedings and/or to deny the children's relatives the satisfaction of seeing him sentenced.

AR was clearly a troubled youth, as the BBC describe in some detail. It seems that the first serious signs Rudakubana was capable of serious violence towards others date back to when he was in year nine at Range High School in Formby, near Southport. From then on, as the Beeb say: 

"...over his adolescence, Rudakubana began to exhibit anger issues and a propensity for violence. When he was sentenced in January 2025, his barrister would tell the court that "something changed" in Rudakubana at the age of 13". Fellow pupils remember him being obsessed with figures such as Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan."

And the violence exhibited itself later, leading to his expulsion and returns to his old school to commit acts of violence as well as his diagnosis for Autism Spectrum Disorder. He was convicted several times for carrying a knife and, as the BBC say:

" He had involvement with local mental health services but "stopped engaging" in February 2023.
At the time of the attack, social care professionals were assessing whether the then-17-year-old needed to be offered additional care to manage his transition to adulthood".

I have been very critical of the mental health powers that be over the release of murderous mental health patients back into the community but, to be fair, I cannot see what grounds they would have had for permanent incarceration of AR. Neither did the police have any such powers. I am the first to declare that he should have been in an institution, but without grounds for putting him there, it would have been difficult to enforce.

Having said this, I expected that AR's defence team would have entered a plea of manslaughter with diminished responsibility and assumed that he would be sent to Broadmoor or somewhere similar. To my astonishment, that has not happened. Instead, his guilty plea has been accepted and he could well be sent to a "normal" prison. And that opens up another topic.

For if AR goes to an ordinary jail, he will be a prime target for attack by other prisoners. As we know, he has been sentenced to 52 years but, if other prisoners are successful, he might not reach the age of 70 (not that he would be released anyway - I hope). There are precedents for this. As Joe Duggan says on MSN News:

 

"In 2019, paedophile Richard Huckle, was killed by another prisoner after being attacked at Full Sutton, where he was serving 22 life sentences after admitting the sexual abuse of up to 200 Malaysian children aged between six months and 12 years. In 2010, Soham child murderer Ian Huntley had his throat slashed in HMP Durham’s Frankland Jail while Roy Whiting, who murdered eight-year-old Sarah Payne, was stabbed at HMP Wakefield last year".

There will be precious little sympathy for AR, should he face a similar or worse fate. As Duggan says, he will probably lead an isolated life in a segregation unit. He will not be completely safe there, as Mark Fairhurst,  national chairman of the Prison Officers’ Association (POA) trade union says: 

“Everyone will know who he is, and no matter where he is in the prison, they’ll know where he is, and they will target him. His life will be an absolute misery...You’ve got to unlock him for a phone call for exercise, so he can have a shower. And there’ll always be prisoners around when that happens. They always find a way to get to these people.”

I can find no room in my heart for Axel Rudakubana, should that happen. My sympathies lie with his victims and their families. 

By way of a footnote, it has been reported that the father of Sara Sharif, who was convicted together with his wife last month of his 10-year old daughter's murder, has already been attacked in prison. The BBC reports: 

"Urfan Sharif is said to have been attacked at Belmarsh Prison on New Year's Day by two other inmates in a cell, the Sun newspaper reported. Sharif reportedly suffered cuts to his face, and it is understood he received medical treatment inside the prison. The weapon alleged to have been used in the assault was part of a tuna can".

For Axel Rudakubana, the clock is ticking.

Sara Sharif, R.I.P.

Elon Musk: an Alien Influence?

 I have to admit that I didn't know much about Elon Musk. I knew, of course, that he was the new owner of Twitter/X. Like the rest of the world, I knew he was fabulously wealthy and - who could miss it? - he was in political cahoots with Donald Trump and is now part of the US government. However, his recent "interventions" into British politics, and his tiff with Nigel Farage, have spurred me into learning more about him. If his wealth is to become influential in our political affairs, we need to understand what we are dealing with.

Well, he is a a South African by birth, born in Pretoria about 53 years ago. According to the BBC: 

"Mr Musk showed his talents for entrepreneurship early, going door-to-door with his brother selling homemade chocolate Easter eggs and developing his first computer game at the age of 12".

Coming from a domestically fractured background, and despite suffering from Asperger's Syndrome, he left home at 17 for college. He moved to Canada, becoming a Canadian, before moving to the USA where he gained a degree in economics and physics at the University of Pennsylvania, and became a US citizen, before starting out on his business career.

Now, there are several factors of interest here. First, we should note that Musk has a family background that was far Right politically. Joe Hill, in Searchlight magazine, writes:

"Our attention has been drawn to a fascinating recent interview in which Errol Musk, father of Elon, apparently begins to say that Elon’s maternal grandparents were signed-up Nazis, but then checks himself: "They used to support Hitler and all that stuff… they were in the Nazi P... [stops himself]… they were in the German Party in Canada, so they sympathised with the Germans."

Not that this makes Musk a Nazi, but early political influences can affect children. There is also Musk's diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome. The National Autistic Society (NAS) says: 

"Historically, Asperger syndrome was used as a diagnostic term for some autistic people who did not also have a diagnosis of a learning disability. Broadly, it is now agreed that what was referred to as Asperger syndrome is part of the autism spectrum and there is no need for a separate term."

Hans Asperger, who invented the term, has been exposed as a Nazi supporter who helped the Nazis with their genocide programme, which has led to the term falling into disuse, as the NAS say. In spite of this, the accepted dictionary definition is relevant to our study of Elon Musk. It says:

 

(Asperger's is...) "...a condition forming part of the autistic spectrum, characterized chiefly by repetitive patterns of behaviour, preoccupation with restricted interests, and difficulties with social interaction, without intellectual impairment or significant problems with verbal communication".

 Compare this to the verdict of Musk's first wife, Justine Wilson, who became his wife in 2000, when he wasn't yet a rich man. In a 2010 essay for Marie Claire, she wrote that even before making his millions  Musk was "not a man who takes no for an answer. The will to compete and dominate, that made him so successful in business, did not magically shut off when he came home,". While dancing at their wedding, Elon the Charmer told his new wife: "I am the alpha in this relationship."

Now, is it going too far to say that this indicates a definite autistic trait and an authoritarian background influence? I am not qualified to say, but it does remind me of an old saying: "as the twig is bent, so is the tree inclined". But let's move on.

If repetitive behaviour applies to human relationships, Musk certainly exhibits it in his family life (lives?). As all the tabloids know, he has had three wives and has 12 children by three different women. Anyone who finds this of interest can read about this on People.com or by conducting a Google search. Musk has requested privacy for his partners and their offspring, but one comment by one of his children is of interest.

Vivian Jenna Wilson is a transgender woman in her early 20s. She is also the child of Elon Musk and his first wife, Justine. Her recollection of Musk as a father is relevant here. According to NBC News:

"Wilson said that, for as long as she could remember, Musk hasn’t been a supportive father. She said he was rarely present in her life, leaving her and her siblings to be cared for by their mother or by nannies even though Musk had joint custody, and she said Musk berated her when he was present. “He was cold,” she said. “He’s very quick to anger. He is uncaring and narcissistic.”

Once again, I am left wondering about the autism link. Not all uncaring and narcissistic people are autistic, but there does seem to be a connection. In 2022, Vivian applied to change her family name from Musk to Wilson. In doing so, she practically disowned Musk, saying: “I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form,”.

Musk's reaction to this is, I think, of particular significance. The first, obvious point is that Musk used this domestic affair as an excuse to move towards the political Right. Expressing no anguish over the alienation of his child, he said on X: “I vowed to destroy the woke mind virus after that, and we’re making some progress”.

Perhaps less obvious is the obsessive way in which Musk has launched a sustained attack on Transgender people on X and - highly relevant - Musk has shown no regret or remorse over his treatment of his child. Narcissists never express remorse.

And his move to the Right has continued. Once a Democrat voter, he now is critical of the Democrat party's stance on a number of issues, including the economy, immigration and gun control - decrying many of its policies as "woke" - shades of his statement on X, mentioned above. It looks to me that Musk is venting his wounded pride in having a transgender child into a deepening liaison with the far Right - which leads us to his political status, both here and in the USA.

Musk's interference in politics here is well enough known. After last summer's riots, Musk said that we are drifting towards civil war. Lately, he has launched a number of attacks on the Labour government, accusing the PM of being "complicit in the rape of Britain", and described Jess Phillips MP as "a rape genocide apologist" - whatever that means. He is even said to be interested in buying Liverpool FC.

  According to the Mail:

"...his (Musk's) father revealed that his family have generational ties to the Merseyside city. 'His grandmother was born in Liverpool, and we had relatives in Liverpool, and we were fortunate to know quite a lot of the Beatles because they grew up with some of my family. So, we are attached to Liverpool, you know,' he told Times Radio".

Happily, FSG, the club's owners, say that the club is not for sale. And, as the Liverpool Echo comments: "Musk’s right-wing views likely would not chime with the socialism of Liverpool".

Liverpool fans, to their credit, have spoken out vociferously against this proposed purchase by Musk and , by doing so, have set us an example of how we should react to the intrusions of this foreign billionaire.

In conclusion, I can declare that the more I have learned of Elon Musk, the less I like him. As Wordsworth said: "The child is father of the man". My readings of the early lives of Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson bear this out and it's true of Elon Musk. They are all egotistical, narcissistic opportunists with an overweening sense of privilege and/or "entitlement". Musk's first wife's comment that he wouldn't take no for an answer is true of all four. The problem with Musk is that he has a  lot of money to throw around. His unstable character, shown by the way he abruptly turned on Nigel Farage (NF) because NF wants to keep his distance from Tommy Robinson (for now) indicates that he is capable of sudden changes of preference. Reform UK might not receive funding, but more extreme groups, including whatever faction Tommy Robinson now sides with, might well benefit from Musk's largesse. 

But we must not forget the menace he poses to many people in the USA. As we know, he has a reputation as a hard-nosed businessman. When he took over ownership of Twitter/X, he made a lot of Twitter employees redundant. Federal workers across the USA must be sweating with anxiety for their future employment. If he is capable of treating his own child badly, then he won't shrink from creating mass federal redundancies. And that is just the beginning. Dissenters, and past opponents of him and his friend, Donald Trump, might well find themselves targets of Elon's baleful attention.

I wonder - is it too late for Musk to find treatment for his autism?

The Rhymes and Routes Christmas Message, 2024

 

After some consideration, I have agreed that Bashar al-Assad, ex-president of Syria, can deliver our Christmas message this year.  I am only too well aware of this man's dismal human rights record while Syrian president, but (as he has reminded me) this is a free speech blog and he cannot get his voice heard anywhere else. I stress, however, Mr Assad's views in no way reflect mine. My comments to this effect are shown in brackets.

I write today as a private citizen , living in my holiday home in Moscow (One of many! - B). As readers will know, I was forced to make a sudden departure from my homeland, following a fanatics' uprising. As I have said elsewhere, I had no intention of leaving Syria, but was rushed away by President Putin's troops when my own soldiers - ungrateful swine! - stopped fighting. I don't know what was wrong with them. Did they really need help from the Russians and the Iranians? (Looks like it - B). Still, I am forced to admit that I was disappointed at the lack of military help from Iran and Russia. Previously, we squashed the rebels like flies and we could have dome it again. I blame the Ukrainians and the Israelis really. So many Russian troops are tied up in Ukraine and Iran/Hezbollah are suffering from Israeli military aggression. Still, I thank my old pal, VP for getting my family and I to a safe place.

Now, I notice that the Blogmeister is a supporter of Amnesty International, one of a number of so-called human rights organisations that have blackened my name over the years. In 2017, they published a report called "Human Slaughterhouse", packed with lies and fabrications. They alleged that my security force had carried out killings, torture, enforced disappearance, mass hangings and extermination of detainees in the Saydnaya military prison. How did they know this? If Amnesty International had sent a delegation to Syria in my time, I would have had them shot -so how do they know about these things? (You can't stop news spreading, Mr Assad - B). From 2011 onwards, they attacked me for the way my Syrian government forces - with Russian help - repeatedly attacked areas controlled by armed opposition groups, carrying out indiscriminate attacks on civilian homes, hospitals and medical facilities, including artillery bombardments and airstrikes, often using weapons such as barrel bombs and incendiary weapons. Well, what was wrong with that? After all, we were only following the example of the Americans and British in Iraq and Afghanistan!

Another current calumny is the so-called exposure of prison conditions in Syria when I was leader. Has the world forgotten how US troops treated Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison? And we, like them, were holding Al-Qaeda prisoners. What is the saying you English have about how pots should not call kettles black? And these prisoners being released are exaggerating grossly! (Difficult to exaggerate torture and judicial murder, Mr Assad - B). And my prison building programme provided work for many unemployed Syrian people, who are now, like my family and myself, having to flee Syria (Torturers, interrogators, guards, makers of manacles - that's quite a job creation programme - B).

But what of the future? Well, until my people see sense and beg me to return (Words fail me! - B) , I have to ponder the future for my family and myself. I have to say that Moscow is a wonderful place in the summer, but, oh dear, the Russian winter! So, my wife and I are contemplating moving further afield. As my wife, Asma, has a British passport, we are seriously contemplating a move to the United Kingdom. It should be no problem for us to settle there. Asma is a Londoner by birth and worked as an investment banker at JP Morgan until she moved to Syria in 2000, so I'm sure she could get employment in the finance sector. As for me, I am sure that I could return to my old profession as an ophthalmologist for the NHS. After all, they need all the specialists they can get.

So, at this time of goodwill to all people, whatever their colour, creed or past history, I send Christmas Greetings to the people of Britain: 

"Eid milad majid" - Merry Christmas!

As Blogmeister, I invite readers to reply directly to ex-President Assad. His postal address is: Mr B. Assad, The Kremlin, Moscow, Russia. I have no further comments to make; this man's track record speaks for itself. And I hope he never finds work in my local hospital.

Thanks to Sir Bob: Band Aid Defended

 

I would like to begin by sending a message of thanks to Sir Bob Geldof. I know that sounds pretentious and a tad arrogant, but it is meant with deep respect. The Band Aid and Live Aid projects that he spearheaded in the 1980s gave me inspiration in the 1990s when I was living in my hometown of Southport. I was a regular attender at the Bothy Folk Song Club where, on Singers' Nights, I would perform my own poems (I still do, at Twickfolk). Some of my compositions were suitable as song lyrics, and, with encouragement from friends (one of whom was Neville Grundy, my fellow blogger) in the club and the generosity of a friend with access to recording equipment, we recorded our first album - "Mercy on Dale Street". Now, I had no intention of selling the album for private gain (unlikely to have been much), so I decided to follow Sir Bob's example and we sold it for charity - in this case Oxfam. Since then, we have recorded a total of eleven albums which have raised funds for various charities, including Amnesty International and the Southport Kidney Fund. I can only thank Sir Bob for his outstanding and inspirational example.

Now, I am well aware that cynics will jibe that I am suffering from delusions of grandeur, but they are wrong. The amount of money raised by my projects is nowhere near the sum raised by Band Aid 1 and its successors. Some estimates put that total at about £150 million. My albums have achieved nothing like that sum, but - and this is what counts - they have all been received with gratitude by charity officials and beneficiaries. One lady, whose husband was helped by the Southport Kidney Fund, thanked me with deep emotion, "from the bottom of my heart". I was humbled, gratified and deeply moved. I hadn't raised the proverbial million dollars, but I felt like it. He'll never read this but thanks, Bob, for the original inspiration.

All of which leads into the main topic, which is the controversy about Band Aid 4 and the criticism it has received, notably from Ed Sheeran and Fuse ODG (real name Nana Richard Obiana).

Fuse ODG was forthright in his criticism, saying: 

‘Ten years ago, I refused to participate in Band Aid because I recognised the harm initiatives like it inflict on Africa,’ the Dangerous Love hitmaker said, "While they may generate sympathy and donations, they perpetuate damaging stereotypes that stifle Africa’s economic growth, tourism and investment, ultimately costing the continent trillions and destroying its dignity, pride and identity".

Personally, I know that negative stereotypes can be harmful, but I am puzzled at how they can stifle the economic growth of an entire continent. Fuse ODG seems - I say seems - to be saying that donations, especially in the form of buying the latest (or any) version of "Do They Know It's Christmas?" are in some way harmful. I can appreciate that people in flourishing African countries could be offended by the lyrics to the song, but I doubt that people living in Sudan would, given the civil war raging there at present. The fact is, conditions in many African countries are every bit as desperate now as they were in Ethiopia in the 1980s. Fuse ODG again: 

‘By showcasing dehumanising imagery, these initiatives fuel pity rather than partnership discouraging meaningful engagement.’

This is an apparently damning assessment, but is not as perceptive as it seems. Rather, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. I cannot prove him wrong, but Fuse ODG offers no compelling or conclusive evidence to prove his point. Still, he's entitled to his opinion. 

Ed Sheeran has little to add to that. Rather, he is a little piqued at lack of consultation. He said;

‘Had I had the choice I would have respectfully declined the use of my vocals...A decade on and my understanding of the narrative associated with this has changed, eloquently explained by Fuse ODG...This is just my personal stance. I’m hoping it’s a forward-looking one. Love to all.’

Responses to these critics have been varied -  Spandau Ballet front man Tony Hadley, who sang on the original single, told BBC Radio 2: "I think they [critics like Sheeran] should shut up, to be honest."

Midge Ure, who co-wrote the original lyrics to "Do They Know It's Christmas?", acknowledged that Sheeran should have been consulted, but, says the BBC:

"I understand the whole thing about the 'white saviour complex'," he told Radio 2's Jeremy Vine. "It's not new. We've had this thrown at us for 40 years." However, he said the song was not about portraying Africa in a negative light, but was trying to show the real-life consequences "of famine, of war, of conflict". And the result is children who need food, who need medication, who need education, and that's what we deal with."

Sir Bob himself says he has been "energised" by criticism. He says:

 ‘The debate rages around it. That’s fantastic, because then you can access the politics with the culture debate as sensitivities and sensibilities and opinions change and just absorb it all."

But perhaps the most effective refutation of the criticism of Band Aid comes from the poet and playwright, Lemn Sissay, in The Standard. He says: 

"There is a lot wrong with charity. But in this case they got it right. Let’s look at what we do know about that Christmas single and its recurrences... thousands of lives were saved by the funds raised in the 1985 Live Aid... The concerts have raised over £140 million for famine relief. There would have been no comic relief without Live Aid. The ripple effect revived charity as activism, revived the world".

In a direct reference to Fuse ODG, Sissay concludes: 

"Fuse said that “every human being deserves dignity in their suffering”. How many dignified deaths have you witnessed and when did dignity save a life?"

As Bob Geldof himself has said: "‘this little pop song has saved millions of lives.’

In a final salute to both Lemn Sissay and Sir Bob, I would like to say that the Live Aid "ripple effect" led to many activist charity ventures around the world, even, years later, bringing some help to kidney patients in Southport, Lancashire.

Thanks, Sir Bob.

 

Trump Triumphant - Reaction and Future Action

 

There's no denying that Donald Trump's election victory came as a shock to millions. One of our right-wing rags, The Sun, smirked triumphantly:

"LIBERAL late-night show hosts were seen losing their minds following Donald Trump's sweeping election victory. The US TV stars (Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert and Seth Myers) went into full-blown meltdowns with some tearing up and others becoming emotional live on air".

Kristin Tadlock-Hunter, an American living in Britain, told in The Guardian of her feelings:

“Devastated doesn’t cover it ... I think it’s a unique experience, to be an immigrant watching it from afar. It feels like you’re watching your house burn down from across the street, with all your friends and family still inside".

And I know that very many British people, including me, were shocked to see a convicted felon elected as leader one of the world's greatest democracies. I'm sorry to say, though, it was only similar to shocks to the system that I felt after Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol building, after the Brexit referendum vote, when Boris Johnson was elected and when Reform UK won seats in the last election. It was larger in scale, but similar in type - a dull horror, mixed with disbelief, at the triumph of the populist Right.

Like very many other people worldwide, I was wondering what had brought this about. Throughout the electoral campaign, I was convinced that Kamala Harris must win. After Donald Trump (DT) won, I struggled with a variety of explanations provided by the media. They all seemed valid. Then, on Friday, I did something I never usually do: I bought a copy of The Times (The Guardian had sold out) to read before meeting my wife for a meal out. The lead articles weren't as scurrilously gloating as the articles in The Sun, but, as expected, there was a message to us "Liberals" by Hugo Rifkind. "Face it, liberals, this is what millions wanted". I refuse to provide a link, as The Times will try to charge you for the privilege. Essentially, Rifkind provides the "bread and butter" explanation that DT appealed to US voters worried about declining living standards. He comments:

 "...liberals will never understand Trump's success because they literally don't se it...it must, really, be about them...it can't possibly be about people thinking him to be a better bet for a bit less immigration, and a decent job, and perhaps slightly cheaper eggs".

The trouble is that DT is now in a position to influence international events such as the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. To its credit, The Times covers this in an article by Iain Martin: "Stand by for the West's betrayal of Ukraine". Now, that stirred a memory...

DT promised to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Neville Chamberlain, seen above, promised Peace in 1936, having sold Czechoslovakia out to Hitler. He failed dismally, as we know. DT is behind schedule, but the Ukrainians have good reason to be concerned. As Martin points out, DT: 

"...has a friendly relationship with Vladimir Putin and it is likely the Russian leader will welcome an attempt to freeze the conflict..."

He continues by saying that a Peace Deal: 

"...means surrender to Russia and the rewarding of aggression".

Martin hopes that DT might decide to stand up to Putin, but:

"...what seems more likely is that we will wring our hands while Ukraine is forced to endure ritual humiliation." 

But there could be consequences for US democracy itself, as Kamala Harris predicted during the electoral campaign. It calls to mind an image I saw the other day on Facebook:

As DT has promised to forcibly deport 10 million men, women and children from the United States, there is a possibility that he will need to establish transit assembly camps. The parallels with the Nazi concentration camps are only too obvious and surely a breach of US law. Then there is the fact that DT has promised to exact revenge on all his active opponents and critics of the last four years. This could lead to journalists, lawyers, politicians, comedians, TV presenters, musicians, singers and Stormy Daniels facing vindictive reprisals, and all with enthusiastic presidential approval. Goodbye to the venerable American tradition (and constitutional right) of free speech.

The other day, I joked with a French lady, who lives in Geneva, that if the Statue of Liberty is indeed walking across the Atlantic, it could land at St Malo in Brittany. My friend said that it would look good in the port area. I concurred, and suggested that it could be turned to face towards America, where it it would provide a welcome to American refugees landing in France.

At the time I first wrote that, I thought it was funny. I'm not so sure now...

But, there is one UK initiative to befriend DT (I'm getting a dose of the DTs) of which I completely approve.

There has been a suggestion that we could send Nigel Farage to the US as our ambassador. I think this is a very good idea. If Farage goes to the United States, he might never come back...

Gaza, Lebanon, Israel: Conflict - Who Benefits?

 

As I type, the proverbial balloon is going up in the Middle East. The BBC is announcing an Iranian missile attack against Israel and Iran has made it clear that it is prepared to mount another. Israeli troops have entered Lebanon and Israel is continuing to carry out airstrikes in urban areas. Hezbollah remains defiant, despite a number of its key operatives and leaders being liquidated by surgical airstrikes that only killed a few innocent civilians - at least that's how the Israelis see it. Instead of entering the discussion of present events, at this point, I would like to draw attention to the approaching first anniversary of the present situation on October 7th.

Last year, shortly after the October 7th Hamas incursion into Israel, I wrote a post titled "Hamas - a Provocation Too Far?".  I contended that the Hamas onslaught, and attendant atrocities, were a deliberate provocation to draw Israel into a massive over-reaction that would cause huge civilian casualties and lead to international opinion turning against Israel. It brought me up with a jolt when I stumbled upon a post I wrote in 2014, and had part-forgotten about. In "Israel, Gaza and a Hamas Victory", I wrote about the Gaza conflict of that year, which was on nothing like the scale of the present ongoing conflict. Hamas killed three Israeli civilians and Israel launched a furious punitive strike by way of retaliation - like that we saw in Gaza following the October 7th attacks last year, but, of course, the latter has been much more intense and has lasted to the present day.  The UN said that both sides had committed war crimes in 2014 - this is even more the case now. Back then, I hoped that things might improve. Well, hope springs eternal, but I got that wrong. But I think I got one thing right. I said (quoting myself):

"...we should not let our feelings for the deaths of innocents in Gaza or Israel cloud our judgement or analysis of the underlying strategic achievements and blunders of both parties."

I also said that the world's reaction had been adverse towards Israel: 

"The brunt of death, destruction and suffering has fallen on innocent Gazan civilians, leading to widespread condemnation and opprobrium of Israel around the world. Result - an important propaganda victory for Hamas".

I now know what deja vu feels like. I could just as easily have written those words now. And yes, Hamas did celebrate the end of that conflict as seen in the photo; whether the rank and file of Hamas feel that way now is debatable. But as far as the leadership of Hamas are concerned - especially the strategic planners - they have cause for satisfaction. I repeat: Hamas strategists must have known that their atrocities would lead to Israel unleashing overwhelming force. They knew from previous experience that the ensuing devastation and inevitable civilian death toll would lead to international opprobrium towards Israel. They had prepared tunnels and fortified housing in order to conduct a long-lasting guerrilla war - and they are still fighting, despite Israeli efforts. They might even have hoped that the Gaza conflict would lead to a widening of the war. If so - and I believe that I am right - they must be smirking with pride at their achievement. The huge number of deaths and injuries of their combatants, the dead, wounded and injured civilians, will not have dismayed these men. Hamas is a death cult, and they will see no need for remorse. Their biggest achievement will be that they now have a huge wellspring of hatred for Israel that will endure for generations. In 2034, should Hamas launch another attack against Israel, they will have many more recruits from Gaza for their combat units. And surely we can understand why the civilian in the photo below, carrying his child, dead or injured by Israeli action, might have an abiding sense of searing animosity towards the state of Israel? Yes, and the Hamas strategists will be very pleased about that.

As for the present day fighting in Lebanon, while the Hezbollah rocketing of Israel is reprehensible, the Israeli airstrikes on urban areas in Lebanon are working well for the death mongering mandarins of Hamas. Bombed-out Lebanese people are vehemently expressing antagonism towards Israel and Hezbollah will prove to be very tough fighters, as they have shown in the past. That could well draw in more Israeli troops - which could weaken their operations in Gaza. How long Israel can sustain a war on two fronts is a matter for conjecture, but war weariness could well set in.

So, to answer my own question - who benefits from this war? Well, as I hope I have made clear, my view is that the Hamas leadership and planning staff have succeeded considerably in their strategic aims, if not, as yet, decisively - but they will have expected that. That's for the long term. So far, so bloody, so good - for them.

I wonder though: is there anyone else happy to see how the Middle East conflict is absorbing so much international attention? Well, there could be...

I have said this before, but October 7th is Vladimir Putin's birthday.

All a coincidence, of course...

 

Moving On From the Riots - to Where?

 

The riots, which began on July 30th in Southport and spread across the country, now seem a long way back in the past, which happens with all traumatic events that we seek to forget. For those who suffered during those horrible disturbances, the people trapped in the Southport Mosque who feared for their lives, the local residents whose walls were knocked down, all the injured police officers, the families of the three murdered children of the July 29th attack who suffered added anguish, the Asian families in Middlesbrough who were targeted by rioters, etc, this is understandable. For them, healing and forgetting is needed.

But for those of us who monitor the far Right, there is much to learn and a need for assessment of the riots. Only by analysing the origins of the riots and their development can we hope to stop them from happening again. I begin by relating a personal attempt at research.

The day after the Southport disturbances, I tried to find an explanation of the riots on far Right websites. I thought that this would give me an insight into how the mobilisation had happened so quickly and why the Southport Mosque was a target. I knew vaguely that the Southport knife attacker was thought to be a Muslim, but could not understand why the mosque had been targeted. After some browsing, I found an EDL chatroom, where, among a host of semi-literate vapourings celebrating the riots, I found one posting that seemed to provide an answer. According to one EDL supporter, the knife attacks in Hart Street on July 29th had been planned in the mosque. If this was a widespread view, it explains why the rioters gathered where they did and what they did - which was to attack the mosque.

At this point, I have to own up: I did not record the link, or the EDL supporters name (which was a nom de guerre anyway). When I tried to locate the chatroom again, I could find nothing. Hopefully, that is because the security authorities took it down. Obviously, I cannot substantiate what I have said, but I think events show that I hit on the correct explanation. And, of course, many rioters went simply to attack the police, to cause criminal damage and to loot shops.

Still, the principal query in my mind was: who organised the riots? To get the best information, I turned to Searchlight, the anti-fascist magazine with an outstanding reputation for monitoring the extreme Right. Expecting to find a conspiracy described, I was surprised to learn: 

"Fascist groups... who have done their damnedest to incite such angry racism for years, are secretly whooping with delight at what has taken place since the awful Southport murders. But let’s not make the mistake of believing that they actively organised it".

The Fash group leaders have tried to distance themselves from the riots, while privately rejoicing at the disorder and violent racism. Instead, Searchlight pins the blame on a number of individuals, including Tommy Robinson, but blames the direct agitation and mobilisation on one of Robinson's associates: 

"The man who bears more responsibility than most for the dreadful events of the last few days is Tommy Robinson’s mate and right-hand man, ‘Danny Tommo’, a criminal lowlife who is more than ever Robinson’s representative in the UK since Robinson scarpered back to Spain at the weekend to avoid a court appearance and probable jail".

It was "Tommo" (Daniel Thomas) who issued the call for the gathering in Southport. In a live broadcast online from his car, he summoned the mob:

“Every city has to go up.”

“Get prepared. Be ready. We have to.”

“It has to go off in different cities.”

“We have to show them we’ve had enough.”

“I’m ready to go. I know that a lot of you are. I’m speaking to other people at the moment”.

“We’re ready to go. We are, literally, ready to go.”

“Just get ready."

Surprisingly, "Tommo" was nowhere to be seen when things did go off - like Tommy Robinson.

Now, as we know, the police cracked down hard on the rioters, and have arrested hundreds, with the aim of tracking hundreds more. Perhaps the most fitting end to these disgraceful events, which blackened the name of Britain worldwide, was the magnificent turnout by many thousands of anti-racists on August 7th to counter Fash activity. In the event, the vast majority of the racist thugs stayed away.

It might be too soon to speculate, but we need to consider what the far Right will do next. After all the sentences have been served, the released extremists might, in some cases, abandon their extremism. The unrepentant (and the unarrested) ones will be left with a number of options. They could channel their activities into small scale persecution and thuggery, rather like British Movement and the National Front in the 1970s. They could wait, in the hope of another incident like the knife attack in Southport, which will arouse anger that they can exploit and cause another bout of rioting. Or they could, at least some could, aim to infiltrate a suitable right-wing , populist political party that they could influence from within.

I am, of course, referring to Reform UK, whose leader, Nigel Farage (NF) has been accused of helping to aggravate the situation on July 30th. Some commentators, indeed, describe the riots as "The Farage Riots". NF should be concerned that Patriotic Alternative's leader, Mark Collett, has talked of putting "clean skin" infiltrators into Reform UK. Searchlight quotes Collett as saying:

“So, in a very real sense, a dedicated group of ethno-nationalists who have not been previously politically exposed could join Reform UK and do great things – effectively turning them into a vehicle for something better and more robust”.

According to the BBC, NF today, at the Reform UK conference in Brighton, has said that there is no place for the extreme Right in his party and party officials will be seeking to keep them out. As the BBC says:

"He added the party would be "vetting candidates rigorously at all levels," after dropping candidates during the general election following reports they had made offensive or racist comments. "We haven't got time, we haven't got room for a few extremists to wreck the work of a party that now has 80,000 members and rising," he added".

NF might yet eat those words. The only right-wing extremists expelled from Reform UK that I know of were all exposed in the press or by anti-fascist groups. 

All in all, apart from the splendid mass anti-racist turnout and the many arrests following the riots, the shock of the riots will remain with us for a long time. But some people might seek to turn the events to their advantage...

Tory leadership candidate Robert Jenrick has made the astounding claim that mass migration and "woke culture" (what is that?) have put England's national identity at risk. Jenrick has been heavily criticised for this , but his views bear a close resemblance to the "dog-whistle" assertions of far right speakers such as Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins and Laurence Fox (and many of the rioters). Sky News comment here:

"Mr Jenrick suggested a suppression of England's identity helped lead to riots this summer following the Southport stabbings".

Mr Jenrick, you see, has detected a window of opportunity created by the riots. As he sees it, he has an issue that he can exploit with the section of the electorate who have a degree of sympathy with the rioters. Like them, he blames something called the "metropolitan establishment" for this English identity suppression and, like many Tory politicians, he fears the rise of Reform UK. And this man may become Tory leader and, perhaps, prime minister one day. 

Time may heal many of this summer's traumas, but I fear that we may have more to come.

 

Problems With Democracy: One Man's View

 

As most of us would agree, Democracy worldwide is under pressure and has been a frequent topic for discussion on this blog. My old friend and musical collaborator, Mick Cooper, has kindly written on this topic for us here. Readers who have any comments are welcome to post them on the Comments section below Mick's contribution.

Here are some observations from someone with a degree in political, social and economic history. I’m not coming at this from left or right, and I’m not wishing to offend anyone; I am just making observations. I’ll start by saying that facts are facts, but opinions are only valid if based on provable facts; otherwise they are merely assertions at best, prejudice or bigotry at worst.

Satirical cartoons have a long and valid history going back to the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch, the woodcuts of Albrecht Durer, the engravings of Hogarth and the scrawlings of Gerald Scarfe. Of course they were originally designed for the illiterate; but so were pub signs and barber poles. Perhaps political cartoons are still mostly for the politically illiterate. In which case I will upset no one in that category because they won’t bother reading this.

Portraying a lettuce as a Liz Truss, or Pinocchio as a Starmer, or a Boris Johnson (whose nose wouldn’t fit on the screen), or a Trump (whose nose would circumnavigate the planet) may raise a smile, but it doesn’t raise the level of political debate. However, political debate is only apposite for those who have the intelligence and the knowledge to be able to pursue it.

So that is the first problem with democracy – the fact that the vast majority of those who have the vote are lacking in the knowledge and objectivity to use it properly, if they bother to use it at all.

The second problem is the basic nature of humanity. This one is an assertion not a fact, but evidence leads me to believe that approximately 30% of humanity is innately good, 20% is innately evil and the middle 50% will go either way depending on what they can gain from it, or what they are led to believe.

When teaching history at A-level, IB and university entrance the first thing I always stressed was that the truth does not really matter, it’s what you can make people believe that governs their actions. I’m sure I don’t need to point out all the examples of this: from the scapegoating of the Jews in Hitler’s Germany and in much of Europe long before that, to the demonisation of migrants and asylum seekers today. Joseph Goebbels’ contention was: tell big lies and tell them often, and enough people will believe them. Who is doing that today? You don’t even have to look across the Atlantic or towards Moscow to the obvious candidates to find a contemporary example. If you can turn enough of the population against a minority you can control them to your own ends. The innate selfishness of humanity makes it an easy exercise.

One of the most stupid things I have heard said in recent times is “I don’t give a sh*t about history”. History doesn’t just tell you about the past, it also predicts the future. This is because the unwisely named species, homo sapiens, has not significantly changed since it evolved about 1 million years ago. As a species we’re still driven by the same motivations of survival, greed and advantage taking. We are not more innately intelligent than we were then, we are merely able to draw on the accumulation of knowledge, theorisations and technology. Constructs, whether they be intellectual, such as religion, or physical, such as tools and weaponry, can make an impact for good but are also often used for evil.

Before I return to our parlous political status in UK I will throw out a few random historical observations to support my conclusions.

Migration has driven the whole of human history. No nation will ever be able to stop it, the best it can do is control it for its own advantage. Homo sapiens is the product of a second migration out of Africa from about 100,000 years ago. We certainly interbred with Neanderthals and then probably outcompeted them into extinction. There were no humans in what is now Great Britain during the last ice age which ended about 10,000 years ago. Everyone living in Britain is descended from a migrant. I’m sure the Beaker People sat around campfires bemoaning the arrival of the Celts; as did the Celts the arrival of the Romans; as did the Romans the arrival of Anglo-Saxons; as did Anglo-Saxons the arrival of the Vikings; as did Vikings the arrival of the Normans. None of them could stop migration, or sometimes conquest, and we are all the genetic product in some proportion of those migrants, and of others more recently – Jews, Huguenots (probably including the Farage family), slaves directly imported from Tudor times, or descendants of Afro-Caribbeans invited over to cover post war labour shortages and Central Asians to work in the cotton mills now derelict in north-west England, etc.

Although Malthus was proved wrong in his estimation of the capacity of Britain to sustain a larger population in the 1830’s it is true that there has to be a limit. We are all feeling the pressures of the fairly rapid increase in population in the past two decades. It’s possible to argue that this pressure is not the result of the larger population per se, merely the inability of the current economy of the UK to cope with it. We have chosen not to invest in extra infrastructure and in the services required to maintain the standard of living we have come to expect. Instead we have seen a massive disparity of wealth between the super rich and the working majority. Up to a point their discontent has been bought off by benefits or by cheap distracting technologies (Playstations, Netflix and cell phones). As the Romans found out with bread and circuses: that only works for so long. Then you need to channel that discontent away from those who should really be held responsible. The Argentinian junta did it by attacking the Falklands. In Britain we bought a little time by selling off the family silver (privatisations, encouraging oil sheik and Russian oligarch investment, foreign owned “British” utilities, Chinese nuclear power stations) then we did it with the great scam of Brexit. Not a scam? Well you tell me how your life is so much better after Brexit than it was before.

But we were a great nation once right? Not really – we were a pre-eminent nation once. A pre-eminence based on good fortune and, primarily, exploitation. Exploitation is not always a bad word. The early exploitation that made this nation powerful includes the mere fact that it is an island and therefore less susceptible to disruptive invasion, rather than gradual migration. When we were invaded by Romans (who exploited tin, lead and grain) and by Normans (who exploited Anglo-Saxon learning and culture) both created an infrastructure that the native population was able to exploit to its own advantage as well. During the early modern era we were able to exploit the seas around us. Fishing of course, but mostly the ability to trade: which led to the slave trade (the exploitation of other human beings) and later the opium trade (the exploitation of Chinese goods without having to pay gold and silver for them). The creation of empire enabled the exploitation of the natural resources and products of overseas territories, to the massive disruption and a long-term legacy of conflict in those areas. Not that we were morally any worse at this than other European nations.

Then we learned to exploit Britain’s own natural resources more effectively – water power, coal and iron for example. Most of those apparently great British inventions (steam engines etc) were actually adaptations and improvements of earlier developments by ancient Greek inventors, Roman engineers and Arab mathematicians. We were the first major industrial nation, thanks to the exploitation of those resources and the exploitation of slave plantations in the Caribbean, and small children working in coal mines and cotton mills. Free trade and the great “invisible hand of the economy”; but Adam Smith did not write down the first rule of capitalism: money is more important than the lives of people. John Locke did not write down the first rule of liberalism: that the ultimate freedom is the freedom to dominate and exploit those weaker than yourself.

Now Britain has run out of things to usefully exploit. We are falling back into the status of a third rate nation. Successive governments, since probably the last successful British government of Palmerston in 1865, have not been able to stop the inexorable movement of economic power around the globe – Germany, USA and now China. Not least because power and pre-eminence invites challenge. All empires ultimately fall through Imperial overstretch or complacency, revolution and dissatisfaction from within.

Starting with the unnecessary war of 1914-18 (unnecessary in the sense that it was a dynastic war of imperialism against nationalism which could possibly have been limited by common sense diplomacy) and ending with the necessary war of 1939-45 (necessary in the sense that it was a war against true evil, but possibly unnecessary had there been a greater determination to stop Hitler in the Rhineland rather than in Poland). So we should be stopping Putin in Ukraine instead of waiting until he needs stopping in Poland too. If you think Churchill’s wartime government was more successful than Palmerston I would like to suggest that firstly Britain did not stand alone against Germany after the fall of France because we had a massive, though sometimes reluctant, empire behind us; secondly it was really Russian blood and American money that won the war, with the  assistance of the fact that all leaders made mistakes but Hitler’s were the most self-destructive.

To repeat my point: Britain is a nation in relative decline and successive governments have done little to stop that decline from becoming an absolute decline. In the last 150 years the Tories have held power alone, or been in a Tory led coalition, for 94 years; the Liberals have held power or dominated the WW1 coalition for 28 years ; Labour has been in power for 31 years. By all means apportion blame appropriately, but it was the 1906 Liberal budget that created the first UK OAP and National Insurance schemes; it was the 1945 Labour government that created the Welfare State - both of which the Tories opposed. It was the Thatcher government that de-nationalised and sold off council houses without replacing them. It was the Cameron government that started hammering a few more nails in the coffin lid with the Brexit referendum.

You can follow false gods if you like, but whether they are Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage or George Galloway, they’re not going to save us. Nothing will, short of a massive world reset – and who wants world war three, another pandemic or a water world caused by climate change?

Meanwhile I try to live by 3 E’s: Equality of opportunity, Equity of reward and Empathy (a word which should not be confused with the word “sympathy”. Empathy is about being able to understand different points of view even if you don’t agree with them, and to be able to put yourself in the position of others around you). So rather than dismissing points of view I disagree with by means of ridicule or violence, I would rather try to make a rational and reasonable argument instead.

I try to make decisions on the basis of what is morally correct rather than what is convenient for me. That’s not being sanctimonious, that’s because if the whole world was selfish, society could not exist at all.

A final thought: you cannot drive a car legally without passing the driving test. These days you cannot adopt a rescue dog without scrutiny. Yet you can have children without any qualification in parenting and you can vote without any awareness or understanding of society, economics, politics and history.

I invite those who disagree with me to do so on the basis of provable fact rather than prejudice or emotion.

Mr M.J.Cooper. http://www.educatorsabroad.org/