"How They Broke Britain" by James O'Brien - an Ideal Present

Well, it's getting a bit late to buy any presents for Christmas Day, but if you have time, or, if reading this after Christmas, you might consider buying James O'Brien's latest book: "How They Broke Britain". If you don't know of James, he is a talk show presenter on LBC to whom I listen regularly (if not always all the way through the programme). He has been called "The conscience of liberal Britain" by the New Statesman and I agree with that verdict. Through the rancour of the Brexit debate, the national disgrace of the Johnson years, the insanity of the Liz Truss visit to Downing Street and the present incessant wrangling of the Sunak government, his voice has rung out as a clear, impassioned voice of opposition in this country. In fact, at times it has felt like he is the only voice of opposition in this country. As he is openly detested by a number of Tory politicians, especially Nadine Dorries and Suella Braverman, it testifies to his effectiveness.

His latest book sets out how ten key figures from our political past and present have created the political culture that permeates most of the media, the upper echelons of the Conservative Party and blights the lives of the rest of us. This a culture not simply "right-wing", but has celebrated rule-breaking, endorsed social divisiveness and tolerated outrageous lapses in public behaviour by leading public figures. O'Brien describes his book as "...an attempt to record and explain the creation of an ecosystem in which dishonesty could flourish and facts wither...what was once unthinkable has become almost unremarkable." 

The creation of this ecosystem, which, to me, is an accurate description, is related by the stories of ten key individuals, nine of the Right and one of the Left: Rupert Murdoch, Paul Dacre, Andrew Neil, Matthew Eliot, Nigel Farage, David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn, Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. O'Brien has said of his decision to include Corbyn because : "...he is not in any way responsible for creating the ecosystem in which the awful stuff happened. But the unelectable has to bear some responsibility for the triumph of the unconscionable.” As someone who criticised JC for not making a stronger stand against Brexit, I concur in that verdict. Interestingly, none of the ten accused have yet passed comment or attempted to refute O'Brien's attacks.

As well they might not, as James backs up his attacks with formidable research. He has been criticised, most notably in The Guardian, for not coming up with anything new, but I believe this to be wrong. I have learned, for instance, in the Matthew Eliot chapter, of how widespread is the influence of so-called "think-tanks" (aka right-wing lobby groups) in successive Tory governments. Theresa May, a Remainer, had two advisers who were senior members of Vote Leave. They also have an abiding presence in the press - specifically the Murdoch press. As Hasan Akram comments: "...O’Brien’s revelations about the Murdoch-owned media and the Daily Mail under Paul Dacre certainly deserve to be public knowledge. He demonstrates several links, some of which date back to the Thatcher era, between the interests of the Murdoch press and Conservative Party policy. The way in which ideological and commercial agendas are set above the truth is frankly disgusting."

Perhaps the most entertaining chapter is that about dear old Nigel Farage. NF is shown as a more polished version of Nick Griffin, who tried to make the policies of the British National Party (BNP) more acceptable by toning down their presentation. James sees Nigel Farage as Griffin's successor - "...favouring the same tunes but with subtly different words". During Farage’s schooldays, one of his teachers wrote, in 1981, that a colleague had said  that: "...Farage was a fascist, but that was no reason why he would not make a good prefect". In 2016, he played the martyr with a  fictional “assassination attempt” in France, foreshadowing his publicity/sympathy seeking antics following the closure of his bank account years later. O'Brien highlights NF's contrived eyewitness accounts of how eastern Europeans were swarming over Britain, and numerous examples are given of his mendacity, as well as his disgusting statement that Brexit had been achieved without a shot being fired, shortly after the murder by shooting of Jo Cox, M.P. This excellent chapter leaves us bewildered at the fact that this man was allowed to appear so often on Question Time and able  to exert so much influence over our politics. Farage is  responsible for what O’Brien calls the “Faragification” of the Tory Party and its perceptible shift to the far Right.

Another outstanding chapter for me, and I'll bet for all of us, is the chapter on Boris Johnson. O'Brien says of our last but one PM: "He (Johnson) has shown us all exactly what can happen when newspaper editors and proprietors abnegate any responsibility to hold politicians to account." Johnson's promiscuity, as well as his lying, is well known, but O'Brien mentions it in detail as he should. What I did not know about Boris is what an obnoxious snob he was - well into his 20s (and I bet now). The writer, Damian Furniss, was at Oxford with  both Bojo and David Cameron. He recalled his first encounter with Boris, in a Facebook post quoted by O'Brien. Furniss was a working class lad with a stammer. On his first visit to Oxford, he encountered Bojo in the college bar: "...his piss-taking was brutal...he mocked my speech impediment, my accent, my school, my dress sense, my haircut, my background, my father's work as farm hand and garage proprietor and my prospects..." Johnson did all this, says Furniss, "...to amuse his posh boy mates". From this utterly believable story, we begin to see the makings of the lying journalist, the indifference to the feelings of others and the overweening sense of privilege that Bojo brought to his political career. Perhaps, though, the most telling points that O'Brien makes is how so many influential figures in the Tory party and the media were ready to forgive his misdemeanours. O'Brien says: "The hypocrisy of Paul Dacre, Charles Moore, Tony Gallagher or any Conservative MP demonising "single mothers" while cheering a politician who made a hobby of creating them is clear".

Now, as I said above, Rachel Cooke, of The Guardian, has written a friendly/critical review of the book which I think needs to be answered. Ms Cooke says: "... I often bridled as I read. In part, this had to do with the book’s material, which mostly isn’t new. Yes, its author has done a lot of reading. But he relies almost entirely for his text on the hard labour – the investigations, and the thinking – of others..."

I think this to be a misplaced criticism, although Ms Cooke is accurate in her comments. Where I part company is to point out that James O'Brien has provided us with an invaluable potted history of all that has gone wrong in our political life. Our memories fade, but, in happier times to come (please!) this excellent book will always refresh our memories of what it was like under the Tories. For the moment, though, we need to eject them from power, and this book will help to spur us on (well, at least me).

Anyone wanting to buy the book now has about six hours of Christmas Eve left to do it. Still, if you are given a voucher, it will make an excellent present for yourself or, if you can get away with it, and you have right-wing Brexiteer relatives, you could give a copy of the book to them and watch their reaction. From a safe distance, of course!

"La, la, la, la!" - but who's the bigger lala of the two?

The Rhymes and Routes Christmas Message, 2023

 

The Rhymes and Routes Christmas Message this year comes from Lee Anderson, M.P. for Ashfield. Mr Anderson's remarks are edited where good taste necessitates it.

Oh, my good god! Is it Christmas already? Well, as if I didn't have enough to do, I agreed to post a Christmas message on this sodding little blog. I was having a drink in the Commons bar with Jakey Rees-Mogg. He did it last year, and he reckons he got a hard time for it. Well, the SWP riff-raff, or some other bloody ultra leftie woke bunch who run this damn blog, won't get away with it from me. Let's be clear on that! 30p Lee's arrived, got that? 

Now, a lot's happened this year, and I want to set the record straight about a few things. First, a lot of you selfish buggers never stop complaining about the cost of living, so hearken well to me. The economy of this country has never been better!!! As I explained in Birmingham: 

"Go in any Wetherspoons, that’s the barometer of how this country is doing, when Wetherspoons is empty we’ve got a big problem.”

There you are, common bloody sense - what do we need the sodding experts for? Like I said, when Wetherspoons is empty, that's the time to worry. If you're short of money for Christmas shopping, don't go to Wetherspoons over Christmas. I hope that's clear.

Now, there was some bloody nonsense about what I said about nurses going to food banks. Do you remember what I said? 

“I heard some nonsense a few weeks back that nurses were actually stealing food off patients’ plates...Anybody earning 30 odd grand a year, which most nurses are, using food banks, then they’ve got something wrong with their own finances.”

(Mr Anderson's MP salary is £84, 114 - Blogmeister)

I'm getting warmed up now! My friend and GB News colleague, Nigel Farage, who has suffered a number of attacks on this blog over the years, has just texted to have a go about immigration. Well, NF, as I call him, I'll come to that. (Mr Anderson omits to say that his job at GB News, to which he alludes, brings him a salary of £100, 000 a year - Blogmeister)

Instead, cast your minds back to me first programme on wonderful GB News. I fed my mate, Brendan Clarke-Smith, an impartial Tory MP, some supermarket brand baked beans. The poor bloke had been attacked by the wokerati for saying that they were a cheaper option to Heinz, and that would save money! He said the beans I fed him were cold, but it got his point across. If people are as hard up as they say they are, why do they still buy Heinz beans?

Next, this bloody stupid silly calling of me as "30p Lee" needs explaining. This is what I tweeted on X :  "Again for the doubters.6p each, just chuck on 10p worth of milk. Milk at Tesco £1.65 for 4 pints.".

( The 6p each refers to Tesco wheat biscuits. A daily diet of one such meal a day is hardly nourishing. It certainly makes for a substandard Christmas dinner - Blogmeister).

As you readers will have gathered by now, I'm a plain-spoken man of the people, and everything I say is grounded in common sense. And right. As an ex-miner, I stand up for what I believe. Now I'm a Tory (used to be Labour) I stand by me colleagues. Lat year, I stood up for Queasy Kwarteng when he were accused of a u-turn over the 45p tax threshold , saying it was a change in direction ( that were good. I'm proud of that). And I've not been scared to get physical when need be. I have had run-ins outside Parliament with a Remainer bugger called Steve Bray. I've challenged him to a boxing match to be televised by GB News. Don't miss it - if it happens (an edifying prospect - Blogmeister).

Now, I'd like to say a word or two about immigrants and asylum seekers. I've had a long consultation with NF and he says I should set the record straight about what I said regarding asylum seekers. I know the commie b-----d Blogmeister and his pinko chum Rednev have attacked me over this but I were only talking common sense. Yes, I said that them as didn't want to go to that Bibby barge could "F---  off back to France". Aye, and I said in the Express:  

"I think people have just had enough. These people come across the Channel in small boats... if they don't like the conditions they are housed in here then they should go back to France, or better not come at all in the first place."

The Bullshit Blogmeister and many others complained to the government, but, like good mates, Rishi and the gang stood by me. Like my pal, Alex Chalk, said : 

"The justice secretary was speaking on behalf of the government. That is the response".

Well that's yer lot! There's nothing you herberts can do to touch me! I am f-----g fireproof. Anyway, if there are any sensible people out there, in other words, folk who agree with me - Merry Christmas and remember to vote Tory in the happy new year.

For them as doesn't like what I've said, you can all F--- off!

Blogmeister replies: I find it difficult to thank you for your message, Mr Anderson, so I won't bother. I can only assure all readers that you will never write the Christmas message again. I will sum up my feelings, and the feelings of many, by re-posting the image below.

Hamas, Israel and the Truths Unsaid

 

The man in the photo above is named Moussa Abu Marzouk. He is a senior Hamas official who was interviewed by the BBC on or around the 6th of this month. Questioned about Hamas atrocities on October 7th, he made the astounding claim that Hamas fighters on October 7th did not kill women and children. Even in a world of alternative facts, I am sure that most people would find this incredible. As the BBC says: 

"Challenged by the BBC about the attack of 7 October, Mr Marzouk claimed that Mohamed el-Deif, the leader of Hamas's Qassam Brigades military wing, had ordered his men to spare civilians.
"El-Deif clearly told his fighters 'don't kill a woman, don't kill a child and don't kill an old man'," he said."

As we know, there is an abundance of evidence to prove this denial to be absurd beyond measure. There are eyewitness accounts that are horrific in their details. There is CCTV evidence and footage from Hamas body cameras that are equally horrific to watch, all collected and collated by the cream of international  media. People unfamiliar with the mind workings of terrorists and their apologists will possibly attribute Mr Marzouk's statements to psychotic ramblings, a self-deluding personality disorder, or simple mendacity. But of course, there is another explanation, to which we shall return later.

What we must note here is the fact that Mr Marzouk's mendacity went largely unnoticed. The reason for this, of course, was Israel's invasion of Gaza and the huge civilian death toll. This is perfectly understandable. As Amnesty International (AI) secretary-general, Agnes Callamard said in October:

“In their stated intent to use all means to destroy Hamas, Israeli forces have shown a shocking disregard for civilian lives. They have pulverized street after street of residential buildings killing civilians on a mass scale and destroying essential infrastructure, while new restrictions mean Gaza is fast running out of water, medicine, fuel and electricity. Testimonies from eyewitness and survivors highlighted, again and again, how Israeli attacks decimated Palestinian families, causing such destruction that surviving relatives have little but rubble to remember their loved ones by,”

To be fair to Agnes Callamard , AI has condemned the Hamas atrocities. As an AI member of long standing, I am glad to see that. However, the ferocious Israeli military campaign of vengeance has killed over ten times as many Palestinians as were Israelis slain on October 7th. If Hamas is to be believed, 11, 500+ have perished. Add to this the destruction of buildings, hospitals, families and the suffering of the displaced, there would appear to be a perfect storm of reasons to ignore what one lying old terrorist said to the BBC. Surely, it may be asked, it is more important to protest against Israel's crimes, march in support of the Palestinians and demand a cease fire?

I haven't marched, although many AI members I know have done.  I do support calls for a cease fire, but condemn the picketing of Labour MPs who support the Starmer line. I believe that a cease fire is urgently needed, but it must be observed by both sides. As for marching, I would never consider marching in the company of neo-Nazis, Hamas acolytes and supporters of the Iranian government. They are a small minority of the marchers, but I know they are there. Several years ago, Iranian dissenters on a Gaza march were attacked by sympathisers of the Iranian regime. I have every sympathy for the need for a cease fire, but I doubt that either of the combatants would take any serious notice of either of our main political parties, should they call for one. I fully support the right of pro-Palestinians to demonstrate, but I won't be joining them.

There is a moral issue to be faced here, even though it's never discussed. The irrefutable fact is that it was Hamas who started the present war; had they not launched their murderous attacks on October 7th, there would have been no Israeli incursion into Gaza. The Israeli response has been ferocious and excessive, but Hamas must have known this would happen. It is my view that it was part of their strategy to lure the Israelis into a military and political morass, and that is exactly what has happened. In other words, Israel has walked into a Hamas trap, as Jonathan Freedland warned in The Guardian of October 20. The ultimate blame lies with Hamas, but the scale of Israeli retribution means that Hamas atrocities are becoming of secondary relevance to the international community.

Which brings me back to the words of Moussa Abu Marzouk. Not only do Hamas deny their outrages of October 7th, they also deny that the Holocaust against Europe's Jews happened. They joined the ranks of Holocaust deniers in a press release in 2000. The Washington Institute said at the time:

 "Many of Hamas's pamphlets have included severe anti-Semitic expressions not just against Israelis or Zionists, but against the Jews in general, with such phrases such as "sons of pigs and monkeys" being the most common. The official organ of the movement, the monthly London-based Filastin al-Muslimah, frequently presents anti-Jewish arguments, usually on a religious basis. But until this recent press release, Hamas had not denied the Holocaust, except perhaps in the leaflets issued by some of its local groups..."

Following a Holocaust Conference in Stockholm, Hamas declared in an online press release:

"The invention of these grand illusions of an alleged crime that never occurred, ignoring the millions of dead European victims of Nazism during the war, clearly reveals the racist Zionist face, which believes in the superiority of the Jewish race over the rest of the nations."

But it's not just Hamas. In August this year, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made a speech to the Fatah revolutionary Council which drew condemnation from many quarters. He said, among other things:

"They say that Hitler killed the Jews for being Jews, and that Europe hated the Jews because they were Jews. No. It was clearly explained that they fought them because of their social role and not their religion," Mr Abbas says at one point.
Later, he specifies that he was referring to the role of Jews involving "usury, money and so on".

I can find no justification for these statements. Whatever Israel has done, neo-Nazi propaganda is neo-Nazi propaganda and lies are lies. Mr Marzouk appears to be influenced by the "Big Lie" idea of the Nazis. As Josef Goebbels is supposed to have said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it".

Moussa Abu Marzouk appears to be trying to emulate Dr Goebbels. I wish him no success.

Moussa Abu Marzouk is practising a faked sincere smile. He has a lot to learn.

Hamas Strategy and The New Front Line in the UK

 Well, if my analysis of Hamas strategy in my post of Friday 13th is correct, the Hamas planning staff must be smirking with satisfaction at the present situation in Gaza. Israel, as Hamas would have expected, has launched a ferocious bombing campaign that is taking a terrible toll on innocent civilians. Current UN figures put the Gaza casualty rate at 5,087. Israel, as expected, asserts that they are launching "surgical strikes" - viewers of the plight of Gaza civilians, especially in the hospitals, understandably dismiss this. There is now worldwide protest, spearheaded by Palestinians and their allies abroad, against Israel's actions - strangely, I have noted no call for Hamas to be held to account for the October 7th atrocities, or for the release of Israeli hostages.

All this is working in Hamas's favour. The spotlight of blame has moved away from them decisively. Astutely, they have released several hostages and appear to be wanting to present themselves to the world as rational beings. But they have released only a few hostages. They have not been cowed into ending missile launches, and appear unmoved by the all-too-real possibility of an Israeli invasion. It's thought that the USA , the UK and other allies of Israel are acting as a restraining influence. This is denying Hamas what I believe to be their main war aim - to entice the IDF into a costly and bloody urban struggle, rather like the Battle of Stalingrad. The difference, of course, will be that Hamas, unlike the Red Army defenders of Stalingrad, can fade away into the civilian population after inflicting as many Israeli casualties as possible. They will return, I believe, when they have recruited a new generation of fighters, embittered by the present Israeli onslaught, and recommence the war.

Should the Israelis not invade, however unlikely that is, Hamas will consider it a victory. They will recruit more combatants to their ranks and plan for another attack. No wonder, then, that (assuming I'm right) Hamas strategists are pleased with the results of their aggression on October 7th.

But there is another area where Hamas is seeing progress and where they have much to be pleased about. It is happening here in the UK.

The first triumph for Hamas here is the rise of anti-Semitism since October 7th. The Community Security Trust (CST) has logged  89 incidents that it classed as "anti-Jewish hate" from 7-10 October. Sky News wrote on 12th October:

"This was an increase of 324% compared to the 21 antisemitic incidents recorded over the same period last year, the group (CST) said. The incidents included six assaults, three instances of damage to Jewish property, 66 related to abusive behaviour and 22 took place online".

It's got worse since the 12th. Since then, the pace and number of the attacks has grown. Some Jewish schools have closed, many Jews are frightened to walk the streets and, says The Guardian:

"...the Metropolitan police said 75 antisemitic offences occurred from 30 September to 13 October this year, while 12 were recorded in the same period in 2022. Incidents reported to police, which may include non-crimes, increased sevenfold year on year, from 14 to 105".

Besides this, there has been a rise in Islamophobic violence. Reuters comment, noting the rise in violence:

"London police said on Friday they had recorded a 1,353% increase in antisemitic offences this month compared to the same period last year, while Islamophobic offences were up 140% in the wake of the attack by Hamas on Israel".

An example of the Islamophobic/anti-Palestinian backlash was noted by the BBC on the 20th:

"Hello, do you do takeaway?
"OK. I'll come over and take away your life."
This is the shocking kind of conversation that is repeatedly taking place at Shakeshuka - a Palestinian takeaway in London - amid a wave of abuse being suffered by Islamic communities in the capital.
A barrage of threatening calls has been sparked by the recent surge in violence in the Middle East.
Threats have left some staff too frightened to go into work, and the establishment has been forced to make significant changes in its operations".

Hamas have not commented on the rise in communal hatreds in this country (and abroad), but they must be pleased how what they see as their war is having detrimental effects on daily life in countries that support Israel. In fact, I think they would welcome it getting worse. It can only benefit them politically. 

But the present conflict benefits certain political groups here, also...

Taking advantage of the Gaza conflict to gain political advantage is the patron saint of Brexit, our old pal, Nigel Farage. Speaking for the far Right-but-not-fascist political element, he, and other "commentators" on GB News and elsewhere, have sided with Israel. Although I suspect that there are anti-Semites among this type, Farage has seized the opportunity to arouse fears of a refugee influx from Gaza. Deriding Hamza Yousaf's call for Palestinian refugees to be admitted to the UK, Farage writes, on the GB News website:

"Now I'm going to give you some stats from Denmark that are very shocking. In 1992, Denmark gave refuge to 321 Palestinians. By 2019, the government produced results for what had happened to them.
64% of those that have been given refuge had obtained criminal records. 34% of their children had obtained criminal records. And bear in mind, many of the children hadn't yet grown up and the vast majority were living on welfare".

A more blatant example of how to whip up hatred would be hard to find. As far as I know, the vast majority of Palestinians living in Britain are law-abiding UK citizens. There is, of course, a pro-Hamas element that scream hate slogans on pro-Palestinian marches and are undoubtedly involved in anti-Semitic attacks, but Farage's attempt to smear all Palestinian refugees is deplorable, if unsurprising. But there are other far right groups active on this front...

The British extreme right has been divided by this, and previous, Gaza conflicts. Put simply, they hate Jews and Muslims in equal measure, and struggle to decide whose side they are on. This happens abroad as well. I remember, some years ago in Berlin, neo-Nazis on a Gaza march attacked a group of anti-Zionist Jews. As Searchlight Magazine says: 

"A broad swathe of extremists, ranging from Nigel Farage to EDL founder ‘Tommy Robinson’, have tried to exploit the situation to promote Islamophobia.
At the opposite pole are some of Britain’s old-school nazis including Patriotic Alternative leader Mark Collett, who have been as antisemitic as they dare to be without breaking either the Public Order Act or the Terrorism Act.
And some racists including former BNP führer Nick Griffin have tried to pitch themselves somewhere between Robinson and Collett, taking advantage of the slaughter to stir up racial and religious hatred in all directions, while pretending that they are ‘neutral’ towards Middle East politics".

Mark Collett (seen above) might almost be regarded as the head of Hamas UK in some of his recorded utterances. In one of his blurbs on Telegram, he says:

“In the face of Zionist terror the Palestinians in Gaza are standing firm. …How any nationalist can watch this unfolding and not at the very least respect those brave souls is beyond me.”

This would seem to breach the provisions of the Terrorism Act, and, as I know very well how Collett's kindred spirits in Patriotic Alternative (PA) share his views, I believe that PA members will be active in the anti-Semitic attacks that now blight our country.

All told, then, Hamas can have great cause for satisfaction. They have perpetrated the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, provoked an Israeli retaliation so ferocious that it has drawn widespread international condemnation and, as I hope to have made clear, caused internal conflict in the lands of Israel's friends. Like I said, Hamas strategists must be smirking.

I have aimed here to provide an analysis of Hamas strategic thinking. I have sought to be objective and analytical. I apologise if I seem indifferent to these terrible events. 

"The Reckoning" - A Personal View

 

"The Reckoning", which is a four-part TV series about the late and unlamented Jimmy Savile, played by Steve Coogan, both of whom are seen above, concludes on BBC 1 tomorrow night. It has received a mixed reaction from the media, and I shall be drawing on two reviews, one from The Guardian and the other from The Independent to provide insight. I shall begin, however, by relating a personal experience that shows how much Savile was part of our national life for many years before he died.

In the very early 90s, I was teaching a Year 5 class at a school in Liverpool. Two very nice young girls wanted to send a fan letter to Sting (I forget why). Nowadays, I could find contact details on the internet, but in those days it was next to impossible to find contact details of that kind. Instead, I suggested to the girls that we could write to Jim'll Fix It, asking Savile to pass the letter on to Sting. We did, first receiving a reply from the BBC, and then one from Sting's PA, promising to ask Sting to write back to them upon his return to the UK (Sting never did write back). 

I think this illustrates the widespread trust that existed for JS at that time. Fortunately for the girls, they never met the old roue, but, after Savile was exposed as the pervert that he was, years later, I breathed a huge sigh of relief. The two girls involved will now be in their 40s, but were I  to meet them again, I would offer them an apology. Still, my story, insignificant as it is, is yet another example of how JS hoodwinked the vast majority of us, from me, all the way up to Margaret Thatcher and The Pope. 

So how did Savile do it? "The Reckoning" sets out to answer that, but has drawn criticism from before, and during screening. As we all knew, this was a highly sensitive subject, which promised to reawaken victim trauma and public revulsion at Savile's vile crimes. Yet, as The Independent says:

"... despite the obvious futility and derangement of the undertaking, BBC One has given it a go anyway... The trauma of Savile is still fresh for many of his victims, who have only had since his death in 2011 to process it openly. (It should be noted that several of them collaborate on this show and appear as talking heads.) But, more strikingly, how can you turn the story of Savile... into entertainment?

Concern for the victims in understandable, but, having watched the series, I would not class it as entertainment. After all, we watch films about wartime, based on fact, that are far more gruesome than "The Reckoning". Admittedly, there have been a number of hard-hitting documentaries made about this issue, but sometimes, dramatization can have greater impact. There are problems with that process, but we'll come to that.

The Independent goes on to say that the whole programme is founded upon the strength of Savile's charisma, which reduces all other characters in the drama to gullible dupes, apart from a perceptive view:

"In the end, it is Coogan (often a magnetic performer himself) as Savile, a whirlwind of malign glamour, that holds the eye".

I find this rather a puzzling criticism to make. After all, JS is the central character, and as Steve Coogan said about the divisive reception to the programme in "Leeds Live":

"I think that's because Jimmy Savile played a trick on the entire nation so there’s a real feeling of antagonism about it. But you need to look at someone like that to understand how they’re able to operate and to prevent it happening again. If you sweep it under the carpet and just don’t talk about it anymore, then those people are destined to come back."

And I support that; if war films remind us how terrible war is, "The Reckoning" reminds us to be alert for the return of another Savile (which God forbid).

Anyone who has not watched the programmes will naturally be concerned about how Savile's crimes are portrayed. We are dealing here with sexual abuse of all kinds, from indecent exposure to rape. However, as The Guardian says (and I agree): 

"The scenes in which he terrorises, assaults or rapes girls, young women and occasionally young men – at home, in clubs, in hospitals, anywhere – are handled very well. I don’t think I have seen many dramas that evoke that particular terror so well..".

The Guardian, though, finds that the series offers no comprehensive analysis or convincing explanation for why Savile committed his crimes. It does tentatively, and with no evidence, suggest that he felt rejected as a child by his mother - "The Duchess". The Guardian suggests that more attention should have been given:

"..to the failures of NHS staff to protect their patients at the various hospitals Savile was allowed unfettered access to, to editors caving in to pressures to shut down a Fleet Street exposé, and the many other failings by individuals and institutions.."

All these were deplorable failures, and the BBC does get off rather lightly, but dramatization can only cover so much. The Reckoning, to be fair, at least points to the need to ask further questions, as well as call for vigilance.

I do have one criticism of the programme, though...

The young lady in the photo was named Claire McAlpine. She was a regular attender of Top of the Pops  broadcast audiences, Tragically, she died from an overdose in March 1971, just 15 years old. She had been seen entering Savile's BBC dressing room more than once and had written in her diary about having sex with a presenter in a hotel. Savile was questioned after her mother discovered what had happened. True to form, he denied everything, even though a photo was produced that showed him with Claire - with his hand on the girl's bottom.

Curiously - at least to me - Claire's case is not portrayed factually in "The Reckoning". Instead, a character called Sara, a 15-year old Asian girl, played by the actress, Tia Dutt, seen below, echoes Claire's story. Sara is driven to suicide by overdose, like Claire McAlpine.

For "dramatic purposes", the BBC, when probed by the Daily Mail, decided to use the character of Sara to symbolise all of Saville's victims from his Top of the Pops days: A BBC spokesman insisted: 

'Sara is not Claire McAlpine. We know many of Savile's victims were driven to thoughts of suicide and the drama has a duty to reflect the impact of his abuse in full."

This was not accepted by businesswoman Kelly Gold, a friend of Claire McAlpine and who says that she herself was assaulted by Savile. Ms Gold says:

"I don't know why they changed Claire's character to be Asian. Also they said she left a suicide note but Claire actually left a diary, naming more than just Savile." (My italics - Blogmeister).

Mark Williams-Thomas, the investigator who blew the lid on Savile, remarked on the story:

 'It has made me very annoyed and has really undermined the integrity of the series...This massive deviation from a very important fact shows no sensitivity to Claire as a victim of abuse.'

Upon consideration, I have to agree with this point. I accept that there was a need for dramatization for artistic purposes and narrative pace, but I think that the late Claire McAlpine deserved recognition as Savile's only known fatality. This is no disrespect to the living victims, some of whom appear in the series.
 To conclude, I would refer the reader to a poll conducted about "The Reckoning" by Leeds Live. Leeds has good reason to feel sore about Savile, as Leeds Live says:  

"For many, the unmasking of Savile is still incredibly raw, particularly for those in Leeds where the former entertainer resided in Roundhay Park."

Leeds Live asked readers to vote on whether the BBC were right to screen "The Reckoning". They say:

" We’ve had an overwhelming response from our readers to the poll. Perhaps, surprising to some, 67 per cent of our audience feel the The Reckoning should have been made with 33 per cent feeling differently. These figures are correct at time of publication."

I can only end by saying that I found this programme of interest. Despite what The Independent and others say, I did gain fresh insight and food for thought. In fact, it confirmed my suspicion that Savile had been only too ready to use violence against his victims when he was young enough (there is an enjoyable scene in the final programme where a young nurse pushes the aging Savile out of her way and calls him a dirty old man). Altogether, this is a divisive programme, albeit with some fine acting, especially by Steve Coogan. This is a lame way to end, but I can only urge interested readers to watch "The Reckoning" and draw their own conclusions.

Hamas - a Provocation Too Far?

 

Like everyone else, I was surprised at the news that broke on Saturday. So much has happened in such a short time, that we've forgotten our initial shock. As Foreign Policy.com said:

"TEL AVIV, Israel—Israel is reeling from an unprecedented incursion of Hamas militants across the Gaza border early Saturday that killed at least 250 people and wounded more than 1,400, with the death toll expected to rise."

And it did. CBS News said yesterday: 

"As of Thursday afternoon, Israel's military said Hamas' attack killed more than 1,200 people, including at least 27 Americans, and left some 2,800 people wounded. At least 1,537 people, including 447 children, have been killed in Gaza by Israel's retaliatory strikes, the Gaza Ministry of Health said, adding that more than 6,000 others were wounded".

As expected, there has been justified international anger at the hideous atrocities committed by the Hamas terrorists, and now condemnation of Israeli retaliation. What has not happened is any analysis of what initiated this attack - and that, I believe, is the crucial aspect. Putting it simply: why did Hamas launch this attack, and why was it so brutal?

The answer, I believe, is that it is part of a strategy that I have detected in guerrilla/terrorist/resistance movements before. It is the use of provocation - the provocation by said movements against their stronger and/or occupying enemies. As I have said before, it goes back to the French occupation of Spain during the Napoleonic wars ("guerrilla" is a Spanish word). 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. In more recent times, it was used by Soviet partisans in "quiet" areas behind German lines in WW2. Since the war, it has been used extensively by liberation movements in post-colonial wars. The American bombing of North Viet-Nam, which strengthened support for the NVA/Viet Cong and Bloody Sunday (1972) which led to a huge increase in IRA recruitment are two examples. The Philippeville Massacre (1955), during the Algerian Civil War, saw the Algerian FLN slaughter 123 French civilians. In response, the French Army killed about 12 000 people, according to the FLN. Again, this led to an increase in recruitment and, like today, international concern and condemnation of America, Britain and France. Recently, we have seen Islamic terror organisations, including ISIS, using provocation in order to stir up Islamophobia, again, with the aim of recruiting alienated Muslims.

It hardly needs spelling out that this explains the latest Hamas action very clearly. Their atrocities against Israeli civilians, hideous as they are, I believe were part of the Hamas plan, despite their denials: As Channel Four reported:

"Challenged by Channel 4 News’ Cathy Newman that Hamas’s attacks on Israeli citizens were unprovoked, a spokesperson for the militant group said on Saturday that “we were never thinking to attack civilians”."

 This is euphemistically called being "economical with the truth". As Rajan Menon comments in The Guardian: 

"During one of my several trips to Israel, I visited Sderot, thanks to an Israeli friend who loved showing his country to non-Israelis... After Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel, a horrifying video of Sderot emerged. Gunmen from Hamas... roamed its streets in pickup trucks and on foot. They had a common purpose of shooting anyone they encountered: pedestrians, people at a bus stop, motorists and motorcyclists".

We recoil with horror at these crimes, but we need to understand that this is all part of the Hamas strategy. The horrific nature of these events is bringing about a ferocious Israeli response - and Hamas wanted this, even though it led to the deaths of many of their own fighters. And, please note, these Hamas fighters were prepared to die, which bears out the view by Alexander Solzhenitsyn that men can only commit great acts of evil when they think they are doing good.

The next strategic aim of Hamas is to exploit the understandable Israeli assaults on Gaza. As reported this morning, the Israelis are giving innocent Gaza residents 24 hours to move to the south of the Gaza Strip. Significantly (to me), Hamas are telling these residents not to go. Of course not. If all non-combatants left, Hamas would be unable to blame the Israelis for the deaths of innocent civilians. Hamas has clearly been planning for this war for some time, and will have prepared defences, and defensive plans. Part of the planning is to cause massive civilian casualties in order to elicit widespread international condemnation. Besides this, Israeli bombing will have created huge areas of ruined buildings. As the Red Army showed in WW2, ruined buildings can make formidable fortresses, difficult to capture. I think Hamas are hoping to turn the defence of Gaza into one big battle of Stalingrad, making the Israelis pay a high price in both blood and prestige.

The inevitable civilian suffering of the impending Israeli invasion means nothing to Hamas. To them, as I have hopefully made clear, the suffering of the innocent is a great recruiting sergeant. More will be done, more will be said, and many more will have to die. It's only just begun. It could lead to a wider conflict, and prove to be a provocation too far. Not that Hamas will be too bothered about that. I am sure they have planned for it.

Laurence Fox - A Sign of the Tory Times

 

I intended to write a post about Laurence Fox, the sometime actor and now ex-GB News presenter shown in the photo above (the man in the picture, not the dog). As we know, Fox was been fired by GB News a week after he ranted against a female journalist, Ava Evans. His outburst sparked 9000 complaints to OFCOM and restarted the debate about misogyny in the UK. GB News, which has a number of presenters, who, like Fox are on the political Right, has sacked Fox after some apparent hesitation, aka an "investigation". They could hardly do otherwise. As Sky News said last week:

" Speaking on Dan Wootton Tonight on Tuesday, actor-turned-politician Laurence Fox made a series of remarks about Ava Evans, including: "Who would want to shag that?"

Fox received news of his sacking while under arrest, suspected of conspiring to vandalise ULEZ cameras. He expressed relief at being sacked, describing his erstwhile employers as "GB Joke". He expressed outrage at the fact that the police, who raided his house to arrest him, had looked at his children's I pads. He expressed no such outrage at the fact that Ava Evans has received threats from people who sympathise with him. Nor was he sorry that the presenter who interviewed him, Dan Wootton, had also been fired.

Not that Wootton deserves any sympathy. He seems to have been complicit in Fox's vile statements from the beginning. As the Evening Standard says: 

" Laurence Fox’s tweets last week showed that Wootton had been briefed on Fox’s plans to attack journalist Ava Evans over her comments on a men’s mental health minister. Wootton not only smirked, laughed and failed to counter Fox’s tirade of personal derogatory remarks but, according to GB News employees, ignored orders from producers delivered “increasingly frantically” over his earpiece to stop Fox, counter his claims and, eventually, to apologise to viewers after Fox had finished".

As a former GB News insider told the Standard: 

“Wootton thought he was untouchable... the more he got away with, the more he insisted on controlling everything. He’d squash you if you didn’t toe his line.”

As this included a diatribe against lockdowns on his first day to a lurid sex scandal being unpunished by his bosses at GB News, we can see why Wootton thought he could get away with what has happened over Fox. We can also see why he deserves little sympathy now.

According to my original intent, I should stop at this point, concluding that Fox and Wootton are two miscreants who overstepped the line and got what they deserved. I intended to, but another outlandish display of recent right-wing activity broadened the issue. This was the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester which, apart from Tory squabbling over HS2, saw an unprecedented outburst of right-wing populist activity - even to the presence of Nigel Farage. 

There was, for example, the astonishing speech by Liz Truss (wasn't she once prime minister?) that, even after the GB News scandal described above: 

“In my view, we need more economic journalism and we need more GB News,” Ms Truss said. “Challenging the orthodoxy, broadcasting common sense and transforming our media landscape. So long may it continue."

As well she might, for there is a Tory presence on GB News. Yahoo News says:

" According to the Register of Members' Financial Interests, 11 MPs have been paid to either present or appear on GB News shows since 2021. Some Tory MPs, such as Lee Anderson, Philip Davies and Jacob Rees-Mogg present shows on the network."

Esther McVey, married to Philip Davies, is another MP who presents a programme on this station. None of the Tory MPs named here have expressed any disapproval of Fox and Wootton. Caroline Nokes, chair of the Commons Women and Equalities Committee (CWEC) has said of the Tory/GB MPs:

"I think it’s a very odd relationship to be quite frank and I don’t go on any of their shows. From my perspective if you’re a Member of Parliament you have a day job to do, getting on with the work you have in the House of Commons and not swanning off, and in some cases several times a week, to present a show on a television channel.”

Caroline Nokes, please note, is a Conservative MP.

Penny Mordaunt, MP, earned her populist spurs by giving one of the most demented rants I have ever heard from any politician of any party. I first heard it on the radio, and I honestly thought she was either drunk, having a breakdown, or under the influence of illegal substances. If you watch, you will find that the words "Stand up and fight!" will remain in your memory. An extract will suffice:

″Stand up and fight – because when you stand up and fight, the person besides you and fights. And when our party stands up and fights, the nation stands up and fights.
And when our nation stands up and fights, other nations stand up and fight.
And they stand up and fight for the things for which the entire progress of humanity depends!”

One wit on Twitter commented:

"Penny Mordaunt got all the Tory Conference delegates ready to stand up and fight, but she forgot to tell them what for, who with or why".

Huffington Post says that when Ms Mordaunt finished her speech, she ran off stage. I don't know where she ran to, but I believe she would make a suitable candidate to replace Laurence Fox on GB News.

But, as we know, the star populist "attraction" at the conference was none other than Nigel Farage, who is not even a Conservative Party member. For some Tories this was no problem. Pritti Patel, as we know, danced and sang with him. I could not imagine an SWP leader being feted in a similar fashion at a Labour Party conference. The Daily Mail spelt it out:

"Nigel Farage has given his clearest hint yet that he could re-join the Tories - but only if they become a 'real' right-wing party.
The Brexit champion has been feted by activists as he attended his first conference in a decade - albeit on a media pass in his capacity as a GB News commentator.
Rishi Sunak has suggested that the door is open for Mr Farage to make a comeback - 30 years after he quit in protest at the Maastricht Treaty".

Yet another right-wing politician on GB News! Seriously, though, the presence of Farage, and his enthusiastic reception, is an ominous sign for more moderate Tories. As George Osborne, quoted in the Independent, said:

"Mr Osborne warned that Mr Farage – having pushed the Conservatives to the right during the Brexit wars – could create “Farage-ism” inside the Tories as the party shifts further to the right.
He’s a sort of Pied Piper character and he is leading the Tory party to his merry tune – again. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson,” he said on his Political Currency podcast".

Perhaps the most deranged speech of the conference came from Transport Secretary, Mark Harper, who perhaps had a drink from the same bottle as Penny Mordaunt when he said that plans are afoot to stop us going to the shops when we want, as well as stopping us driving very far from home. Fifteen-minute cities, raved Harper, are coming for our freedoms. He didn't specify where these cities are coming from. As the Big Issue comments:

"Looking for a straw to grasp as an election grows closer, the Conservative Party has seized upon the language of 15-minute city conspiracy theories, claiming nefarious urban planners are out to seize your personal freedom. It’s motorists vs everyone else".
Descending into madness, Harper railed against the “Labour-backed movement” to “remove your freedom to get to A to B how you want.”
There are “sinister” plans to decide “how often you go to the shops”, he said. Harper (I can't find sufficient respect to give him his title) is clearly a conspiracy theorist who could replace Dan Wootton. GB News must have loved reporting from the Tory conference.

In conclusion, I must say that I am looking forward even more to the next general election campaign. When so many right-wing nutcases are flourishing and growing in influence in the Tory party, defeating them might not be as difficult as some would believe.

Gillian Keegan and Setting an Example

 

It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that when it comes to misbehaviour, there is one rule for Tory MPs and another for the rest of us. It's not the first time that I've raised this issue, and I know that major media pundits have written about it, but Michelle Keegan's recent outburst in which she used the F-word has angered me considerably. Apologies to readers who might have seen my comments on Facebook, but I think this matter important enough to comment further. Mrs Keegan, our present Education Secretary, was interviewed by ITV News reporter Daniel Hewitt about the RAAC crisis on Monday last week. After the interview finished, while her microphone was still on and the camera was still rolling, she uttered these beautiful words:

 “Does anyone ever say: ‘You know what, you’ve done a f**king good job, because everyone else has sat on their arse and done nothing?’ No signs of that, no?”

Ms Keegan apologised later, saying she made an “off-the-cuff remark after the news interview had finished”.  Alex Finnis, in the "i" paper, went on to say:

"She (Ms Keegan) said the comment about people being “sat on their arses” had been aimed at “nobody in particular”.
She added: “I would like to apologise for my choice of language. That was unnecessary.”
Ms Keegan said she had been irritated by the reporter’s questions. “He was making out it was all my fault,” she said."

The Education Secretary's comments offended a great many school staff, throughout the whole state sector. The implication that "everyone" sat on their backsides, despite Ms Keegan's denial, was undoubtedly a swipe at school authorities and all school staff. One Headteacher, Caroline Evans, of Parks Primary School in Leicester, expressed her anger on Sky News (click to watch). Ms Evans expressed her horror at Keegan's foul language and told of how she and her staff were working very long hours to deal with the disruption to school life that RAAC had brought to her school. The BBC elaborates:

"Parks Primary, in New Parks Crescent, Leicester, was forced to relocate several classes and borrow rooms from other institutions following the discovery in May of RAAC.
Cas Evans, head teacher, estimated the cost of the disruption so far, including getting new toilet blocks for her pupils, was £30,000."

While totally supporting Cas Evans and all schools facing rebuilding because of dodgy concrete, I think there is another angle to this that hasn't been touched upon. What has not been said is that while Ms Keegan's outburst has been condoned in some quarters of the media, and she has apologised, any teacher who used such language in a school setting would not be treated so leniently. Any teacher or Teaching Assistant using bad language in front of children - and was reported to school authorities - would be severely dealt with. Even swearing at colleagues could lead to disciplinary action. I cannot speak for other workplaces where the public is present, but I'm sure that civil servants, NHS staff, bus drivers, bar staff, shop workers, etc,  would receive similar punitive measures, even possibly losing their jobs.

As far as I know, Ms Keegan has not been sanctioned and remains in her post. All school staff can now see for themselves that there is one rule for Tory ministers and another for them.

Another unforeseen consequence of Ms Keegan's outburst could well affect secondary school teachers. Contrary to what many believe, older children do watch the TV news and some will regard Ms Keegan's foul language as an example to be followed. Secondary teachers, seeking to reprimand pupils for using bad language could well face the retort:

"Your boss - that Keegan woman - said F--- and got away with it. Why can't we?"

But there is yet another angle for consideration. This present government has a reputation for sleaze. Wales Online lists twenty two examples of this -from the last three years. The article is a useful short reminder of incidents that the government would like us to forget about. There is Partygate, Chris Pincher, the elevation to peerage of Evgeny Lebedev, son of a KGB agent, and many more. The Labour Party in Parliament, reported by the Independent, recently raised another matter that relates to Gillian Keegan: 

"Education secretary Gillian Keegan has “serious questions to answer”, said Labour, after it emerged that a company linked to her husband was handed a £1m contract from a schools rebuilding fund.The cabinet minister’s husband Michael Keegan states on his LinkedIn social media page that he is a non-executive director at technology firm Centerprise.
The company was one of six suppliers awarded IT contracts earlier this year to replace server infrastructure at schools, with the money coming from the school rebuilding programme (SRP) fund, according to the Daily Mirror."

The Department for Education (DfE) said neither Ms Keegan or any other minister was involved in the procurement process for these contracts. Shadow Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, rightly pointed out, the DfE denial notwithstanding, that the optics are not good for the government (or Ms Keegan).

“This appears to be a gross conflict of interest, and eyebrows will be raised that the Keegans appear to have gained from a shrinking pot of school rebuilding money,” said Ms Phillipson.

 Wales Online might yet have another example of sleaze to write about...

From the front page of Private Eye magazine.

“UNKNOWN TO THE EMPEROR” – FOUR YEARS IN HELL

 

Many years ago, I read “The Naked Island” by the Australian writer, Russell Braddon. It was first published in 1953, and told of Braddon’s experience as a prisoner of war of the Japanese military in WW2. Captured after the fall of Singapore in 1942, Braddon, together with thousands of British, Australian and Empire troops, was sent to labour on what some call the “Siam-Burma Railway”, designed to supply the Japanese troops fighting in Burma. For Braddon and his comrades, it became better known as the “Death Railway”, along which thousands of POWs and conscripted civilians suffered and died at the hands of their captors. The atrocities described I found unforgettable.

Years later, I have read “Unknown to the Emperor”, by J. R. Hill (“Jim”) , published in 1998. Like Braddon, Jim was taken prisoner in Singapore when it capitulated. He too, was sent to labour and suffer on the Death Railway. Unlike Braddon, Jim was later sent to Japan, where he was liberated after the Japanese surrender. Again, like Braddon, the atrocities, and other experiences described, are unforgettable and chilling to read about. Both books, however, are tributes to the human spirit facing adversity; both are searing indictments of their Japanese captors.

A Territorial Army soldier from Scotland, 18 years of age, Jim was shipped out to Singapore in 1941. When Japan invaded the Malay Peninsula, he witnessed, as a participant, the ignominious defeat of British forces. Jim, rightly, explains:

“We were not…trained for jungle warfare and this was realised by men of all ranks”.

In fairness to the much-derided military commanders at Singapore, they were under-resourced. Nevertheless, surrender began the captivity of Jim and many others.

Japanese brutality to POWs in WW2 is well known, but Jim’s accounts of his suffering and that of his comrades at the hands of their guards still have the power to shock. Beatings and torture were a daily routine. Jim quotes Dostoevsky who said, “…”suffering purifies everything” and without doubt we were purer than the pure”.

Jim provides an abundance of examples of Japanese viciousness, which lasted from the moment of his capture, to (almost) liberation. One example will suffice:

“…the Japanese would get prisoners to form a line and proceed to beat each man. God help the man who ducked or fell”.

Besides facing beatings himself, Jim endured repeated bouts of dysentery and malaria at frequent intervals during his captivity. He also, unsurprisingly, experienced the loss of comrades. One touching instance happened after he learned of the death of a friend. Bob Rogers, in another camp:

“I made my way to the edge of the camp and stood looking towards…I thanked Bob for his friendship and asked his forgiveness if I did not dwell on his death. You can only carry so much grief if you want to live…” Luckily for himself, Jim had good personal survival skills. He provides many examples of men who did not. He says: “Some men found great difficulty in shaking off depression…However…morale was higher than there was reason to expect. Every group or company of men had a priceless idiot who somehow found it within himself to raise a smile or laugh in others”.

For some indeterminate reason, Jim and many other POWs were shipped to Japan. Jim sailed on the 18th August, 1944, on an overcrowded ship which ran aground off the coast of Taiwan. Jim was rescued by a Japanese lifeboat, for which he received a gratuitous blow from his rescuer. Many POWs did not survive these voyages.

Japan brought more of the same suffering as that experienced on the Death Railway – but this time with some hope, brought about by US air raids, as the Allies drew closer, liberating occupied islands and nearing the Japanese mainland. Japanese guards grew a little less brutal in the summer of 1945. Jim says here:

“Little did we realise that not so very far away atomic bombs had been dropped on the 6th August…On 12th August all the existing guards were replaced by new faces”.

Understandably, freedom led to the newly released POWs taking some revenge on their captors. Jim himself chased after a civilian who had previously given him a beating. On September 5th, as the POWs awaited a train to freedom, a brutal civilian guard was spotted among a crowd of spectators. Jim says:“A big American broke ranks, clenched his fist and felled the Japanese with one blow.”Despite the understandable bursts of anger shown by Jim and his American fellow-POW, Jim, to his credit, was capable of pity for the suffering of Japanese victims of Allied air raids. Jim again:“Like us, they were victims of the futility and stupidity of war…No great wave of joy flooded my heart, nor did hatred. In some ways we were compatible…”.

Jim arrived home, via Canada, where he met up with relatives, on November 25th, 1945, five years after he sailed for Singapore. Almost 25, he returned from what he described as an abnormal life to a normal existence and, like many other returning POWs of many wars, found it difficult. Happily, Jim married and raised a family of three children. One of his sons, Ian, sent me a copy of his father’s book, elaborating on Jim’s view on the atomic bombings and the Japanese people in general. Ian says:

“…my father and those with him were about to be machine-gunned to death and thrown into trenches they had dug themselves. Their lives were saved by saved by the nuclear bomb, as were the lives of their unborn children”.

This raises a very valid, if not always popular point that I shall explore further one day. Ian continues: “”…I have been to Japan and visited Osaka where my father was held. The people are lovely. I hold no ill feeling for what was done to my father and neither did he”. But the concluding comment belongs to Jim: “Until one has experienced the bad things in life it is difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate the good. Every day is a bonus.”

16, 000 prisoners of war died building the Siam-Burma Railway. (Source: National Museum of Australia).

Numbers of deaths among Southeast Asian civilians pressed into service vary, the lowest being 90, 000. Wikipedia says: " The total number of rōmusha (SE Asian slave workers) working on the railway may have reached 300,000 and according to some estimates, the death rate among them was as high as 50 percent."

In the Year 2000, the Japanese government agreed to pay compensation to British POWs - most of whom had already died. SE Asian survivors (romusha) of the Death Railway received nothing.

Wagner Group - The Prigozhin Legacy

 

I must admit: I haven't been moved to tears by the apparent death by plane crash of Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin  in Russia on the 23rd of this month. Some people were, obviously. Apart from his family, whom we have not seen in TV news, there have been reports of his employees in the Wagner Group creating makeshift shrines in Russian cities, as well as accounts of Wagner troops in uniform weeping publicly for their lost leader. Our old friend, Vladimir Putin, denies having ordered Prigozhin's assassination, as he has done so often for so many other murders of his critics and opponents. Prigozhin, as we know, led a Wagner mutiny against the Russian government in June this year, and, as everyone knows, Putin does not forgive what he sees as treachery. Very few people  believe Putin had nothing to do with Prigozhin's death, and I'm not one of them. Still, the Russian authorities are investigating the incident. No prizes for guessing the outcome of that inquiry.

Yes, I did write "apparent death" of Prigozhin. That is because some people think - with no evidence - that his death has been faked somehow (why?) and Yevgenny is alive and well somewhere. Whether he has perished, or simply disappeared, I want to look more closely at the activities of his employees: The Wagner Group (WG).

I had a vague idea of the activities of the Wagners, but only now that Prigozhin has met his demise, I think it of interest to assess his "legacy", some of whom are seen above. Only now, after research, am I aware of the full range of WG's activities and its terrible record of atrocities.

Founded in 2014, WG was active in the Donbas War in Ukraine. Mercenary firms are "illegal" in Russia, but Prigozhin registered it as a "private military company" in 2022 - what's in a name?

WG has been a valuable asset to Putin's government as proxies abroad, allowing it to be seen as providing some distance between it and WG's activities - to which we will come later. Deaths of WG operatives serve the very useful purpose of keeping official Russian military casualty figures low, especially in Ukraine. WG  is said to be ideologically free, but the first field commander, Dmitry Utkin, who was on the same plane as Prigozhin,  was known to be a neo-Nazi, and, as Hitler's favourite composer was Gustav Wagner, Utkin insisted on naming the Wagner Group after him. Wagner mercenaries initially came from Russia's best regular troops, and the group was thought to be about 5,000 strong .However, in 2022, Prigozhin recruited convicts to fight for Wagner in Ukraine, in exchange for pardons. At the time of the mutiny, in June, there were thought to be 25 000 in the WG. The group has also been operating in Syria, Mali, the Central African Republic, Sudan and Libya - and it is these operations we will examine.

There are roughly 1000 WG operatives in Mali, The BBC says:

"They were hired to combat armed Islamist groups, replacing the UN and French peacekeeping forces which had previously operated there. Wagner forces have clashed several times with a group linked to al-Qaeda called Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin".

On 5 April last year, Human Rights Watch published a report accusing Malian soldiers and Russian PMCs (Private Military Companies, i.e. Wagner) of executing around 300 civilians between 27 and 31 March, during an army offensive in the Mopti region, known as a hotspot of Islamic militants.

In the Central African Republic (CAR), WG operatives have conducted similar actions, leading a US-based anti-corruption organisation The Sentry to launch an investigation which found that the Wagner Group has been "perfecting a nightmarish blueprint for state capture" in the CAR to enable it to plunder the country's national resources, particularly gold and diamonds. The mineral wealth of the CAR and other African countries, you see, is helping to sustain Russia's war effort in Ukraine. As Sky.com says:

"Over the past five years, soldiers and militiamen have reportedly undergone Wagner training that has involved "ultraviolent" techniques of torture and killing, including how to cut fingers and legs, remove nails, strangle, throw fuel and burn people alive.In close cooperation with CAR President Faustin-Archange Touadéra, the Wagner Group has significant control over the nation's political and military leadership, as well as huge sway over its economy." In September 2022, The Daily Beast interviewed survivors and witnesses of a massacre committed by the Wagner Group in Bèzèrè village in December 2021, which involved torture, killing and disembowelment of a number of women, including pregnant ones. Nothing of course, to do with the Russian government, which has full deniability rights in such matters.

WG has a presence in other African countries, including Libya, Sudan, Mozambique, Madagascar, and Burkina Faso. They are also present in Syria and Venezuela. 

But, of course, the best-known arena for WG activities has been in Ukraine, following the Russian invasion. It is difficult to focus upon WG atrocities, as such crimes have been committed by Russian troops and WG. Wikipedia reports that about 300 WG operatives were sent into Ukraine in 2022 to liquidate President Zelensky and members of his government. While WG operatives were in from the beginning of the invasion, they were forced to boost their numbers and replenish casualties by recruiting convicts, direct from Russian jails. Associated Press comments:

"Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin said he had recruited 50,000 convicts for Ukraine, an estimate also made by Olga Romanova, director of the prisoner rights group Russia Behind Bars. Western military officials say convicts formed the bulk of Wagner’s force there".

While this may have helped the Russian manpower problem, it has created problems on the Home Front. The offer to convicts was for them to serve six months, then, if they survived, their convictions would be quashed and they would be released - whatever their offence. CBS News comment:

" When Ivan Rossomakhin returned home from the war in Ukraine three months ago, neighbors in his village east of Moscow were terrified. Three years ago, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to a long prison term, but he was freed after volunteering to fight with the Wagner Group ...Back in Novy Burets, Rossomakhin drunkenly wandered the streets of the hamlet about 500 miles east of Moscow, carrying a pitchfork and threatening to kill everyone... he was arrested in a nearby town on charges of stabbing to death an elderly woman from whom he once rented a room. He reportedly confessed to committing the crime, less than 10 days after his return".

And, say CBS News, there are many others.

Of course, amnesty for convicts in the WG depends upon survival, and that is uncertain. Wikipedia comments:

" An interviewed former Wagner mercenary who deserted reports a high mortality rate for the prisoners recruited to fight for Wagner in Ukraine: "Once we started using prisoners, it was like a conveyor belt. A group comes—that's it, they're dead." He stopped remembering their names or call signs. "A new person shows up, survives for five minutes, and he's killed. It was like that day after day."

Andrey Medvedev, who deserted the WG in January, (it might be he in the Wikipedia quote) forecast problems for Prigozhin. Speaking to France 24, he said:

"Asked about Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin, Medvedev said he saw him in a training centre, where he was encouraging his men by saying that the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut had already been almost conquered. The former mercenary explained that he himself expressed his disagreement and was subsequently locked up in a container for several days. Medvedev called Prigozhin "mad", saying the Wagner chief "thinks that he can do anything he wants". "Once this whole display, spectacle is over, I think that his own men will kill him," he predicted".

Now, this opens up a new possible line of inquiry! Perhaps Putin didn't order the hit on Prigozhin. Perhaps the mutinous WG chief was liquidated by his own disaffected troops?

Perhaps, perhaps not, but one thing is clear: if the Wagner group is Prigozhin's legacy for humanity, there is little need to mourn his passing, whoever may have arranged it.