The Blogmeister's New Year Message

When they do this sort of thing on the TV and radio, they go through all the newsworthy events of the year. David Cameron's way of doing it has been to tell us what a miserable time we're going to have in the coming year. It might be expected that I would join in the chorus of doom and gloom - especially when you look back over my list of postings for the year. But no - I'd like to end the year on a positive note. One bright spot on the murky international political scene this year has been the release of the Burmese opposition leader and human rights activist, Aung San Suu Kyi. As we know, this lady has been held under house arrest by the repressive regime in Burma for 15 years. What struck me was her dignity and composure at her moment of release and her willingness to forgive her oppressors. Her release was made possible only after sustained international pressure, much of it from leading politicians, but much from ordinary people. All of which tells us that, when enough people unite and work patiently together, change for the better IS possible.
I would like to wish everyone who reads this posting a Happy and Hopeful New Year.

The Blogmeister's Christmas Message

Well, if the Queen can do one of these things, so can I. I am amazed at the fact that we have made it this far. I must pay tribute to Neville, who encouraged me to start this blog, and has been very supportive ever since.Thanks also to Chas, who has brought a different perspective on political matters. Hopefully, he will write more on musical matters in 2011 - I have only recently learned that he is an expert on Northern Soul. Thanks to Mick, who has lent his presence to the blog. For me, it has been a great experience to write on political matters. It has been good discipline to research  topics and justify my opinions, rather than simply spouting them, pub style. This blog now draws regular hits from all over the world; nearly 1 in 5 of all hits come from countries other than the UK. All I want for Christmas for the blog is for some of these visitors to start posting!
As for the issues we've covered, I think we have focussed upon some important matters and made some pertinent comments. It's been a turbulent year, what with recession, the return of a Con-Dem government and the return of student protest to our streets. I wouldn't be surprised if the coming year is every bit as hectic, so look forward to more acerbic postings by me on the political situation.
To sum up, I'd like to say that if I could give out Christmas presents to all readers, I'd give each and everyone a massive slice of good luck - something tells me that we're going to need it.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYBODY!

Can Education Stop Homophobia?

From the BBC website comes this introduction to a subject that is not very "Christmassy" (whatever that means):

"A young woman and man have been found guilty of beating a gay man to death in London's Trafalgar Square - a brutal reminder that despite steps towards equality, homophobic violence remains a very real threat.

The killing of a 62-year-old civil servant has cast another shadow over the gay community as it is again forced to confront the consequences of prejudice."
Anyone wishing to read the full report can find it HERE. When this disgusting incident first happened in September last year, however, the prominent gay ex-senior policeman Brian Paddick made what I found to be an extraordinary statement. He said (rightly, as it happens) that many schoolchildren used the term "gay" as a synonym for "bad" He then went on to say that teachers bore a grave responsiblity for this, and should be stopping children from doing it. Like many commentators on education, he did not say how it should be done.
Sickening as all homophobic attacks might be, I find Mr Paddick's comments naive and unrealistic. The perpetrators of the above attack would not have held back from what they did because their teachers had spoken out against homophobia several years before. For a (thankfully small) number of pupils, an anti-homophobic stance in schools would be an incentive to engage in anti-gay violence.
Homophobia is a despicable and evil hate crime that must be eradicated, but while we condemn queer bashing, let's not engage in teacher bashing.

I'm No Conspiracy Theorist, But...

I try to keep an open mind, but I find most conspiracy theories ridiculous. There is a new one out about John Lennon's death, and we are all familiar with the UFO and "no real moon landing" garbage that has such wide currency among many people. Still, this week's events at the student tuition fees protest in London has given me cause for thought. As someone who attended lively anti-National Front demos in the 1970s, I'm not the right person to condemn the violence of some of the protesters, although I strongly disapprove of what happened. As has been pointed out, these events can only lead to the alienation of the public from the student's cause. The rich brat who desecrated the Cenotaph, the Anarchists and the thugs (there is a difference) who came "tooled up" for battle have harmed the student campaign greatly. But there's something I find a little puzzling:
1. Why were the police not better prepared? As anyone who knows anything about the history of Anarchist groups will tell you, they are wide open for infiltration by police spies and informers. I would have expected the police to be well briefed about the violent intentions of such groups.
2. Why did Charles and Camilla blunder so crassly into the demo? Why was a car window left open? This is hardly professional work by the Royal security staff. It was either gross incompetence - or was it something else?
It needs to be said here that some elements in the police are capable of ruthless conduct. A friend of mine, a respectable retired gentleman in his sixties, has told me that, on a previous demo two weeks ago, he came out of a Tube station to be pushed by a police squad who knocked his glasses off. A number of demonstrators were injured on the latest demo - one with a brain injury. Clearly, the security forces and the government might benefit from the publicity given to student violence, as it would justify a much more severe crackdown. In fact, press reports already indicate that this is going to happen.
This would lead a (Leftie) conspiracy theorist to think, perhaps, that the authorities DELIBERATELY made the elementary security mistakes that I list above, in order to allow violence to erupt and thus blacken the student campaign. I doubt that very much, personally, but, like I said, "I'm no conspiracy theorist, but..."

Santa Claus - His Health and Safety

Changing the subject slightly, I'd like to talk about Father Christmas - or Santa Claus if you prefer. I knew he was busy at Christmas, but I never appreciated his workload.  US scientists have calculated that Santa has to visit 822 homes a second to deliver all the world's presents on Christmas Eve, travelling at 650 miles a second. This is surely a breach of Health and Safety Regulations. Santa should be informed by the Factory Inspectorate of his right to have a 10 minute break every four working hours. Not only this, but he is required to trespass on private property to deliver presents. As this could lead to prosecution for Breaking and Entering. Santa should consult with his trade union, raising the question of his being placed in a position of jeopardy. Still, Santa should find it easier to do his job this year; the economic situation will lead to less presents available for delivery. It's an ill wind...

Iraq and Afghanistan - Why Did We Bother?

Our dear friend Ahmad Jad can't help cracking jokes. He says that the current leak of classified US documents to Wkileaks is "American psychological warfare" ( he must get a new gag writer, but he ignores my advice).
He's joking , of course. These leaks are a huge embarrasment to the US government and its allies. The US Government will have to make huge efforts to limit the damage. There is much to concern us, such as the indication that the Saudi rulers wanted the USA to attack Iran. There will be cause for amusement, such as Prince Andrew's reported gaffes.
 For me though, I'm very interested in the criticism of our armed forces in Afghanistan. As the BBC put it, there was:
"Criticism of UK operations in Afghanistan by US commanders, Afghan president Hamid Karzai and officials in Helmand, particularly around the failure to impose security around Sangin".
It should be remembered here that US commentators, military and civil, were equally critical of UK forces in Iraq and their handling of the situation in Basra.
So, hundreds of UK service personnel have died, several thousand wounded and many more will carry battle trauma ("wounds inside the head") for years to come. All for a disparaging verdict on their efforts by our principal ally. Am I alone in wondering - why did we bother?
This is not to imply any criticism of the American people, who are as sick of this useless war as we are.

Exit Strategies Compared - NATO and Taliban

Guardsman Christopher Davies, a 22 year old father of one, who was alive this time last week, has achieved an unenviable distinction. Last Wednesday, he became the 100th British soldier to die in Afghanistan this year and the latest of 645 NATO troops to suffer death in battle in 2010. His family and his comrades speak highly of him. He leaves a young daughter, Lucy. His 21 year old brother, John, is serving in the same regiment - the Irish Guards.Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, has said that Guardsman Davies' sacrifice will not be forgotten. Well, there's a comfort.
   This tragic event comes at a time when NATO is debating when (and how) to quit Afghanistan. No-one is making the mistake that George Bush made in Iraq - boasting "Mission accomplished!". Everyone knows that it isn't. From what I have read, it seems that the Taliban controls about half of the country. While NATO troops are tied down in the South, the Taliban are active in the North of Afghanistan. Unlike the NATO commanders, they have not forgotten the teachings of Sun Tzu and Mao-Tse Tung.
Another forgotten fact is that, after 9/11, we would not have invaded Afghanistan had the Taliban handed over Osama Bin Laden. So much for our honourable crusade. If they had delivered Bin Laden, "The Talibs" would have been left alone to rule Afghanistan in their own inimitable fashion. Anyway, NATO leaders are thrashing out an exit strategy. The Taliban, of course, have their own exit strategy - death or victory. It remains to be seen which of the two exit strategies is the more successful.

Students Lead the Fight-Back?

I'd given up on the students of today. I'd come to think of them as conservative, politically apathetic and mindful only of their future job prospects. I compared them unfavourably to the students of the 60s and 70s, who had campaigned and marched in tens of thousands against the Viet-Nam War, Apartheid and the National Front. Today's students were, I concluded, just plain boring. Last Wednesday's events have caused me to reconsider this unkind verdict. As John Harris comments in today's Guardian :
"What happened on Wednesday afternoon was not some meaningless rent-a-mob flare-up, nor an easily-ignored howl of indignation from some of society's more privileged citizens. It was an early sign of people growing anxious and restless, and what a government pledged to such drastic plans should increasingly expect."
The mass media, of course (and for other reasons, myself) concentrated upon the actions of a violent minority. More relevant, I think, is the fact that tens of thousands of young people have woken up to the fact that public spending cuts are going to seriously endanger their futures. Many other sectors of society are also becoming aware of the devastating consequences of these cost-cutting measures and are beginning to take action. Our Welfare State itself is threatened - and if the government have their way, will be permanently dismantled. Harris quotes David Cameron in a speech made on August 2nd, in Birmingham:
"Should we cut things now and go back later and try and restore them later? I think we should be trying to avoid that approach"
In other words - what gets cut, will never be replaced. Harris goes on to comment that banker's bonuses have been replaced. On November 9th, Barclays announced that £1.6 billion was in their bonus pot.
If, as I hope, students, pensioners, trade unionists, community groups and others likely to be affected by the cuts unite to resist them, then the government can expect many more demonstrations like that seen in London last Wednesday.

Propaganda by Deed and Today's Students' Protest

The TV news broadcasts, and the rest of the media, are buzzing with the way today's student protest against tuition fees turned violent. The Metropolitan Police are very embarrassed about the fact that their preparations were inadequate, and the Millbank Building will need considerable redecoration. Much as I deplore the violence, I regard the events at Millbank as an example of what I referred to in my previous post - Propaganda by Deed (PBD). The style of the attack today is very similar to that seen during the "Stop the City" demos. This takes the form of attacking symbols and properties, rather than people - despite serious scuffling, the demonstators concentrated their destructive efforts on the Millbank Building itself, rather than the small number of beleagured police trying to defend it. This, together with the fact that the protesters who made it to the rooftop waved Anarchist flags (strictly speaking, Anarcho-Syndicalist flags, the Anarchist flag is black) leads me to think that the violent minority (or the revolutionary vanguard, depending upon your point of view) were Anarchists, engaged in PBD. I have no doubt that, when arrested demonstrators appear in court, we will find that many are members of Class War and similar organisations.
As a one-time student radical (well, I thought I was) who went to University when grants were available, I do sympathise with how students feel about the rise in tuition fees. I anticipate that less and less working class students will go to University, and this country will be the poorer for it - as we were before the advent of the now-disappearing Welfare State.
However, I think that today's PBD will be counter-productive, as it will only alienate public support from the student cause. It's one thing to protest against the actions of the state with PBD, but the state, the media and public opinion will only retaliate with far more effective propaganda AND deeds.

Al Qaeda and the Anarchists - Propaganda by Deed?

Ever since 9/11, I have taken an active interest in Jihadism generally, and the tactics of Al-Qaeda in particular.  I knew that Al Qaeda's tactics would have to evolve following the attacks in the USA, and thought I could predict how they would develop new methods of seeking to inflict terror on their chosen targets. Although they moved with what I thought of as bewildering slowness, all my fears have been realised - and there's more to come.
After 9/11, the resultant security crackdown at airports, plus the increased Intelligence effort against them, made it difficult to repeat the outrage (although they didn't stop trying). Obviously, then, the terrorists eventually (as I expected) decided to mount indiscriminate bomb attacks. This led to the atrocities of 7/7 and the Madrid train bombing.
The authorities everywhere reacted by making it more difficult to obtain bomb-making materials. I thought that, unless Al-Qaeda and friends were stupid, they would switch to using firearms, which are cheaper (the 7/7 bombers spent £3000 making their murderous bombs), smaller and easier to conceal. They were not stupid, and the Mumbai Massacre happened.
To bring matters up to date, I believe that we have recently seen a new development in Jihadist tactics. The case of Roshonara Choudhry, the 21 year old woman jailed for stabbing Stephen Tibbs MP, indicates (to me, at least) that Al-Qaeda are moving towards the tactic supposedly developed by 19th century Anarchists - "Propaganda by Deed". I say "supposedly", because anarchists totally condemn both the tactics and beliefs of Al-Qaeda - See Here. I have no doubt that Jihadists loathe Anarchism just as much, but "Propaganda by Deed"(PBD) will hold certain attractions for Al-Qaeda.
Briefly, PBD means that individuals who support a radical cause should take violent actions against real (or imaginary) enemies when they are so minded, and have the opportunity. In the 19th century, some anarchists did carry out such attacks, often "inspired" by police provocateurs. One such example was the Walsall Bomb Plot of 1892. Even at the time, most anarchists condemned such outrages, and even the perpetrators tried not to harm the innocent.
Al-Qaeda will observe no such niceties. Already, an Islamist website has published details of MPs' surgery times - and where to buy knives to carry out attacks. I hope I am wrong, but I anticipate that Al-Qaeda will move towards more such small scale attacks, less "spectacular", but every bit as lethal. I also think that their range of targets will grow wider in time. Like I said, let's hope I'm wrong.

Robespierre's Warning - Ignored by Bush and Blair

Maximillien Robespierre (1758-94) was one of the leaders of the French Revolution. Most historians portray him as a cold-blooded, murderous monster who launched the Terror against dissenters from the revolutionary path. Perhaps he was a monster, but he was no fool. Consider this quote of his:
"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. No one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies." 
What a shame that our political and military leaders did not heed that warning before invading Afghanistan and Iraq! Robespierre made the statement above when some French revolutionaries wanted to spread the revolution by force into neighbouring European countries. Rather like Bush, Blair and their advisers more than 200 years later, the revolutionaries thought their armed incursion would be welcomed by the populations of the Netherlands, Germany, etc. Whatever else Robespierre was, he saw that as highly unlikely to happen, and he was right. The Insurgency in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are fuelled by the same detestation of foreign invaders that he warned about, so long ago.
We are now being warned by no less a person than Mikhail Gorbachev that the USA should either prepare for withdrawal or another Viet-Nam. Wikileaks has given us horrifying insights into exactly how Coalition forces have conducted the war of liberation in Iraq. A recent "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4 has analysed the raw data from the leaked documents, and found that nearly 67 000 innocent civilians have been killed since the invasion. Which begs the question - how did we get into this mess?

The answer usually begins with talk of "sexed-up dossiers" and "oil revenues". These points are valid, but I think they overlook one personal trait that Bush and Blair have in common: they are both devout Christians. As such, they are used to having their faith "tested" in various ways; their response, like all true believers, is to stay loyal to their faith through all trials and tribulations. This may be admirable, but many religious believers carry their tenacity of belief over into secular areas. Putting it simply - once they make up their minds to do something, they ignore all objections and criticism. Field Marshal Haig, the World War One General now reviled as "Butcher Haig" who sent his men over the top to be slaughtered on the Somme in 1916, is another example of a man of faith who stuck to his ideas (about tactics) in the face of evidence that they were wrong. As for getting out of this quandary - who knows? But let's hope that, next time our leaders plan to go charging into other countries to wage war on terror, someone reminds them of the words of the architect of terror - Maximillien Robespierre: "No-one loves armed missionaries".

The Mad Axeman Strikes

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

Well, the ConDems have struck  their blow(s) for common sense and thrift. Or so they say. I don't propose to discuss all the details of the Mad Axeman's cuts, but a few observations are in order. I have never understood the idea that by increasing national poverty (unemployment), we will somehow increase national wealth. As things stand, at least 400, 000 public sector workers stand to lose their jobs over the next four years. The money saved by sacking them will presumably go on paying their welfare benefits. Another mystery to me is the idea, beloved of the Tory Party, that by cutting benefits, the claimants will be forced into work. Exactly how they will find full-time employment,when the long-term unemployed mostly live in areas where no jobs exist , is not made clear. According to the Mad Axeman ( a veteran enemy of "the workshy"), these cuts will put the UK economy into a position of strength in four years' time, but he did not explain how he could guarantee this. What is guaranteed is that in four years' time, we will be close to the next General Election. The ConDems had better start praying that they've got their sums right.

Ahmad Jad - his Lebanese Gig

I see from press reports that my prospective signing for the alternative comedy circuit, Ahmad Jad (aka President Ahmadinejad of Iran) is on tour in the Middle East, having ignored my advice to come and do some real gigs in the comedy clubs over here. Still, I can't blame him - according to the reports that I have seen, Ahmad is going down a storm in Lebanon. According to the BBC:
"The highway that runs from the airport to the centre of Beirut has been decorated with Iranian flags and posters welcoming President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So have the roads that go south, which he will take when he visits villages on the Israeli border." 
I don't think we could have competed with that, somehow.I did approach my local British Legion, and they turned me down flat. It seems they're rather annoyed that incontrovertible proof exists to show that Iran was behind attacks on British troops in Basra. Some people will believe anything - and I only asked for fifty quid.
   Then there was the local Labour Club - but they turned him down, saying he was a Holocaust denier. Well, that's New Labour for you - no wonder they lost the Election.
Still, no such unfair reactions have been shown by the Hezbollah, who live in South Lebanon.Not for them to be offended by the deaths of British troops - or anti-semitism. It doesn't pay to be narrow minded. Mind you, it's all down to money. As the BBC says:
"Mr Ahmadinejad will be a welcome guest in Shia areas of Lebanon. Iran paid for much of the reconstruction that was necessary after the war with Israel in 2006.
The money, starting out with a bundle of US dollars for everyone whose house had been destroyed, was channelled through Hezbollah." Typical BBC - they still get his name wrong, even after several emails from me! If it wasn't for Ahmad Jad, Hezbollah Double Glazing would never have gone into business. They are also developing a new branch of calisthenics called "The Hezbollah Arm Stretch". They seem to have based it on a similar exercise which was popular in Germany in the 1930s, but I wouldn't want to speculate.

Let's hope that his two day gig produces as many laughs as his memorable appearance at the UN - I'm sure we can depend upon it.

Michael Moore Writes for his President

I am a great admirer of Michael Moore, even if I sometimes baulk at his methods. He fearlessly opposes injustice and wrongdoing in his own country, and has been a vociferous opponent of the so-called "War on Terror". This is the full text of a speech that he has written for President Obama at the beginning of the tenth year of this war:
"A Senseless War Begins Its 10th Year ...an address to the nation from President Barack Obama (as reported by Michael Moore)
Thursday, October 7th, 2010
My Fellow Americans:
Nine years ago today we invaded the nation of Afghanistan. I’d just turned 40. I had a Discman and an Oldsmobile and had gotten really into LiveJournal. That was a long time ago. It was so long ago, does anybody remember why we're even there? I think everyone wanted to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. But he got away sometime in the first month or so. He left. We stayed. Looking back now, that makes no sense.
Needing to find a new reason for the mission, we decided to overthrow the religious extremists who were running Afghanistan. Which we did. Sorta. Unlike Osama, they never left. Why not? Well, they were Afghans, it was their country. And, strangely enough, a lot of other Afghans supported them. To this day, the Taliban only have 25,000 armed fighters. Do you really think an army that tiny could control and suppress a nation of 28 million against their will? What's wrong with this picture? WTF is really going on here?
The truth is, I can't get an answer. My generals can't quite tell me what our mission is. If we went in there to rout out al-Qaeda, well, they're gone too. The CIA tells me there are under 100 of them left in the whole country!
My generals have also admitted the following to me:
1. There is no way we can defeat the Taliban. They enjoy too much popular support in the rural areas, the majority of the country.
2. Even though we've been there nine years, the truth is the Taliban, not us, not the Afghan government, control the country. After nine years, we’ve only completely run the Taliban out of 3% of Afghanistan.
3%!! (Just for reference, it took us only ELEVEN MONTHS after D-Day to entirely defeat the Nazis across all of Europe.)
3. Our troops and their commanders are still trying to learn the language, the culture, the customs of Afghanistan. The fact is, our troops are simply not trusted by the average people (especially after they've killed numerous civilians, either through recklessness or for sport).
4. The Afghan government we installed is corrupt beyond belief. The public does not trust them. President Karzai is on anti-depressants and our advisors tell us he is erratic and loopy on many days. His brother has a friendly relationship with the Taliban and is believed to be a major poppy (heroin) dealer. Heroin poppies are the #1 contributor to the Afghan economy.
The war in Afghanistan is a mess. The insurgency grows -- and why wouldn't it: foreign troops have invaded and occupied their country! The people responsible for 9/11 are no longer there. So why are we? Why are we offering up the lives of our sons and daughters every single day -- for no reason anyone can define.
In fact, the only reason I can see is that this war is putting billions of profits into the pockets of defense contractors. Is that a reason to stay, so Halliburton can post a larger profit this quarter?
It is time for me to bring our troops home -- right now. Not one more American needs to die. Their deaths do not make us safer and they do not bring democracy to Afghanistan.
It is not our mission to defeat the Taliban. That is the job of the Afghan people -- if that is what they choose to do. There are many groups and leaders of countries in this world who are despicable. We are not going to invade 30 countries and remove their regimes. That is not our job.
I am not going to stay in Afghanistan just because we're already there and we haven't "won" yet. There is nothing to win. No one from Genghis Khan to Leonid Brezhnev has been able to win there. So the troops are coming home.
I refuse to participate in scaring the American people with a phony "War on Terror." Are there terrorists? Yes. Will they strike again? Sadly, yes. But these terrorist acts are few and far between and should not dictate how we live our daily lives or make us ignore our constitutional rights. They should never distract us from what our real priorities are in making our country safe and secure: Everyone with a good job, families able to own a home and send their kids to college, universal health care that's coordinated by your elected representative government -- not by greedy, profit-hungry insurance companies. THAT would be true homeland security.
And what about Osama bin Laden? Nine years and we can't find a 6'5" Arab man who apparently is on dialysis? Even after offering $25 million to anyone who will tell us where he is? You don't think someone would have taken us up on that by now?
Here's what I know: Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire -- and if there's one thing I've learned about the rich is that they don't live in caves for 9 years. Bin Laden is either dead or hiding out in a place where his money protects him. Or maybe he just went home.
Just like we should do. Now. My condolences to the families of all who died in this war. Most of them signed up after 9/11 and wanted to do their duty because we were attacked. But we were not attacked by a country. We were attacked by a few religious extremists. And you don't defeat a few thugs by shipping halfway around the world thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of thousands of soldiers. That is just sheer idiocy.
And it ends tonight.
God be with you.
I'm not a Muslim."
(End of speech, as transcribed by Michael Moore)
Few people could say it better - well done, Mike.

The Bishop, the Vatican and Holocaust Denial

Do you recognise this man? No, he is not part of the Pope's entourage during the recent Papal visit. He is a British Catholic clergyman - Bishop Richard Williamson of of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The Bishop is very much a traditionalist Catholic clergyman; like others in the SSPX, he is opposed to the modernisation of Catholicism and wants a return to traditional values (he is said to oppose the outfits worn by female tennis players - SEE HERE). This is not a crime, whatever views we may have. What is of concern about the Bishop is that, in common with David Irving and neo-Nazis everywhere, he is a Holocaust denier.In a written bulletin to SSPX members, he asserted:"The fact is that the 6 million people who were supposedly gassed represent a huge lie".  These views of his are well enough known, as is the fact that the Vatican and (praise God) most Catholics reject his views. Bishop Williamson was excommunicated in 1988, but was welcomed back into the fold of the Church in 2009. The present Pope wants to heal rifts, it seems. I suppose that is understandable, and at least the Pontiff did not not call in on Bishop Williamson for afternoon tea while visiting the UK. For me, this whole matter raises yet again the spectre of the Vatican's wartime stance on the Holocaust. What, I wonder, was the exact nature of the relationship between the Vatican and the Nazis? This is a huge subject, with much material written about it - SEE HERE. The wartime Pope - Pius XII - was a rabid anti-communist and, during his tenure, many war criminals escaped justice by fleeing Europe after 1945 on Vatican passports. This is not to say that Pius XII was involved; he seems not to have noticed. On the other hand, even his sternest critics praise him for hiding Jews in the Vatican during German round-ups in 1943/4. The jury is still out, and I'm not on the jury.
  What I can say, though, is that Bishop Williamson would almost certainly not have hidden any Jews. He has described them as "the enemies of Christ", and he believes the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" ( a well-known anti-semitic forgery) to be genuine. I wonder if this will lead to mass conversions to Catholicism among the extreme Right?

President Ahmadinejad - the Alternative Comedian

One reason why I don't care to write about the Iranian President is his name - it takes so long to type it. That could prove a problem in what appears to be his new chosen career - comedy. I don't know why he set out to follow in the footsteps of Frankie Boyle, etc, by doing his first gig at the UN, but I suppose it was the only one he could get. Anyway, it seems that his first gag went down a storm. When he suggested that the USA orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, people actually walked out! They must have been overcome with laughter. Mind you, President Ahmadinejad (must do something about that name) has come out with some scintillating one-liners in the past, for example:
On the Holocaust – Sept 2009
"They (the Western powers) launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they put on a show and then they support the Jews."
And then ( be ready to split your sides):
On Robert Mugabe – April 2010
"I condemn all pressures, all satanic pressures, pressures on the government and people of Zimbabwe."
And then there was:

On wearing ties – July 2010
"The supreme guide (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) himself has said in a fatwa that the wearing of ties or bow ties is not permitted."
He's a barrel of laughs, isn't he?

Such a talented comedian will miss his chance, however, if his career is not carefully guided. I am considering asking the Comedy Store here in London to give him a booking. If anyone can suggest another venue, I'll try to get President Ahmadinejad (must do something about that name!) to appear. And then, of course, a snappy stage name is needed. I think "Ahmad Jad" has a nice ring to it. Watch this space...

OFSTED and the Need for Vigilance

Like all teachers, and anyone else involved in education, I am often bemused by the pronouncements of OFSTED, the Government's inspection agency for schools, playgroups, LEAs, and just about everything else you can think of to do with education. One such is today's announcement that 457,925 of the 1.65 million children who have been diagnosed with special educational needs (SEN) have been diagnosed wrongly.The implication is that schools "mistakenly" identify pupils as having special educational needs in order to get extra funding. This is not true, but it has brought excited banner headlines to the Daily Mail and other such papers. A swingeing refutation of the OFSTED claim is made by Zoe Williams in today's "Guardian", and can be read here.
 Speaking generally, there is a more pressing point that occurs to me: OFSTED has been in existence since 1992. During that time, it has inspected thousands of schools, observed tens of thousands of lessons, produced staggering amounts of paperwork, spent vast amounts of taxpayers' money and driven some  teachers to suicide. If schools really are wrongly labelling children as having special educational needs, why has it taken the ever-vigilant OFSTED so long to discover it?

Burning the Koran

 I rarely praise politicians, but I must say that world leaders are to be congratulated for condemning the proposed Koran burning in Florida on the 11th of this month. Pastor Terry Jones, the instigator of this event, appears to have learned none of the lessons that have been learned, at great cost, by our military and political leaders. Sorry to sound wise after the event, but even at the time of 9/11, I thought that the attacks were meant as provocations, intended to propel the USA and her allies into some kind of precipitate action. Unless Bin Laden and his cronies are idiots, they must have known that there would be a powerful military intervention against them, and would have planned for it. Well, in war, you don't do what your enemies want you to do. 9 years down the line, I think we've done just that, paying a huge cost in lives, money and material, two countries have been devastated - and we still haven't caught Bin Laden. Still, light is beginning to shine, realisation of what kind of enemy we are dealing with is growing, and President Obama is 100% correct to say that the proposed Koran burnings will cause a "bonanza" in recruitment for Al-Qaeda. If Bin Laden has any money left, he'll be sending it to Pastor Jones in grateful payment for helping the cause.

Tony and Harold - Two of a Kind?

In case you hadn't noticed, Tony Blair was signing copies of his memoirs, called "A Journey", in Dublin today. He seems capable of dividing opinion everywhere; there were angry protesters outside the book store, and admirers who wanted a signed copy of his book inside. Christopher Mayer, who was our ambassador in Washington, shortly after 9/11, has written critically of Blair in today's "Daily Mail". Mayer makes the point that: "...memoirs usually seek to skew history in the writer's favour and all are self-serving to some degree". He goes on to allege that Blair seems still to  want to be "...a player on the world stage", and writes some interesting material about Blair's support for George Bush in the launching of the so-called "War on Terror".
What I find interesting is the fact that we have seen self-seeking memoirs by an ex-Labour PM before. At university, I had the good fortune (!) to read Harold Wilson's account of his time in office. There are some interesting parallels between these two Labour politicians. Wilson, like Blair, was a controversial figure when PM.Both took office after a lengthy period of Conservative tenure in government. Like Blair, Wilson tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to negotiate peace between all parties in Northern Ireland. Like Blair, his term as PM was dogged by scandals about his cabinet colleagues (eg, John Stonehouse). Also, at that time the USA was engaged in a war- in Viet-Nam. Unlike Blair, however, Wilson steadfastly refused, publicly, to send British troops to fight in Viet-Nam, despite American pressure. Right-Wing American politicians never forgave Wilson for (as they saw it) failing to help an ally.
Or did he? There are numerous eyewitness accounts of British SAS soldiers being deployed against the Viet-Cong during the Viet-Nam War. One ex-gunner told me of how one Royal Artillery battery was seconded to the Australian Army in Viet-Nam, and no-one ever found out about it. All of which points to another similarity between these two Labour politicans, though Wilson seems to have been the more able politician - or was he just more cunning?

Does anyone hope to get Blair's book for Christmas?

Christmas is coming...already?

We've all heard the refrain: "Christmas comes early every year", but even I was surprised today, when I visited our local Marks & Spencer branch. To my amazement, they were selling Christmas cards (£5-00 for 20). And it's not even September! I don't know whether anyone else has noticed the early signs of Christmas anywhere, but if you have - isn't this just a little too soon? It might, of course, be a sign of desperation by the stores. They must be so desperate to maintain turnover, that they want to corner the Christmas market early. What next? Will pubs and hotels be taking Christmas party bookings in June? When will we start to hear Slade and Jona Lewey singing in Sainsbury's? The possibilities are boundless. Oh dear...

Osama and the Chimera

I hate to admit it, but I wasn't sure what a "chimera" was, until I looked it up online. I came across several meanings, two of which I thought of interest. Here is one: " a mythical fire-breathing monster with the head of a lion, body of a goat, and tail of a serpent". Right - and here's another:" a grotesque product of the imagination". For some reason, this made me think of the ever elusive Osama Bin Laden, who stands (somewhere- or is he bedridden?) as one of the greatest monsters of our time. The fact that no-one seems to have the remotest idea where he is, or even if he is alive or dead, makes me wonder if he is, perhaps, a product of a paranoid imagination, like bogeymen, trolls - or chimeras. But of course, I exaggerate. He must be alive - isn't that why Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded? Now, as we all know, US combat troops left Iraq this week, with their mission (hopefully) accomplished. British troops left some time ago. The war goes on in Afghanistan, of course, but there is hope for a withdrawal of NATO troops in the not-too-distant future. As things stand, they will probably leave without finding Bin Laden. Whether this is important or not, we are not told.
 Some things are clear, however. About 7 000 NATO troops (mostly American) have died in both theatres. For exact figures (so far) see here.  Civilian casualty figures are disputed, but run into six figures. Another grim statistic is that about 200 000 US personnel who have served in Iraq have developed various mental health problems. I have no similar figures for UK troops, but they must be high. Then, of course, there are the wounded and disabled. If Bin Laden set out to cause mass bloodshed, mayhem and damage to the West, then he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. And (if alive), he may still escape capture.
If Bin Laden wears socks against the cold, he must laugh them off his feet every night.

George and the Dictator

It's very rare for me to read the "Times", but as I made a long train journey today, I bought a copy to pass the time. One article that caught my attention was by one Martin Fletcher, with the title: "Galloway meets Ahmadinejad - a shameful sight". As George Galloway ("GG") and the repressive regime in Iran have featured in my postings before, I read the article with interest. It seems that GG hosts a weekly programme called "The Real Deal" on Press TV. For those who have never heard of Press TV, it is an English language TV channel run by the regime in Iran. Others may be unaware of GG's interest in the media - he also hosts a radio programme on Talk Sport radio which I have only ever listened to for a few minutes. I became very bored with GG reading letters from admirers telling him how wonderful he was. I've not seen his interview with President Ahmadinejad (much as I'd like to), but Fletcher's account of it sounds typical of GG. He asked the Iranian dictator "patball questions", ie, easy questions to answer. He avoided asking any awkward questions (such as "Why did your security forces shoot down opposition demonstators last year?"), and prefaced his one question about Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani (see below) with the words: "Every so often an issue comes along which is seized on by enemies of Iran and magnified...". Martin Fletcher comments: "It was a performance more demeaning even than Mr Galloway's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother as a cat."I agree with that conclusion, but I wonder if GG has another agenda at work? He must be aware that there will be widespread criticism of this so-called "interview", as there has been criticism of his previous escapades. Personally, I think he revels in it - it always seems to me that he enjoys controversy, as it provides him with publicity and boosts his ego. Anyone who doubts that GG has an overweening ego should listen to his radio programme. Like Gloria Swanson, he knows that: "Good publicity is great, bad publicity is good - no publicity is awful!". And let's face it - without the heat and dust he stokes up, who would notice Mr Galloway anyway? No, like I have said about Jonathan Ross, I believe GG to be an operator, out to further his own ends. The difference between them lies in the fact that Ross is said to have cultivated Media Moguls; Mr Galloway prefers tyrants and dictators. Well, as the old saying goes: "A man is known by the company he keeps".

Cracking Down on Benefit Fraud - Again?

Mr Originality, aka David Cameron, is at it again. With all the appearance of having found something outrageous that has gone unnoticed before, he has declared his intention of taking decisive action against benefit cheats. In his own words to an audience in Manchester today, he boldly stated:
"There are some people who are claiming welfare who are not entitled to it and that is just wrong and that should stop. Both things, fraud and error, go together and I want to cut them both."
Er - am I wrong in finding this all a little familiar? I seem to recall that back in the 1970s, newpapers like the Sun were always banging on about "Costa del Dole" and "Social Security Scroungers". It has been a recurring theme at Tory Party conferences for decades, yet they never seem to be able to eradicate the problem, or even reduce it. So what has the PM come up with? Well, as it says on the news, he's going to use private credit rating firms, offering them a dividend from the money they save in tracking down the cheats. As one firm, Experian, estimates that it can save £1 billion, that should make for a handsome profit.
 What I wonder about is this: why hire private firms to deal with this problem when there already exists a full time, highly experienced force of Government employees to do the job? Or will they be joining the people they now investigate?

Death for Adultery?

I copied this from a US website called "Care2 Action Center":

"In May 2006, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43-year-old mother of two children, was sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for adultery. Her conviction was based on a forced confession that she later retracted.
She has received a temporary reprieve from stoning, but now Iran's judiciary has changed her charges and sentence to execution by hanging. The Iranian regime has changed the method of execution and executed prisoners in the past without informing their families and without public notice."
I am sure that everyone who reads this will be as horrified as I am. The fact that a human being can face death for what must be one of the most common lapses in judgement made by married men and women the world over is utterly outrageous.If everyone in the world who committed adultery was executed, tens of thousands of people would have to die. Even if this lady did commit adultery - and it is disputed - there appears to be a double standard at work in Iran. I am reliably informed that Iran's Revolutionary Guards regularly extract sexual favours from so-called "dissident" women (and others) in return for not arresting or harassing them. Let's hope that this poor woman can be helped by international pressure. She is by no means an isolated case of human rights abuse in Iran, which can be verified by visiting the Amnesty International website by clicking on the logo on this page, and then clicking on "Iran". 
And this is the lady concerned:

The New Diplomacy

I have to admit, our Prime Minister has an original way of doing things. Besides his way of managing the economy by cutting everything in sight, he is now giving object lessons in how he thinks we should conduct diplomacy with one of our principal partners in "The War on Terror". In spite of the fact that we need Pakistan's support against the Taliban, he has now offended the Pakistani Government by declaring that: "we cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that [Pakistan] is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror". Quite how Pakistan is exporting terror, when Pakistan itself is a victim of terror attacks, is not clear. The actual culprits in Pakistan are thought to be the ISI - Pakistan's Intelligence Service. This may be true, but where is Mr Cameron's evidence, and is being a "loudmouth" (David Miliband's phrase) the right way to deal with the matter?
Below, I show a new picture of the Prime Minister.

A Crime to be Old?

I don't want to sound like a columnist for the "Daily Mail", but feel that I must comment upon the light sentencing of the two teenage killers of the late  Ekram Haque, 67, who was attacked in August 2009 in Tooting as he left a mosque with his 3 year old grand-daughter. He died from his injuries a week later. His killers,
Leon Elcock, 16, and Hamza Lyzai, 15, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in June at the Old Bailey.
Elcock was detained for four-and-a half years and Lyzai for three-and-a-half. That's 8 years between them. Not much of an exchange for the death of an innocent man, a small child traumatised and a family devastated. Both Elcock and Lyzai will be back on the streets before their 21st birthdays. No wonder Mr Haque's son Arfan, 35, said outside court: "I thought justice has not been served today. I have been really let down." In that, I must agree - in fact, we have all been let down.
    But there is another, more sinister, angle to all this: Elcock, with another youth, had taken part in another attack on old people, and was on bail for this offence when he killed Mr Haque. It seems that a couple in their 70s, Jasumati and Jushbhai Patel, asked the boys not to sit on their wall, and were then punched and stamped upon in their own home.For youths like Elcock, then, the elderly are fair targets for violence. This is worrying, because, even among the more violent tearaways that I knew in my youth, thuggery against old people was regarded as contemptible and cowardly. Elcock and his ilk do not seem to subscribe to this belief. Perhaps they see being old as a greater crime? Photographs of individuals can tell a story - if not the whole story. The photographs of Elcock and Lyzai below suggest a story to me - one without a happy ending.

Working Class Victim or Just Plain Evil?

Like most people who were shocked at the gun spree of Raoul Moat, and like the Prime Minister, I am sickened at the setting up of a Facebook tribute (twice) to this thug, rapist and murderer. What I want to ask here is: why do people want to pay tribute to a man who has committed such heinous deeds? George Galloway, ex- MP, offered this explanation, quoted by the BBC:
He said: "I think it is a cry from the heart from poor, white, working class, unemployed people who are drifting on to dangerous shores.
"They hate the government, they hate the police, they hate society and feel left behind."
While I accept that many people who belong to what was once described by sociologists (do we still have any?) as "the unskilled working class", may feel abandoned, this does not explain (still less excuse) Moat's murder of an innocent man, blinding of a police officer, or Moat's well-documented abuse of women. Evil deeds are evil deeds, and to try to justify them in neo-Marxist terms is totally reprehensible.

Jonathan Ross - a Cultural Icon?

I can just imagine the response to the question above! Mr Ross seems capable of dividing opinion, but even his admirers would baulk at that proposition. But I'll come to that.
   In this week's "Radio Times", Mark Lawson (Radio 4) and Quentin Letts (Daily Mail), take widely differing views on the lad from Leytonstone. Mr Lawson says that Ross: "...was a fresh, irreverent TV natural who changed British broadcasting". Mr Letts, on the other hand, says that Ross: "...has long embodied the predictable, sarcastic silliness of so many baby-boomers. The BBC is well shot of him."
  Both men make telling points for and against "Wossie", but I think that both have missed something about him that is highly pertinent. JR is a shrewd operator who likes to come out on top. He picks his targets with care and is careful never to upset the right people. Like a playground bully, he only ever attacks easy targets, such as Mrs Thatcher, with his smutty questioning of David Cameron. Then there was his sexist humiliation of Gwyneth Paltrow and Keeley Hawes and his (and Russell Brand's) notorious baiting of Andrew Sachs over his granddaughter. None of these people were any threat to JR, which goes some way to explain why he felt free to insult them.
    And yet - Ross had no scruples about appearing in a programme from Buckingham Palace, where he unctuously (and nauseatingly) fawned about the Queen. Also, as Quentin Letts points out: "...Mr Sarcastic was a soft touch for Hollywood PR agents." As the old saying goes, JR knew on which side his bread was buttered. He is no liberal iconoclast, as far as I can see, nor is he a chirpy East End baby boomer. I think he is well aware of what he is doing, and perhaps his excesses are carefully prepared moves in preparation for something else - like a move to ITV. In short, I think both Lawson and Letts are wrong about JR; he is a cynical opportunist who will stop at nothing to get what he wants - even to the extent of harassing a harmless old man like Andrew Sachs.
  But is he a cultural icon? Well, yes, he is in a way. He is a rich man who stands as an example of what can be achieved by self-promotion, grovelling and being nasty to people. No wonder so many young people believe they can acquire fame and fortune without hard work.

England Expects - Perhaps Too Much?

Am I alone in thinking that the wailing and gnashing of teeth about England's exit from the World Cup is something of an overreaction? To read the press (all of it) and to hear the bitter comments of returning England fans on the TV, you would think it was a national disaster on the scale of the fall of Singapore, 1942. While I can understand that fans who have spent a lot of money to travel to South Africa are fed up about their early return, the reaction of so many to losing one football match is quite baffling. It seems to be taken as a national humiliation and a sign of loss of virility - and it's not. Aftter all, England beat Australia at cricket and Andy Murray went through to his next round at Wimbledon. Why don't we celebrate events of that kind?

 In my opinion, international football has become an unhealthy national obsession which leads to unrealistic expectations of England International players.  I think that those expectations are part of the problem, as the players are so clearly aware of what is (unfairly) expected of them. Let's save our soul-searching and scapegoating for something (and someone) else. These men in the picture below are not dealing drugs, helping the Taliban or cutting public spending. In a few weeks time, they will be heroes to their home club supporters all over again. Let's save our opprobrium for the real villains who blight our lives.

The Mad Axeman Has Struck!

Well, he's done it. The Chancellor has followed the dictates of Thatcherite Ideology and has launched an undisguised attack on the public sector. The answer to the crimes and bungling of avaricious bankers would appear to lie in punishing those of us who work for national and local government.
The cuts will slash an average of 25% from all department budgets – save for the NHS and overseas aid, which the coalition has protected – and that average figure will only be reduced if more than the target of £11bn can be cut from the welfare bill.
All affected public services now face a nervous summer awaiting the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, on 20 October, which will dictate the precise cuts in each area. The chancellor indicated that schools and military spending would be the first to be protected after the NHS and aid but that means that higher and adult education, the police and prisons are now even more in the firing line.
The amount the UK owes stands at (about) £135bn. These cuts will save a mere £11bn. I wonder where the other £124bn will be found?

 The Mad Axeman

The Mad Axeman Cometh

I have to admit, this government does not believe in wasting time. Already, they have announced £2 billion in cuts which, presumably, will do us the world of good. Even better news of course, is that there are worse cuts to come. With all the talk about the necessity of tightening our belts and near-masochistic ramblings about living within our means, it should be remembered that none of this crisis is the fault of ordinary people living lives of excess, but bad gambling by a bunch of greedy bankers. These initial cuts will cost a lot of workers their jobs; the cuts to come will cost us a lot more. I enclose below a picture of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:

Bloody Sunday - Prosecutions?

The report on the Bloody Sunday shootings of 1972 will be read to Parliament tomorrow. The inquiry has lasted for years and has cost millions of pounds - mostly in lawyers' fees. Has it been worth it? While the relatives of the 14 people shot dead understandably want justice, will justice be served by (possibly) jailing ex-soldiers nearly 40 years after the event? After all, both Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries guilty of crimes during the Troubles have been released. What views do we have?

Murder in Cumbria

Like everyone else, I'm stunned at the slaughter in Cumbria. I don't often agree with David Cameron, but he's right to say that our thoughts should be with the victims and their families. He is also correct to say that we should not rush into "knee-jerk", populist, firearms legislation. I was once a handgun owner, but surrendered my weapons and ammunition, as required by law, after the Dunblane Massacre. At the time, I didn't think it would stop such a massacre happening again, and, to my sorrow, I was right. Nor has it prevented a rise in handgun murders; illegal firearms are more plentiful than ever. In the understandable emotional reaction to yesterday's horrific events, there will be calls for even tighter firearms legislation. I have to say: it won't work. No Act of Parliament can prevent an individual's slide into madness (such as Derrick Bird, below). Nor will it stop criminals getting their hands on firearms - or selling them to anyone who wants them.

The Killer, Derrick Bird

The Decline of the Pop Song

With the honourable exceptions of the Kaiser Chiefs and Franz Ferdinand (and to an extent, Coldplay), the pop song, lyrically and musically, seems to be in decline. About 10 years ago, Pete ("the Hitman") Waterman said that there were only 3 types of song in pop music:
1. "Baby I Love You"
2. "Baby I'm leaving You"
3. "Baby I'm Coming Back to You".
Somewhat limiting, but at least they were ABOUT something. Current lyrics, by Leona Lewis, Cheryl Cole etc, don't seem to be about anything. They read like they have been produced by a computer - and some people say they are! Age and memory play tricks, but to me, songs written before (about) 1995 could lay claims to being art. Not now. What views do we have?

Fighting the Cuts to Come

I turned 60 a couple of weeks ago, which entitles me to free travel around London and I no longer have to pay for prescriptions. Perhaps unwisely, I sent an email to friends about it, and one replied with the question:
"Don't you think some of these perks will be victims of the cuts soon?"
This was an uncomfortable question, but there is a valid point in the asking of it.  The Coalition have started planning cuts already - and this is just the beginning. For ordinary people, there is a real risk that the Welfare State, which we have subsidised with our taxes all our working lives, is to be subjected to a severe reduction in staff and services. And this all because of the greed and opportunism of a bunch of avaricious bankers. As  these cuts will have  seriously adverse effects, perhaps we should be planning to resist them. So - how do we fight back? All ideas welcome!

Better Late Than Never?

It really is heartening news to learn that Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, both contenders for the Labour leadership, now think that the invasion of Iraq was "a mistake". I seem to remember that about 1000 000 people marched through London before the invasion in 2003, and not much notice was taken of them. We all make mistakes, of course, but the passage of seven years before you discover you've made them seems rather a long time. What do we make of this discovery by messrs Balls and Miliband?

Does the X Factor Make You Cross?

Last week, I read an interview with Annie Lennox in the London "Metro". Among other things, she said that the only real winners in TV shows such as the X Factor and American Idol were the shows themselves, not the contestants. She also said that she would never have done well, had she ever gone on the show herself. I have to admit, originality does NOT work on shows like this. I often wonder what Simon Cowell would have made of the young Bob Dylan. Besides which, so many so-called "winners" of these shows soon lapse back into obscurity (Whatever happened to Shane wotsisname?), while the people who run these shows are doing very nicely, thankyou. So what do we think? Are these shows valuable outlets for undiscovered talent, such as Susan Boyle, Leona Lewis and Cheryl Cole? Or are they simply glorified karaoke sessions out of which a handful of cynical individuals make a great deal of money?

Meet the New Boss!

So, David Cameron becomes our new PM, albeit with the support of Nick Clegg and the LibDems (not all of whom are happy about the deal). How long this Coalition will last is a matter of some conjecture, as such arrangements are very often prone to severe strain. Examples include the Popular Front governments in France and Spain before the war, and the Lib-Lab pact in this country more recently. As George Orwell noted in "Homage to Catalonia", the Popular Front in Spain was "an alliance of enemies". This Tory-LibDem Coalition might not be that deeply internally divided, but there are many in both parties who loathe what the other party stands for. So - what do we think? Will this new alliance be a success, or can we look forward to another General Election before too long?

Back to Politics - Deal or No Deal for Nick Clegg?

Now the Election is over - where do we go from here? At first glance, the LibDems have  not done as well as might have been expected. In fact, however, they are in a very strong position, for the obvious reason that Labour and Conservative will need to make a deal in order to govern. What should happen now? All views very welcome.

The Gulf of Mexico Oil Slick

Yet another environmental disaster strikes the world, with the same devastating consequences for wild life and regional industries. BP admits responsibility, but says that it is not to blame for the accident which sank the rig on 22nd April. President Obama is insisting that BP must pay the bill for the clean-up. No-one is saying much about the 11 or so workers killed in the accident. What should be done now? Must the world accept that these disasters must happen as part of the price we pay for oil? Is the price too high, given the environmental and human consequences? All comments welcome.

Who's Winning the War on Terror?

The attempted bomb attack in Times Square has prompted me to ask the above question because the answer seems to be "not us". It's now nearly ten years since 9/11, after which, the then President Bush and the then Prime Minister Tony Blair launched their military incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq. Since then, thousands of people of many nationalities, mostly innocent civlians, have been killed, maimed or driven out of their homes. Vast amounts of money have been spent on the war effort. Yet still we are told that this is being done in our name and is protecting us from terrorist plots. I don't know who was behind the incident in New York (it might not have been Jihadis), but it certainly highlights the fact that terrorists don't need a base in Afghanistan or Iraq to launch operations in the USA or Europe. The 7/7 bombers certainly didn't. So: is the War on Terror a wasteful, failed effort, or is it keeping things from getting worse? All views very welcome here.

Is the Blues a Dying Art Form?

Time, I think, for a posting about music. Some time back,  I saw a TV programme in which Steven Fry visited Chicago. While there, he met Buddy Guy, who told him how the Chicago Blues scene was in steep decline, with many local Blues clubs having closed down. Steven Fry drew the conclusion that the Blues was "a dying art form". On the surface, this may be appear to be true, but I remember what Frank Zappa said about Jazz in the 1970s: "Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny". Yet Jazz has survived and thrived.
   So - is the Blues dying, or will it endure? All views welcome - especially from musicians!

Does Britain Still Need a Nuclear Deterrent?

There probably is no better time to debate this than now, with a General Election imminent and swingeing cuts in public spending sure to follow. Following Chas King's welcome posting, in which he expressed his support for the retention of nuclear weapons, I think it is a matter that should be discussed. On the one hand, there is no longer a Cold War, and the money spent on nuclear weapons could be better spent elsewhere. On the other hand, is it wise to scrap nuclear weapons when "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea are acquiring them? What views do we hold on the subject?

Why are our Pubs Closing Down?

Changing to what I think is a serious cultural matter, I am alarmed at reports that I hear of pub closures throughout the UK. Public houses have been a part of our heritage for generations, and it is deeply distressing to see pubs which I have known all my life being closed down. Why is this happening? All answers welcome.

Three Cheers for Democracy?

I said that I would take my time about starting a debate on this new blog of mine (well, my first ever!), but temptation has got the better of me. The impending General Election seemed too hot a topic to ignore. When I discuss it with people, I find a mixed sense of cynicism and apathy, and have to say that I share that feeling to some extent. However, if we let our understandable distrust of politicians and the political system lead to abstaining from voting, then I believe we  put democracy at some risk. Remember also that there is one political party that would like to abolish elections altogether - even though they are coy about saying so.
    So, here goes: I shall vote on May 6 - without much enthusiasm, but I still give three cheers for democracy.
 What do others think? All contributions welcome.