Rhymes and Routes

OFSTED and Disaster Capitalism

2012-01-18T18:22:00.003Z

The recent announcement by the new head of OFSTED, Sir Michael Wishaw, whereby he wishes to change the "satisfactory" category of school and lesson performance descriptors to "requires improvement" - SEE HERE- while apparently showing concern for improvement in overall educational standards, is the thin end of a very thick wedge. Other measures are the recent announcements by Michael Gove that he is speeding up the process of dismissing so-called incompetent teachers and today's announcement that he wants to see greater sponsorship of schools by private firms. Barclays Bank have announced an interest in this today.
All this is intended to give the public the impression that this government are dealing effectively with the "problem" of education. There is a popular misconception, carefully fostered in the right-wing press (The "Daily Mail" is an obvious example) that schools are full of lazy, incompetent teachers who have been getting away with it for many years. It really should be asked - if this be the case, why has OFSTED not noticed it before, as they have been in existence for the better part of two decades? Could it be that OFSTED inspectors are lazy and incompetent? Surely not!
If there are so many incompetent teachers, how did they become teachers in the first place, I wonder? Contrary to what might be thought, it is not that easy to qualify as a teacher, and student teachers DO get failed. I have seen this happen a number of times in my career. Besides which, if it is so easy to be lazy and incompetent and still pass your teaching course - why is there such a high drop-out rate? Or should OFSTED be inspecting teacher training establishments more strictly? Ah, the beat goes on...
The plain fact is - despite denials - that the new measures to be applied to teachers will make it easier for Heads to get rid of staff that they do not want. The most obvious category of teachers to feel the lash will be older teachers of (about) 45+. As one Head observed to me: "Older members of staff take more time off than younger members" - and he is not alone in thinking this. Besides this, Heads, Deputies and Senior teachers are not immune to bringing their personal likes and dislikes to lesson observations and, as the old saying goes: "Ill will never said well". It is only too easy for ill-disposed lesson observers to downgrade an observed teacher - and, although I have to be discreet, I know that this happens. It is not unknown for Heads and senior teachers to pressurise staff in other ways also - I have even been told of a Head who gave a male teacher a class in which there was a child with a history of making allegations against men! The new rule, whereby a Head can walk in on lessons as many times as he or she wishes - unannounced - is a ready made tool for harassment.
As for the change from "Satisfactory" to "Requires Improvement", this is all a matter of semantics. After all -does not a "Good" teacher require improvement?And who gave OFSTED the right to change the meanings of words? I have actually heard an OFSTED speaker describe "Good" as the new "Satisfactory" - very enlightening!

If all this is intended to improve education, then the general public needs to know that this government has some strange ways of going about it. For instance, a head now has the power to put any person deemed suitable in front of a class. Cuts in school budgets have meant that schools avoid employing supply teachers as much as they can. Instead, Heads can put Teaching Assistants or anyone with Police clearance, such as volunteer parent helpers, in charge of a class. One West London secondary school head has been known to use school security staff - ex bouncers - to cover lessons in place of absent staff. Academy Schools have the right to employ staff who have no teaching qualifications whatsoever. And this - allowing children to be taught by unqualified staff - is supposed to be an improvement.
So - what's really going on? Well, the unions are right, in my view, when they say that this government wants to destroy state education. Hence the link with "Disaster Capitalism". "The Shock Doctrine", by Naomi Klein, outlines this theory. In a nutshell, it states that monetarist economists (such as the late Milton Friedman), exploit disasters such as wars, famine, etc, to implement their desire to cut back on the public sector and let the market take over all the former state functions.
It hardly needs to be pointed out that this bears a close resemblance to the education policies of the present government. In fact, Michael Gove is said to be an admirer of Mrs Thatcher, who, in turn, was a great admirer of monetarism. By attacking the state sector financially, and making the lot of the average state teacher more insecure and onerous, the government is exploiting the present economic crisis. The aim, as Union leaders have spelt out, is to "encourage" more schools to seek academy status, and thus money from firms such as Barclays. The monetarists in the government will have their way, making education" less of a burden" on the taxpayer - and hard luck for anyone who suffers because of this.
Surprisingly, there is no mention of making cuts in OFSTED. Schools, hospitals, day care centres,police,public libraries and recreational facilities suffer cuts and closure, but OFSTED carries on without penalty.
Isn't it time we asked why?

2011 - No Need to Say Goodbye?

2012-01-02T18:58:00.001Z

Well, it doesn't take much to show why we should be glad to see the back of 2011. We know it all already: the godawful financial situation which has devastated our economies, the Euro crisis, the summer riots, the cuts in public spending and the upward creep of the unemployment figures.Anyone who has followed this blog through the past year will see that there has been ample comment on all these issues, by myself and others.Summing it all up has challenged experienced media pundits. For me, perhaps the best summation of 2011 comes in this phrase I found in a Latin phrase dictionary:
"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit"
I won't translate that, as Google does a better job. However, I truly believe that there were signs of hope in all the last year's deluge of misfortunes. There was the marvellous "Arab Spring" in Tunisia and Egypt and, albeit with NATO help, the end of "The Mad Colonel" in Libya. During, and after, the dark days of the summer riots, ordinary people stood up against the tide of criminality: the Kurdish Community of east London who rallied to defend their businesses; the Sikh community of Southall, who mobilised to defend their Gurudwaras and neighbourhoods (no rioters came anywhere near), and the "clean-up" army of citizens who turned out to clean up their riot-hit neighbourhoods. There was also the great Trade Union march against the public spending cuts back in the spring. I took part in it, and sensed how powerful the people united can be. "dum vita est spes est" ( I won't translate that either).
So, for my New Year's message (Let all take notice!), I'd like to wish everyone what I wished for you last year, which is a massive slice of good luck. We needed it a year ago, and we need it now. And let's not forget that, while we may be weak separately, who knows what we can achieve if we act together - "viribus unitis"?
BTW - My New year's resolution is to put my Latin phrase dictionary back on the shelf. "Consummatum est!"

Santa Claus and Animal Cruelty

2011-12-15T21:53:00.000Z

First, I would like to thank RedNev for standing in for me during my absence. He has hit on some sore political points which will be revisited in the coming year - unfortunately.
Moving on, I wish to revisit my previous criticism of that undeservedly popular figure, Santa Claus. As I pointed out last year, he is in flagrant breach of Health and Safety legislation in this country and should be held to account for it. If this was not bad enough, there is also the matter of his cruelty to animals. It is no secret that his Christmas workload is a heavy one; he has many premises to visit and very little time to do it. However, this does not entitle him to inflict excessive work demands upon dumb animals - i.e. his reindeer. No information is available for how well the reindeer cope with their incredible task on Christmas Eve, but it surely contradicts all Health and Safety legislation regarding animals in the workplace. Why the RSPCA has never taken action is beyond me.
This year, however, something needs to be done. When Santa Claus enters British air space on Christmas Eve, he should be arrested and brought before a magistrate as soon as possible. I suppose that RedNev will say that this will delay Christmas for many children, but the law is the law. There is no place for sentimental excuses. In any case. Santa will probably be let off with a caution and then be free to carry on distributing presents.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYBODY!

More Scottish Nationalist confusion

2011-12-05T18:45:00.008Z

Strikers marching down
the Royal Mile in Edinburgh

One of Britain's most muddled political parties, the Scottish Nationalists, are giving out mixed messages again: they say that after independence, they want to form closer links with Scandinavia - there is a report in the Independent here. This is despite their long-standing policy to retain both the monarchy and the pound. Either you go for full-blown independence from the rest of the UK, sever all constitutional and monetary links and create partnerships and alliances elsewhere, or you go for the half-way house favoured by the SNP. The problem with the latter is you'll be seen as a semi-detached part of the UK and therefore lack the credibility and clout to create much of a mark on the international scene. There are, of course, other countries which have kept the British monarchy, but they are completely independent in all other respects, including their currencies and economies.

I am dubious about nationalism anyway, as it's a form of politics derived from geography. The Scots are not a single people: ethnically they are derived from Picts, Gaels, Norse, Britons (akin to the Welsh), Anglo-Saxons and (after 1066) English. I would argue that, even today, most Glaswegians have more in common with people in Manchester or Leeds than they do with inhabitants of the Highlands and Islands. The main unifying feature of the Scottish people collectively is that they live north of the border with England.

Ordinary Scottish people face the same problems and - I would assert - the same enemies as their English counterparts. We have all been affected by the recession caused by the greed and incompetence of big bankers; we are all suffering from the effects of minuscule pay rises or pay freezes while inflation is out of control; job losses are devastating communities in England and Wales as well as Scotland. We are all affected by an economy that squanders scant resources on nuclear weapons and fighting wars for incomprehensible causes while cutting back on essential public services.

This situation isn't new, but the current recession reinforces the fact that that ordinary Britons have more that unites than divides them across national borders. It demonstrates that, when it comes down to it, we're all cogs in a machine that exists to preserve the privileges of the rich, with their seven-figure bonuses and 50% pay rises. From this perspective, the border marked by the River Tweed seems much less relevant than the divisions between people who are flourishing in this recession and people who who are suffering. Identical strikes, marches and rallies took place in towns and cities in England, Scotland and Wales (in alphabetical order) on 30th November to challenge the attacks on the pensions of ordinary working people in the public sector; which nation you lived in was utterly irrelevant on that day.

The SNP's response as as muddled as ever: the strikes were wrong because the public should have access to services, but they supported the attacks on the UK government's pensions reforms "because the short-term cash grab by the UK government has undermined the opportunity to secure agreement aimed at affordable and sustainable public sector pensions" said John Swinney of the SNP, clearly just using the dispute to have a pop at the Westminster government. Sorry, John, stop sitting on the fence and recognise that in this situation you can't have opposition without strikes, because negotiations with an outcome predetermined by the London government could never go anywhere. Unions know that verbal protests and humble petitions in situations like this simply won't work as they've tried them before. I write this as a former trade union officer for 24 years who spent much of that time as a negotiator: I can recognise official time-wasting and delaying tactics a mile off, and that is what the unions were facing here. But the champions of the Scottish people came out sounding just like the Labour Party, their main opponents in Scotland. When political opponents sound the same, as a voter you are deprived of choice, which is especially odd in Scotland, seeing that the SNP want to create a separate state on the basis of inherent Scottish difference.

The SNP stands for the idea of Scotland based solely on geography. They seems incapable, just like the main Westminster parties, of discerning the injustices being heaped on ordinary people, wherever they live in the UK. Except for their desire to make the border between England and Scotland into a national frontier, they are really little different from the London politicians they affect to despise.

I shall write another post shortly on the SNP's confused approach to alcohol control.

Striking for gold-plated peanuts

2011-11-16T16:07:00.010Z

Pinched from Private Eye

It was announced today that unemployment for young people aged 18 - 24 rose to 1.02 million in the 3 months to September. The total number of unemployed people is the highest since 1994 and the number of women out of work increased by 43,000 to 1.09 million, the highest level since February 1988. It's usually the case that as unemployment rises, industrial action drops, and it's infuriating the government that that pattern doesn't seem to be happening now. Instead the country is facing the possibility of the biggest strike for 80 years on 30 November. How come?

As you'll know, one of the main reasons for the strikes is the attack on public sector pensions, which even BBC journalists have been heard to describe as gold-plated. Employees will be required to work longer and pay more to get less. Is this an injustice? Union members feel angry that the government has reneged on its deal with them, that they are not getting what they have been promised, in some cases over decades. It seems quite reasonable to be angry over broken promises, especially ones with such wide-ranging consequences that will affect their standard of living for the rest of their lives. That sense of injustice must not be underestimated.

To try to get the general public on board, politicians talk about the excellent pensions public sector workers will still have after the changes, especially when compared to the private sector. Let's deal with the private sector first:

Much of the private sector did once have better pensions, often based on final salaries, until the 1980s, until politicians stuck their noses in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, noted that in the financial boom of the 1980s, pension funds had large surpluses, so he allowed employers to have contribution holidays, which many took up, in some cases not contributing for years on end. Some like Robert Maxwell even stole from their pension funds. That's an extreme example of a view of pension funds as dead money that would be better used for the business, but those who only stopped paying into (as opposed to stealing from) pension funds clearly had the same mindset. What Lawson and the employers chose to forget is something we are all told when we take out an investment - that they can go down as well as up. And so it came to pass - they went down.

The next body blow to private pensions was one of Gordon Brown's first decisions as Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was to impose tax upon pension funds which had been previously exempt. These two measures by chancellors from both major parties, accompanied by an economic downturn in which investments weren't performing so well tipped many funds from prosperity in the early 1980s to an inability to meet their responsibilities by the mid-1990s onwards. All caused by a combination of both parties viewing pension funds as cash cows, either for the employers or for the Treasury, and many employers happily along for the ride.

One notable exception from the crisis in private sector pensions is the provision for chief executives and company directors, who looked after themselves by happily awarding each other massive pensions and large pay-offs from final salary schemes that somehow survived the pension crisis, while slashing the schemes for their own workforces. Fred Goodwin's final salary pension from the Royal Bank of Scotland pays him in six days what a retired executive officer (junior manager) in the civil service would receive in a year, providing s/he had completed 40 full years service (no career breaks or periods of part-time working). In contrast, Fred got his pension after 26 years in the industry between qualifying as an accountant in 1983 and retiring at 50 in 2009.

"Excellent public sector pensions." Having messed up private sector pensions for the workforce (except for the top executives), politicians then turned their attention to public sector pensions. Gold-plated? Judge for yourself: the average civil service pension is £4800 a year, and its local government equivalent is even less. This is what the government wants to cut, and it's hardly surprising that public sector workers oppose having to work longer and pay more to get even less. Yes, there are some in the public sector who get big pensions: politicians for starters, but also top civil servants (the Sir Humphreys) and local authority chief executives, but these represent a tiny proportion of the public sector and are in no way typical.

Some of the public, taken in by the propaganda about gold-plated pensions, believe that it's about time the feather-bedded public sector faced the real world like the private sector. If you apply that argument across the board, then logically you'd end up in a situation in which no one would get a pension more than the smallest in the private sector, which wouldn't benefit anybody. There is no doubt that private sector pensions have been treated disgracefully by governments and employers, but how does doing the same to the public sector help anyone? Some public sector staff are saying that if these changes are implemented, they will have to drop out of the pension scheme as they can't afford the extra contributions. If this happens, all we'll be doing is setting up a demographic time bomb whereby millions more from both the public and private sectors are forced to rely on state benefits in retirement. In what way is this "living in the real world" and planning sensibly for the nation's future?

Handing Over the Reins

2011-11-10T22:26:00.000Z

Well, the strain of writing this blog is starting to tell! After continuous outpourings of wit and wisdom, I shall be taking a well-deserved break in the Far East for about a month. Regular readers of this blog will be reassured to know that my place will be taken by none other than RedNev, who I now appoint as Deputy Blogmeister. Nev will continue to run this blog in the spirit of our inspirational forbear, Major John Cartwright.
I shall return in December.
Good luck, Nev!
Good luck, all bloggers!
PS. I was only joking about the strain of writing.

Burning Poppies and the Blame Game

2011-11-07T15:30:00.006Z

You may remember that last year, at this time, a small group of Islamists called "Muslims Against Crusaders" publicly burned poppies on Remembrance Day. Their leader, Anjem Choudhary, was fined £50. He was on TV last Sunday, announcing his intention to do the same thing this year. As might be expected, this planned gesture has been condemned by just about everybody - not least Muslims.
What I find of interest is that some pundits of the right cannot resist the temptation not just to attack this handful of Jihadi fanatics, but also to attack the Left.One such pundit is one Abhijit Pandya, whose views can be read HERE. Mr Pandya is entitled to his views, and makes some valid points, but he goes seriously off beam when he starts finding culprits for the rise of Islamic militancy. As he sees it, it's all the fault of the Reds:
"In essence, my thesis is as follows: Choudhary and his gang of poppy burners are much more a product (of?) anti-nation thinking that is fundamental to the left's critique of the world than to multiculturalism or failures of immigrant assimilation policy".
Mr Pandya does not sem to inhabit the same planet as the rest of us - either that or he is aiming to mislead people. Islamists loathe the Left (Marxist or non-Marxist) as much as they hate liberal democracy. I've discussed this in previous posts, but it still needs to be pointed out that both Britain and the USA found the Muslim Mujaheddin willing proxies in their battle against the USSR - in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Yet again, I find myself recommending readers to read "Secret Affairs" by Mark Curtis, which details how the UK and USA have worked hand-in-glove with Radical Islam over decades. Might not the present high profile of Jihadi militancy be something to do with encouragement from British governments - Tory and Labour? Don't watch this space. Instead, take a look at the picture below - it shows Muslim volunteers for the Waffen SS. The units to which these men belonged gained a reputation for savagery and fanaticism that rivalled that of their ethnic German counterparts. I would argue that Anjem Choudhary and his band of lunatics have more in common with these men than anyone on the Left. Nor did these SS men represent Islam as a whole - on Remembrance day, let's think of those who gave their lives to defend Britain from Fascism - including many thousands of Muslims from Commonwealth countries. Many Muslims fought and died on our side against Nazism - and Islamofascists like Choudhary, and his spiritual brethren in the Waffen SS.

The Slow Death of Local Radio

2011-11-04T20:18:00.000Z

It made no headlines, but last night on "Folkscene", which is a folk music programme on BBC Radio Merseyside, you would have heard me talking to the host, Geoff Speed, about the cd "The End of the Line". Not heard of it? Well, it's the 9th album of songs and poems written by me, and recorded by various artists. I'm pleased to report that the programme went well, as have the sales of the album - sold out, in fact. In one way, however, it was rather a sad occasion. The BBC, because of cuts to its budget, is planning to axe all its local radio specialist music programmes across the country. When my collaborators and I make album 10, we will have very few folk music radio programmes available that will be prepared to play our cd. And, of course, it won't be just folk music programmes whch will be affected - Blues, Jazz, Country and Gospel music lovers will all see their local programmes disappear. But why?
Well, the obvious answer is that it is a cost cutting exercise necessary to save public money. The problem that I have with this view is that no figures of how much money will be saved have been published. Besides which, I happen to know that most presenters of such programmes get a very low rate of pay. Many presenters record their programmes at home, and rarely ever set foot in the BBC studios. There could be other factors at work, but I'll discuss those later.
There is no doubt, surely, that the loss of these programmes will deprive local music fans of information about what is happening in their local area. Not only this, but local acts will not get opportunities to be heard by a wider audience. Local radio, in other words, will become a lot less "local", as it will cease to reflect their area's music scene. It may be said that BBC Radio 2 has specialist music programmes, but I know from long experience how difficult it is to get played on national radio - once in 18 years, in my case. The Paul Joneses, Mike Hardings and Bob Harrises of this world are only interested in nationally established artists. It will be left to local commercial radio to pick up the slack - but only if it is profitable. Many commercial stations are not interested.
But what of those "other factors"? Well, I don't claim that there is a conspiracy at work, but both the musical and political establishments stand to gain from the shedding of specialist music programmes by the BBC. Instead, we will have more of the same old stuff that we already get on daytime BBC Radio 2 - and yet more of the manufactured hits from X factor winners and their ilk. Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh, etc, will be laughing all the way to the bank.
As for the political establishment, they stand to gain by shutting down an outlet for dissent. This is not to say that all Blues, Folk, Country artists are politically vocal, but the fact is that these types of music - especially Folk - have always included a radical, politically critical streak. If you listen to most music played on radio nowadays, you'd be hard put to find anything remotely critical politically - it's escapist, if anything. And with the axing of specialist music programmes from local radio, it will become even more escapist. Stalin would undoubtedly have approved.

OFSTED and a Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On

2011-10-03T00:46:00.001+01:00

Well, those ever-vigilant chaps at OFSTED are at it again - talking about the need for a shake-up in education. It always amuses me to hear this, as they have been saying the same thing for the better part of two decades. As a veteran of numerous inspections by both OFSTED and Her Majesty's Inspectors for Education (HMI), it's my belief that schools, to borrow Elvis' phrase,are "all shook up" already. So what was wrong with all the many thousands of school inspections that OFSTED have carried out in the past?There are two answers to this question - one that will be acceptable to OFSTED and one that definitely won't be - I shall provide the latter.
Nick Glibb, the Schools Minister, says that OFSTED will be concentrating upon things "which really matter". No-one seems to have asked him what they've been doing so far - still less has he asked them. The BBC article states:
"Overall, these new ground rules for inspections show a shift in emphasis from wellbeing issues, such as safeguarding children, community cohesion and healthy living, towards core academic standards."
This gives the impression that OFSTED inspectors have ignored teaching standards and gone around checking alarm systems and locks. This is simply not true, as anyone who works in a school will tell you. Anyway, the OFSTED supremo, Miriam Rosen, declares:
"Inspectors will spend even more time in the classroom observing teaching and learning, with a renewed emphasis on reading and literacy skills."
Parents reading this will no doubt be reassured - but lessons are observed anyway. In my first such inspection, I was observed for six lessons, and at that time, I was not unique in this. Some teachers I know had far more. All this happened when inspections lasted a whole week. The length of inspections has been reduced since, but, in my experience, the number of classroom visits pro rata has not dropped. All this talk of "shake-ups" is happening for another reason - one to which I have alluded before.
It is no coincidence that Nick Glibb and Miriam Rosen are new to their jobs, and want to make names for themselves. UK education is, as I have said before, a political football which is always being kicked around as in need of reform. It never seems to occur to people like Glibb and Rosen that things might improve if there were less shake-ups and schools could get on with teaching.
And there is something else about OFSTED that the general public does not know. This organisation has a habit of moving the goal posts when it comes to assessing the quality of teaching and learning. OFSTED has four "level descriptors": Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory and Inadequate. Well, lessons which may have been classed as Satisfactory by an inspector in one year, can be graded UNsatisfactory after the passage of time. I have been present at a meeting when an adviser has shown a video of a lesson graded Satisfactory in 2000, "but (said the cheery adviser) it wouldn't be now!". At another such meeting, we were told that the OFSTED grade of "Good" is now the new "Satisfactory". OFSTED, it seems, has the power to change the meanings of words, but we were not told what "Satisfactory" now meant. Imagine what would happen if the standards of bricklaying changed in the same way - would a wall that was "satisfactory" in 2005 have to be knocked down in 2011?
So why do they change the standards for lesson assessment? Well, they won't admit this - but I think that OFSTED is being governed by what Durkheim called "the dialectic of ends and means", whereby a means to an end becomes an end in itself. OFSTED inspectors enjoy fat fees and generous expenses.Anyone doubting this should look in the school car park during an OFSTED inspection - the inspection team always arrive in a fleet of new cars. To justify its existence, OFSTED needs to keep repeating the need for shaking up education. One question - at a time of stringent budget cuts in the public sector, is it not time to shake OFSTED (and Mr Glibb) by the scruff of the neck?

The Afghan War, Faith and Statistics

2011-09-18T15:44:00.005+01:00

Mark Twain once said:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so". He had a point, and atheists frequently use this quote when they want to provoke arguments with religious believers. That's not my intention here, however. I quote Twain because it seems to me that our leading poiticians are doing just that - believing in something that they know cannot be true. After ten years of fighting, British party leaders, including our incumbent Prime Minister, still seem to believe that we are accomplishing something worthwhile by fighting the war in Afghanistan. This is either what psychologists call "being in denial" - or simple self-delusion.
There is an abundance of hard facts to show that our miltary effort in Afghanistan is futile. There are the obvious ones, such as:
1. The Taliban is still fighting, and is even able to launch attacks in the Afghan capital without too much trouble. IED attacks are as common as ever.
2. Following on from the point above, there is the painfully inescapable fact that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have actually increased the risk of terrorism around the world. Al-Qaeda may have taken a severe beating, Bin Laden might be dead, but Al-Qaeda imitators, such as the 7/7 bombers and Al-Shabbab, are active in other countries outside Afghanistan.
3. British attempts to hold ground are made untenable because of the simple fact that we do not have enough troops out there to do it, as some US commentators have observed.
4. Civilian casualties, whether caused by ground troops or aircraft, have alienated the local population, driving some of them to support the Taliban.
5. Resources, that could be used to maintain the public sector, which this government is bent on attacking, are being squandered. It has been shown, for example, that one day's war costs as much as it would cost to pay 100, 000 nurses. Here is a short (2.5 minutes) video by Tony Benn which covers this issue:

Now, these are the obvious reasons for describing the Afghan War as futile. You can read them in any "Stop the War" leaflet. But there are others:
1. No-one ever points out that the people of Afghanistan never asked us to help change their society and, like Robespierre said: "No-one loves armed missionaries".
2. The Karzai government is corrupt and only survives thanks to massive infusions of US aid.
3. Even senior US soldiers are now admitting that the military effort in Afghanistan is doomed - SEE HERE
With all these compelling reasons for withdrawal, our leaders persist in asserting the need for combat operations in Afghanistan. I can only conclude that they are motivated by simple, blind faith.
Jesus said (Matthew 17:20) that a little faith could move mountains. Maybe, but there are a lot of mountains in Afghanistan - and I'm not just referring to the physical geography.

9/11 - The Forgotten Victims

2011-09-09T20:26:00.007+01:00

The cliche is correct - everyone remembers where they were when they learned of 9/11. I was walking into an Ealing pub after school with a friend who told me that he'd heard that some terrorists in New York had let off a bomb in the World Trade Centre. Once in the pub, we saw it was much worse than that. Like most of the world, all of us in the pub stood and watched the planes crash into the two towers (and their subsequent collapse) over and over again. It was almost as if we were all hypnotised by events. Yet, even at the time, I had the feeling that it was all a monstrously successful "come on" - a provocation.
Well, as we know, the reaction was not long in coming, and the counterreactions soon happened as well. The USA, rightly incensed at the attack on its territory, set out to thrash Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq - as we know. This, in turn, led to further terrorist attacks such as those in Bali, Madrid and 7/7 in London. Osama Bin Laden is now dead, slain by a small group of elite spooks.But, we know all that, and I don't intend to dwell upon it.
As the 10th anniversary of this appalling atrocity approaches, the focus of America's attention will be upon the memorial service on Sunday, in order to mourn the 3000 dead of 9/11. This is entirely correct, and I certainly would not wish to criticise it. Some people, though, equally correctly, point out that The US and UK "coalition" has killed far more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than the number who perished in New York on 9/11. Wikileaks puts the number as high as 111, 937 Iraqi civilians. According to the Guardian, no-one is keeping a precise count of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. And of course, there will be no service of remembrance for Iraqis and Afghans.
But there is another group of 9/11 victims that no-one sees fit to mention. These are the innocent victims of post-9/11 backlash who felt the anger of people in the USA and the UK. There was the Sikh petrol pump attendant in the USA who was shot dead by a bunch of rednecks because he looked like Osama Bin Laden. A Somali girl in my class at that time told me how her auntie, living in America, had been stoned and chased by a crowd for" looking Muslim".
Over here, a bunch of thugs showed their "solidarity" with the USA by beating up an Afghan taxi driver in Acton, West London. The taxi driver was left paralysed.
A Muslim man, whose own daughter had died on 9/11, was subjected to a racist attack by two girls.
Muslim pupils in UK schools reported numerous cases of bullying and harassment.
There were many such incidents in the UK and the US, and the ugly term "Islamophobia" became a commonly used word in the English language.
It hardly needs to be said that there will be no ceremonies for this group of victims, either.

The Riots - Are We Missing Something?

2011-08-16T16:40:00.000+01:00

It's hard to believe that a week ago today, we thought Britain was descending into anarchy. The Sun newspaper, last Tuesday, was actually entertaining the idea of using live rounds on rioters. Now, in the aftermath, our political leaders are at loggerheads about how to prevent it happening again. Everyone knows about this, but those who don't, can see the competing arguments of Cameron and Miliband HERE.
Actually, I think this discussion to be a worthwhile idea, and don't want to sound negative about it. From the far political Right to Left, a plethora of explanations and remedies are being explored and touted.
What concerns me is the fact that one very important aspect is being ignored or forgotten. The underlying economic situation, which "everyone knows about", is being left out of the equation. The inescapable truth is that there are simply not enough jobs for young people, and particularly the young people from whom the ranks of the rioters are drawn.
In sociological terms, most of the rioters (not all) come from what we used to call "the unskilled working class". That's when there was work for them, I mean. In 1966, 50% of the UK workforce worked in manufacturing industry; today, the percentage is only 14%. When Mrs Thatcher, with her monetarist fiscal "reforms", practically destroyed British industry in the 1980s, tens of thousands of people found themselves on the scrap heap in Mrs Thatcher's Brave New Britain. The unskilled sector, the people who had done the routine jobs in the factories, were particularly hard hit. Lacking the skills, education (and, let's face it,the will) to adapt to the new service economy, they, and the areas they lived in, stagnated. A new expression was coined - instead of the unskilled working class, the talk was of "the underclass" (an expression revived last week). Many of the youth of this class, as we know, drifted into gangs who blighted their local neighbourhoods in various ways.
I get the impression that our political leaders were happy to live with the problem - provided the gangs stayed out of sight on their "turfs". What no-one expected was for these gangs to bury their differences and go on the rampage, as they did last week. Suddenly - ooops! - we have a major problem to deal with.
The solutions being mooted at the moment, as far as I understand them, are of the "sticking-plaster" or punitive kind: parenting classes; sports training; citizenship education; ending benefit payments - even evictions.
The problem I have with these measures is that they simply will not work if these youths are not placed in well-paid, worthy jobs. What is the point of doing an 8 week course in citizenship (or anything else) if you just end up back on the dole? This idea was tried in the 80s (Who remembers YOPs?)It failed then, and will fail again. I wish I could say that I have the answer, but I haven't. The only idea that occurs to me is to increase the benefits payments to these youths massively - but that would be politically unacceptable.

The Riots - the Ulcer Bursts

2011-08-10T16:56:00.016+01:00

SHOP FRONT, EALING BROADWAY. 9/8/11

I took this photo yesterday, while passing down Ealing Broadway. All the shops that I saw to have suffered damage were retailers of consumer "disposables" - like mobile phone stores, shoe shops or fashion retailers, like the one here.

The choice of premises attacked was interesting;_ they were all retailers of fashion accessories, such as mobile phones, trainers, or clothes, such as the store in the photo. All of which sets the present riots apart from those of previous years. Previous riots in Britain have been political in intent (Lewisham, 1977), or over a recognisable grievance (public sector cuts) or a combination of both (The Poll Tax Riots of the 90s).

These riots, I think, are exactly what so many commentators have said already: a massive outburst of criminal activity. I have no intention of reproducing what has been written already - there is an abundance of that, but I would like to express a personal view. My opinion is that these horrendous events are the bursting of an ulcer that has ben building up in our inner cities for some time. A number of national newspapers have been chronicling the rise of gang culture and general anti-social behaviour in Britain for years. The media has highlighted numerous "spasms" of that ulcer, such as senseless murders, violence, drug taking and binge drinking. There has been much condemnation of "Broken Britain" (David Cameron's phrase), but precious little serious analysis of the problem, still less a national strategy to deal with it. And no-one predicted what has happened - the fact that these gangs might resolve their "turf" differences and act together, with devastating consequences.

Already, the blame game has begun ("liberal society"), as well as sensationalist, simplistic (or should it be "simple-minded"?) solutions ("put them in the Army"), coming from the Right, in their posturing, unimaginative way.. The Left, in their posturing, unimaginative way, are starting to regard the riots as some kind of latter-day "Peasants' Revolt", and linking it to cuts in public spending. Both need to wake up to the fact that we now have a national emergency on our hands that needs immediate, pragmatic, attention.

Instead of employing carrots OR sticks to deal with the problem, I would advocate the use of BOTH. If, as so many right-wing thinkers say, these rioters are a bunch of twisted, psychotic criminals, then we need to find what has made them that way and - very important - how to cure this psychosis and prevent it spreading to younger, potential rioters. The Left needs to recognise that criminal behaviour is just that, and needs to dealt with severely. There is no political motive at work here. As noted, the looting has been of luxury consumables, not necessities. Ordinary people have been attacked, robbed and made homeless by these rioters - hardly an expression of class consciousness. Wherever these rioters have met determined opposition, such as that shown (I think magnificently) by the Turkish/Kurdish community in the East End of London, they have been dispersed and defeated. That wouldn't happen if the rioters were the vanguard of the revolution, as my friends, the Anarchists, seem to think.

In conclusion, I would say that if we think we are having problems now - wait until these rioters have their own children, and see what problems we have then.

The Three "Rs" and the Rising Stars of Education

2011-08-02T22:50:00.004+01:00

As I have observed before, education in this country is a political football which politicians rediscover and set out to reform periodically, usually at strategic intervals (eg, when facing falling opinion polls), or to enhance their own reputations. Today, the BBC reported the pronouncements of the latest in a long line of such politicians:
"Schools Minister Nick Gibb welcomed the rise in results, especially in writing but he said a third of children were still struggling in the three Rs."
He said: "There has been a decline in the proportion of children - both boys and girls - who can read and write beyond the expected level. And the results of our weakest readers and writers also remain a real concern."
The "results" he is talking about are, of course, SATs results. These have been subject (no pun intended) to withering criticism for years by the leaders of the teacher unions and various educationalists. I totally endorse this view, having seen, at grass roots level, the effect that SATs pressure can have on some parents and children. I know that some 11 year olds are pressurised by ambitious parents into long hours of SATs revision - sometimes for periods of time that would do credit to undergraduates facing their Finals. I have seen young children in tears because they have not got the results they (and their parents) wanted. It has been known even for some children to be threatened with violence, should they not get high grades in their SATs. These tests, in a nutshell, should be abolished completely. They prove nothing of any value; they encourage "teaching to the test", not education; after SATS, year 6 children are as keen on coming to school as GCSE and "A" level students are after their exams (i.e. not at all) - except that the older pupils go on "study leave". Nor are SATs of much value to secondary schools, who implement their own ability tests in Year 7, making SATs results irrelevant.
Mr Gibb (or should it be "Glib"?) seizes upon the fact that many children cannot read and write as well as he would seem to expect. It may be true, but there is nothing new about this. If we look back to 1945 and beyond, we see that there has ALWAYS been a problem with general literacy, and Mr Glib deserves no credit for discovering something well known already. The real reason for this problem lies not in teaching methods, but in attitudes of wide sections of the population towards education - in particular, the hostile attitude of many in the white working class - the lowest attaining educational grouping. In my opinion, those negative attitudes need to be tackled root and branch, rather than making a few cosmetic changes in order to score political points over rival parties.

Norway's Agony

2011-07-23T10:54:00.004+01:00

So, now Norway, one of the most peaceful and stable countries in the world -seemingly, at least - is afflicted by mass terrorist slaughter. Understandably enough, we all thought it was the work of Al-Qaeda or even agents of The Mad Colonel (Gaddafi) at first. Commentators (on the BBC at least) seemed shocked to learn that intead of the perpetrator being an Arabic Muslim fanatic, he is a Norwegian Christian fanatic -or more accurately, a local extreme right wing terrorist.
I won't go into details of the event, which are appearing in every media outlet today and can be read HERE.
What I'd like point out is the fact that European neo-Nazis are not so different from Islamic Jihadi terrorists as might be believed. There are, of course, obvious differences: Islamic terrorists, unlike fascist terrorists, are not racist. Anyone can be a Jihadi, whatever their racial origin. Also, there is the faith aspect - Jihadis kill in the name of their faith in Allah, while neo-Nazis usually, but not always, kill in the name of racial supremacy, and have no religious motivation.
Nevertheless, there ARE similarities:
1. They both hate liberal democracy and freedom of speech.
2. They both want to establish totalitarian states (Jihadis call it a "caliphate")
3. They both want to turn back the clock on women's rights.
4. They both persecute homosexuals (despite many of their number being gay)
5. They are both rabidly anti-semitic (although Jihadis try to disguise it by saying they are "anti-zionist")
6. They both are willing to employ terrorist tactics and kill indiscriminately.
We must not make the mistake of thinking that Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian arrested for yeterday's massacre, is an isolated case. Let's not forget David John Copeland, who carried out several bombing attacks in London in 1999. Copeland was no Jihadi, either, but, like Breivik, a right-wing extremist.
In short, when it comes to opposing terrorism, we must not be blind in the right eye.

"It's No Sacrifice" at the News of the World

2011-07-09T12:56:00.001+01:00

I know there are some people who welcome the demise of the News of the World (NoW) for the right reasons: ie, it is a scandal sheet that has indulged in illegal phone hacking, crude sexual sensationalism and various types of privacy invasion. Again, there are those who welcome its passing for the wrong reasons - these are the wrongdoers and criminals who have been exposed by its investigations. I don't want to get into that debate, but there is another issue here which I find disturbing and downright sinister. The fact is that a very rich man has the power to kill a newspaper at will - and has done so. If any more reason were needed to prevent Rupert Murdoch from getting control of BSkyB, this exercise in megalomania is another one.
For, let's not be naive - "The Dirty Digger", as "Private Eye" calls Murdoch, is not axing the NoW because he is embarrassed by the antics of some of its former journalists. If he felt any shame in that regard, he would have closed the paper down years ago. No, he has only leapt into action after large firms have announced their withdrawal of advertising from the NoW, making it unprofitable. Money, not morals, move Rupert Murdoch. If he cared for people's feelings at all, he'd think of the journalists about to lose their jobs at the NoW. They face what is euphemistically called "an uncertain future", while the Dirty Digger remains a rich and powerful media mogul. Terminating a long-established newspaper is no sacrifice for him; he's got so many more, in many countries.
I hope that I speak for all trade unionists in what I say now. If I could address the assembled staff at the NoW (which, of course, I can't), I'd say: "As one trade unionist to others, I extend my sympathy at the loss of your employment. I do hope you soon find work elsewhere, and that you will not forget your treatment at the hands of News International. If any of you ever write about industrial matters, such as the cuts in public expenditure, I hope you will write with more sympathy for ordinary workers who are struggling to keep their jobs, and understand that they, like you, are subject to the same callous treatment that you have received from the barbarians who run News International".
I wonder what reception I'd get?

An Olympic Confession

2011-06-25T22:38:00.000+01:00

I feel slightly guilty to say this, but I'm one of the fortunate minority of applicants for Olympics tickets who actually succeeded in buying any. Not that I spent as much as I thought - I applied for £750 worth of tickets, but only managed to get £128 worth (including postage). Had I managed to acquire all the tickets I wanted, I would have about 24 for my wife and myself. As it is, I will be getting just four for two events - one for badminton and the other for tennis. Neither event is a final - they are both just qualifying rounds. Still, I'm not complaining. According to news reports, two thirds of applicants failed to get any tickets at all, including Boris Johnson (there is some justice, after all). I suppose the situation was not helped by the fact that so many tickets were bought up by big firms as freebies for staff and clients. One report said that two thirds of the seats to watch the 100 metres final were "corporate tickets". All of which raises the question: just who are these Olympics for ? After all, it is the UK taxpayer who is footing the bill. I accept that there were always going to be losers, but there must have been a better way of selling the tickets. I'm glad that I'll get to see live Olympic events, but, if the organisation of the games themselves is of the same quality as the selling of the tickets, I might not consider myself to be so fortunate after all.

Arise, Sir Chris!

2011-06-12T13:34:00.008+01:00

Like all teachers who remember Chris Woodhead's tenure as Chief Inspector of OFSTED, I was astounded at the news that he is to become a peer of the realm.
When he was the top banana at OFSTED, Sir Chris made the claim that there were 15 000 "incompetent teachers" in the UK. The right-wing press eagerly seized upon this figure, without questioning it; it gave them another excuse for "teacher-bashing". The fact is, however, that Sir Chris never provided any evidence for this astonishing claim, nor did he describe the methodology which he used to arrive at his conclusion. Personally, I always thought that this reflected upon Woodhead's competence, not 15 000 unnamed teachers.
He has also made the claim recently that middle-class children are more intelligent than working class kids - SEE HERE. Once again, Sir Chris fails to provide conclusive evidence for his views, although the claim should provide good publicity for his latest book,"The Desolation of Learning". He also fails to account for social mobility - the fact that people can change classes, if not their genes.
Now, as might be expected, his views on education were very welcome to the Conservative Party -which explains why he became one of their educational advisers after leaving OFSTED. As Francis Beckett said of "Woody" back in 1999:

"The things he is certain about tended to be the sort of things the Tory government wanted to hear: phonics good, real books bad; whole-class teaching good, group work bad; didactic teaching good, child-centred teaching bad; and so on. He rightly complains about the way British education debate divides into two armed camps, one of them arbitrarily marked "right wing", the other "left wing". Yet he has firmly dug himself into the trenches on the side marked "right wing".
Times don't change. Damian Thomson wrote in his Daily Telegraph blog in 2009:
"He (Woodhead) went too soon, though it’s amazing that he stayed at all under a Labour government whose client state is heavily populated by crap teachers. Do you think grade inflation would be tolerated if there wasn’t an unspoken contract between Labour and the teachers who benefit most from it, ie the worst ones?"
Now - you couldn't get the wrong idea about Sir Chris's political bias from that, could you?
However, much as I oppose and condemn his views on education, I have to say that I do feel sorry for Sir Chris. He has Motor Neurone Disease, and it is severe. So severe, in fact, that he is considering suicide - SEE HERE. In his own words:
"I am clear in my own mind that it is better to end it than continue a life that is extremely frustrating for me and onerous to others who are involved with me," he (Woodhead) said. "I certainly feel that the quality of one's life is more important than its quantity."
I sympathise with Sir Chris in his plight, but, as he ponders his fate, perhaps he will feel some retrospective sympathy for the late Keith Waller, Janet Watson, Jed Holmes and all the other teachers who took their own lives because of pressure brought upon them by OFSTED.

Ratko Mladic - Should He be Tried Alone?

2011-06-05T16:24:00.004+01:00

First, I would like to say that I have no sympathy for Ratkan Mladic. He has an appalling record, for which he is justly facing eleven charges - SEE HERE. The Srebrenica massacre, which he oversaw, claimed 8000 lives, and he richly deserves to be brought to trial.
But there are certain aspects of this case that make me feel uneasy. The Mladic trial reminds me of the trial of Rudolf Hoss, the Commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp. Hoss had overseen the murder of about 1 000 000 people during his reign as camp commandant, a number that dwarfs the number killed by Mladic's merry men. At the end of the war, Hoss was captured, put on trial and hanged at the scene of his crimes - in the camp itself. A Polish survivor of the camp later spoke of his disappointment that only one man had been executed for the murder of so many. He was right - about 8000 to 10 000 men and women had "worked" at Auschwitz. Following the hanging of Hoss, no more than 2 000 Auschwitz "staff" were ever tracked down and punished. This was not an isolated case - many, if not most, SS and Gestapo operatives involved in The Final Solution were never brought to justice - SEE HERE.
That's my first point. Mladic did not act alone, even if he was in charge. Why are his subordinates- the men who relayed his orders and the men who pulled the triggers- not on trial? To use that dreary Marxist term - this appears to be "tokenism".
Next - let's cast our minds back to the European tribal war of the 90s - aka the breakup of Yugoslavia. We have forgotten how NATO planes bombed Serbian targets in the Spring of 1999, even though it was pretty controversial at the time. No wonder. The bombing struck at Serbia not just militarily, but hit a good many civilian targets. The campaign was supposed to protect the Kosovo non-Serbs from the Serbs and (Tony Blair's words) "prevent an impending humanitarian disaster".
So we were told. In fact the NATO bombing made the situation worse. The actual "ethnic cleansing" only began after the bombing, not before. Who will stand trial for this error of judgement?
NATO violated international law on numerous occasions during the campaign. The UN Security Council's permission is needed to launch miltary action. It was not even requested. The bombing also broke NATO Treaty Article 5, which states that force can only be used in self-defence. Again - where is the trial being held for this?
According to Human Rights Watch, 500 Serbian civilians died during the bombing, and a number of civilian targets were hit, including hospitals, schools and Serbian Radio and Television buildings in Belgrade. Amnesty International said at the time:
"NATO forces violated the laws of war leading to cases of unlawful killings of civilians".
Thousands of unexploded NATO bombs litter the Serbian countryside to this day.
I repeat - I approve the arraignment of Mladic - but should he be tried alone?

Youth Unemployment - at Home and Abroad

2011-05-22T11:55:00.005+01:00

As I type, thousands of young protesters are camping out in Madrid to demonstrate their anger at Spain's appalling rate of youth unemployment, which stands at 45%. The protest, thankfully, has been peaceful so far, but needs to be taken seriously, not just by the Spanish government, but by all societies, including our own. The picture in the UK is almost as bad; recent news reports show that graduate unemployment in the UK is very high - the highest for 15 years. Official figures point to the fact that 20% of graduates were unemployed in late 2010 and data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that more than 45 students could be applying for each graduate job in 2011.
The inevitable official response will be that this is all a consequence of the international recession and we'll just have to live with it. There will, however, be other consequences, and they need to be thought about carefully.
The most obvious consequence will be the waste of human resources. Having so many intelligent people on the dole is not going to help us out of the recession. Far from it - we need them in work to help us OUT of this dire economic situation.
Another effect will be to push graduates into work for which they are over-qualified. You don't need a B.A. in Medieval Studies to serve burgers at Macdonalds, and is another example of how human resources can be wasted. But this will have an impact in another unwelcome way. The more graduates pushed into unskilled work will lead to less job opportunities for non-graduate young people,even more of whom will be unemployed.
There will be knock-on effects throughout the education system, also. Young people will be questioning the need to go into Higher Education (I'm told that many are doing so already). The universities themselves will be adversely affected by a reduction in student numbers. Many degree courses and even departments may need to close.
It will also have a negative impact on schools. After all, if there's no point in taking a degree, why work hard at "A" levels or GCSEs? Hopefully, that level of demoralisation will not set in anywhere, but if it does, well, here's a story...
Some years ago, back in the so-called Thatcherite boom years, I met a secondary school teacher who'd moved from London to the West Country. Having taught in some tough schools in South London, she thought she'd seen everything. She was wrong. She found that for young people in the town she lived in, there were only three career choices: university, the armed forces or the dole. In this woman's own words:
"I had far worse discipline problems than ever I had in London".
Is this to be the future?

Looking Back on the 7/7 Bombings

2011-05-07T20:37:00.004+01:00

I shall never forget the morning of 8th July, 2005. Like many Londoners, I woke with a sense of shock at what had happened the day before. At that stage, I wasn't fully aware of just how much devastation had been caused. I only knew that people had died, the Tube system had been attacked and it looked as if Al-Qaeda was behind it. I hate to admit it, but the first thought that came into my head as I walked to the Tube station to get to work was to wonder how long it was going to take. I immediately reproached myself for that passing attack of selfishness, when I remembered that an unknown number of my fellow Londoners were lying in hospital wishing that they could be on their way to work as normal - and for some, there would be no journey to work ever again.
Having thus chastened myself, I rode the tube, feeling somewhat apprehensive. Ludicrous though it may sound now, while riding in that ominously empty tube carriage, I felt that I was in a city at war. After all, at that time, there seemed to be a possibility of further attacks - perhaps that day. Then something remarkable happened. I looked up at one of the adverts and saw a picture of Winston Churchill making the V for Victory sign as part of an advert for the anniversary of VE Day. Somehow, a feeling of calm came over me, with a determination to carry on as normal.
When I arrived at my destination - Alperton Station, on the Piccadilly Line - I stood on the deserted platform with mixed emotions. A line from "September, 1939" by W. H. Auden came into my mind, seemingly very appropriate for a day when it felt like war had been declared:
"Uncertain and afraid".
Well, I'd felt like that all right. I felt relieved to have arrived safely, and somewhat shamefaced at having been so nervous. As I left the station, my thoughts turned again to the victims - wounded and dead. An idea for a poem by way of tribute came into my mind, and I wrote it that night, including Auden's line.
The Coroner's verdict at the inquest is well enough known, and can be read about HERE. I have nothing to add to that. I can only offer my poem as a tribute to my fellow Tube travellers who died so tragically on 7/7:

ON ALPERTON STATION

(July 8^th, 2005)

I stood on Alperton Station,

“Uncertain and afraid”

Of sudden, unseen terror –

My train was undelayed.

I left the silent platform

To start my working day,

When, on the darkened staircase,

A young girl barred my way.

She shimmered like the summer dawn.

“Please stay, my friend”, she said.

Her face was bright with metal shards

That garlanded her head.

“For you still have the working day,

The breakfast and the train,

The coffee break, the journey home

That I won’t make again.

My laughter lit the London skies;

I loved, and I was loved.

I filled a hole in many hearts

Till Hate had me removed.

If you’re in town at Christmas –

A time that I won’t see –

Please find my favourite wine bar

And raise one glass for me”.

Before I spoke – she vanished.

I slumped against a wall,

Shivered like a windblown leaf

And hoped I’d dreamed it all.

I walked from Alperton Station

And wondered what was real –

So glad for hands that trembled,

So glad for nerves that feel.

Osama Bin Laden - His "Achievements"

2011-05-02T17:15:00.003+01:00

I must admit, I thought Bin Laden would never be caught. In fact, I didn't even think that he was alive. Well, now he is dead and everyone from President Obama to the relatives of those killed in 9/11 are jubilant. The USA is justifiably proud of the achievement of their Special Forces. This stands as an example of how to deal with a terrorist threat - good intelligence work, meticulous planning and the expertise of an elite military group.
And yet - there are a number of questions that need answering. Why, for instance, were the Pakistani authorities not informed? After all, Bin Laden was hiding on their territory. The answer would appear to be that Pakistani Intelligence (the ISI) have close links with the Taliban. In fact, they helped to create it after the Soviet withdrawal and, according to some reports, some ISI elements still have those links.
Since he was located and eliminated by a small group of spooks, why was it necessary to invade Iraq and Afghanistan with huge conventional forces? In fact, the invasion of Iraq now seems to be even more pointless. Nor was he found in war-torn Afghanistan, where he was supposed to be based, protected by the Taliban.
We are told that the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, but a number of commentators, including Mark Curtis and Michael Moore, claim that the Taliban (and others) DID offer to hand over Bin Laden before 9/11. In 1995, the Sudanese government offered to extradite him, but the offer was refused. Michael Moore gives details of three offers to hand over Bin Laden before and after 9/11:

"They [the Taliban] were saying, 'Do something to help us give
him up.'" – Milton Bearden, former CIA station chief who
ran war against Soviets in Afghanistan

September 21, 2001
U.S. refused to provide evidence of bin Laden's guilt, rejected recommendation
by Afghan clerics that Taliban tell bin Laden to leave Afghanistan

October 14, 2001
Bush rejected Taliban offer to turn bin Laden over to
neutral third country for trial

Which leads me to what I meant by Bin Laden's "achievements". I am, of course, being somewhat ironic, but from his point of view, he achieved a great deal. He:

1. Successfully organised a major terrorist attack against the USA.

2. Provoked two massive unpopular and costly invasions of two countries by the USA and its allies, causing death, destruction and misery on a massive scale. These wars have done untold damage to the invading countries' prestige and their economies.

3. The invasions have spawned imitators around the world, and provoked imitation terrorist attacks, such as those in Bali, Madrid and London (7/7)

4. Some commentators have said that Al-Qaeda planned 9/11 because they were failing in their efforts to create a mass Jihadi movement. Bin Laden did not manage that, either, but the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have created groups that are similar to Al-Qaeda, who will carry on the fight.

5. Lastly - now that the raison d'etre for the "War on Terror" has been eliminated - is it not time for all UK and US troops to go home? That probably won't happen, but it certainly calls for a radical re-assessment of aims and tactics.

The Royal Wedding - the Losers

2011-04-25T09:07:00.001+01:00

I'd like to say this: I'm quite looking forward to the Royal Wedding on Friday. Foremost among my reasons for this is the fact that, along with everyone else, I'll get an extra Bank Holiday. I shall always think kindly of William and Kate for that. Then, of course, there will be the entertaining spectacle of the guests - famous and not-so-famous - who will be parading for the cameras. The wedding ceremony itself will be deeply affecting for very many people, and the makers of Kleenex tissues will be delighted at the thought of all their products being used to mop tearful eyes during the wedding vows.
There will, of course, be people who feel let down, excluded and alienated from the whole thing. No, I'm not going to do the familiar Leftie thing about the homeless and the unemployed. Nor will I issue dire Rightie warnings about Anarchists, Muslim extremists and Damned Bolshies.
Instead, I'll focus upon two men who have really lost out - Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Both these ex-PMs have not been invited to the Royal Wedding. One can only imagine their feelings. After all they have done to help the Establishment, this is the thanks they get! Without Tony, we might never have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without Gordon, the economy might have gone into free fall and (let's not forget) another PM might have been a lot harsher on the bankers who have caused this recession in the first place. It really is so unfair.
Never mind, To and Gord - now you know where you stand with the people you did so much to please, you can still have a day off to watch telly like the rest of us.

"The Trouble With Education"...Again

2011-04-09T23:46:00.001+01:00

Education in the UK has been a political football for years. Both Labour and Conservatives have attacked each other's education policies while in opposition, while making what appear to be sweeping changes when in power. Whether it's Tony Blair with his "Education, education, education" mantra, or John Major with his "Back to Basics" campaign, all politicians with an interest in education declare their intention to sort out the problems they see in Britain's schools once and for all. It has been a recurring theme at Tory and Labour Party conferences for decades. And yet, in today's Daily Mail, we read:
"Despite a doubling of spending on education since 2000, from £35.8billion to £71billion, Britain has plummeted down world rankings, according to the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
During this period the UK slipped from eighth to 28th in maths, from seventh to 25th in reading and from fourth to 16th in science. It is now behind relatively poor nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia."

Read more (if you can stand it) at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374636/School-leavers-unfit-work-Firms-spend-billions-remedial-training.html#ixzz1J47GMjjT

As a teacher for 30 years, I am gripped by a sense of dejavu yet again. Back in the 1980s, before the Thatcher Government introduced the first ponderous (and horrendous) National Curriculum, the Government was quoting statistics that proved British children to be performing poorly in science tests compared to Japanese children. The National Curriculum that followed was an expensive, unworkable flop, with about 14 folders on every subject. They were later replaced by a single folder, but that did not prevent many hard-working and dedicated teachers ruining their health in trying to make Mrs Thatcher's folly work.
The Major years saw the creation (some would say "job creation") of OFSTED, which was supposed to be the instrument to galvanise schools into raising their standards. It certainly led to a good deal of pressure upon schools to do well in OFSTED inspections. For some teachers, as I have said before, the pressure was so intense that they committed suicide.
There have been many initiatives since, such as the Numeracy and Literacy Hours, the introduction and (optional) abolition of SATs testing and "Every Child Matters". All these schemes were usually preceded by a barrage of statistics such as the ones given above. So, there is nothing new about the "worrying" statistics in today's "Mail"; it is probably a sign that the ConDems are planning another "initiative". In the film "Apocalypse Now", the Martin Sheen character says:
"In Viet-Nam, the bullshit piled up so fast, you needed wings to stay above it".
Although we would put it in more restrained (and constrained) language, that sums up the view of many who work at the chalk face in education.
I have no access to statistics by way of confirmation, but I believe these observations of mine to be true:
1. British primary school children are not as good at Kendo as their counterparts in Japan.
2. London schoolchildren are years behind in the learning of French compared to school students in Paris.
3. Italian children are better at making pasta than British OFSTED inspectors.
4. British politicians are as adept and unscrupulous in their use of statistics as politicians everywhere else.
I was once described as an "old cynic" by a Headteacher. Let my answer to that person be my last words here:
"There's only one thing wrong in being a cynic about education - I'm always right".

Self-Righteous Indignation: the Daily Mail, Mrs Thatcher and Terrorism

2011-04-02T20:36:00.002+01:00

The Daily Mail is incandescent with (self) righteous indignation. "Our Man in Washington Helped With Gaddafi's Son's "Dodgy" PhD", says the banner headline on today's edition. Sir Nigel Sheinwald, our ambassador in the USA and "a key confidant of Tony Blair", is alleged to have given tutorial support to Saif Gaddafi when The Mad Colonel's son was a postgraduate student at the LSE. It seems to have helped, because Gaddafi Junior graduated with a PhD in Philosophy in 2008. This is, claims theMail's leader writer, Michael Seamark, "...further evidence of the close links between the Blair government and the Libyan tyrant's murderous regime".
Well, I'm no fan of the Colonel, and I'm aware of the fact that a number of UK universities have received funds from Gaddafi in the past, but the high moral tone of this article is too much to take.
It may be that Blair and his cronies tried cosying up to the Libyan dictator, but the ex-PM, Mrs Thatcher, much revered by the Mail, kept some unsavoury company as well.
Back in the 1980s, during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the USA and Britain were covertly arming the Afghan resistance - the Mujahadeen - one of the Mujahadeen commanders receiving assistance was a man called Hadji Abdul Haq. He wasn't the only one , of course, but what made Haq special was his readiness to use terrorism. In September, 1984, Haq's men set off a bomb at Kabul Airport, which killed 28 innocent people. Most of the victims were students, waiting for a flight to the Soviet Union. In March 1986, Haq was welcomed to Britain by Mrs Thatcher and later went on to visit President Reagan.Facing his critics in London, Haq said that the bomb outrage was "to warn people not to send their children to the Soviet Union". A Downing Street official said that the PM had "...a degree of sympathy with the Afghan people".
Exactly how much sympathy Mrs Thatcher had for the relatives of the 28 dead at Kabul Airport is not recorded.
I often wonder what the reaction of our press would have been if 9/11 or 7/7 had happened in the USSR in the 1980s. I very much doubt that there would have been any sympathy for the victims in papers like the Mail. As far as I'm concerned, helping with a dodgy PhD is a good deal less reprehensible than wining and dining a terrorist and a murderer. Still, as Mrs T and the Mail would no doubt say: Haq was our terrorist and our murderer.

Eyewitness: the London Anti-Cuts March

2011-03-27T12:10:00.003+01:00

After such a dramatic-sounding title, and the images that are all over today's newspapers and TV reports, I have to say that I was on the anti-cuts demo yesterday, and enjoyed a noisy, but good natured, slow walk through central London. With friends, I arrived at the Embankment tube station at exactly 11.00am, and we reached Hyde Park at about 4.00pm. The only anxiety of the day for us came when my friend's wife became separated from us for a short while, only to rejoin us happily, having been following a very lively steel band. I hadn't been on a demo for years, and it was exhilarating to walk down Whitehall in the company of thousands (no-one knows exactly how many). It took some time to pass through Trafalgar Square, but we were entertained by one marcher who climbed one of the statues and put a Unison jacket on the rider of a horse.
In Piccadilly, we saw the signs of the violence that the media is focussing upon today. Bad as it was, and as frightening as it must have been at the time of the violence, many marchers walked by without seeming to notice. Apart from the damage to the Ritz, which was considerable, the rest seemed to amount to no mare than a few splashes of paint on walls. The action was over long before we got there. We arrived at Hyde Park at about 4pm, only to find that all the speakers had spoken and gone home. This was a flat end to what had been a lively day. It was quite a disappointment - and a missed opportunity for the Labour Party. Had Labour politicians appeared at staggered intervals, they would have got their message across far better.
As for the Anarchists and the subsequent evening violence, I can only say that I saw it coming. Without their acts of "propaganda by deed" (PBD), no-one would notice them, and it was obvious that they were not going to miss this opportunity. Near Temple Underground Station, I saw some of them wearing facemasks and carrying Anarcho-Syndicalist flags (the Anarchist flag is black) as we waited to join the main march, and wondered when they would kick off into action. I watched for them all along the route of the demo, but they never seemed to have enough troops to attack anywhere. I'm no psychic, but I guessed that they'd start something serious later - possibly after the main march dispersed. It looks as if I was right.

Sky News last night gave extensive coverage to the violence - more or less non-stop, all evening. Today's papers are showing lurid pictures of the action and no doubt have printed equally lurid articles. All I can say - and so will most of us who marched in London yesterday - is that we must not be tarred with the red and black anarchist brush.

Private Eye, Posterity and the Verdict of History

2011-03-19T17:25:00.005Z

When History pronounces its verdict upon Colonel Gaddafi, it will have a bewildering assortment of comments about him to choose from. One US President (Ronald Reagan, 1986) described him as "flaky" (ie, mad), while others have described him as "..a great guy believing in God" (Mohammed al-Fayed). Private Eye recently pointed out that in 2009, the UK sent an SAS team to train the Libyan armed forces. The Foreign Office (FO) said that this was: "...ongoing co-operation with Libya in the field of defence". Two years later, the government sent SAS teams to rescue UK citizens from what the FO calls: "...human rights violations by the Libyan authorities".
All this, of course, is as a result of trying to win the Colonel over to "our" side. This is the man whose regime supplied the IRA with arms, blew up an aircraft over Scotland and whose embassy staff shot dead a London policewoman in broad daylight. All pretty sickening, really.
Anyway, now it looks as if the UK and other countries are riding to the rescue of the Libyan rebels. While the concern of western governments for the fate of the Libyan people may be seen (not least by themselves) as commendable, one does wonder why no such military support has been given to the people of Zimbabwe. It is also remarkable that no support, moral or material, has been given to the protesting people of Bahrain, Syria or Yemen.
One TV pundit said today that Al-Qaeda has been strangely quiet throughout the recent events in the Middle East. I do not find it strange. I'm no expert, but I believe that Al-Qaeda will be watching the Libyan situation very carefully. They are probably waiting for the victory of one side or the other. When the outcome is decided, they will join in - on the side of the losers. If Gaddafi loses, he has said that he is prepared to ally with Al-Qaeda; if he wins, they will exploit the bitterness and anger of the anti-Gaddafi rebels against the West, who will be seen as having abandoned them.
Gaddafi has been panned for saying that Al-Qaeda is behind the Libyan Uprising, but there are some facts here that are worth considering. It is not generally known, but Libya was the first country to ask for an Interpol arrest warrant to arrest Osama Bin Laden - in 1998. Yet, according to Mark Curtis in "Secret Affairs", US and UK intelligence "buried the arrest warrant". It seems that this was because MI6 had been involved in a failed plot to assassinate Gaddafi with an Al-Qaeda affiliate group called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Five months after the arrest warrant was issued, Al-Qaeda bombed US embassies in Africa.
Posterity, like John Osborne and Oasis, will look back in anger - and much disgust.

Gaddafi, Hague, and an Unthinkable Conversation

2011-03-10T20:04:00.004Z

The Libyan Civil War is starting to resemble the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) in a number of significant ways. Both started with a popular uprising which seemed to promise a people's victory. Both saw untrained militias going bravely into action against a better armed and militarily experienced enemy. We all know what happened to the Spanish Republicans and it looks as if the Libyan rebels are starting to face a similar fate. The superior weaponry and tactics of Gaddafi's forces are beginning to tell.
If The Mad Colonel ( as "Private Eye" calls him) is victorious in this conflict, he will doubtless come to resemble Franco in the treatment of his defeated enemies. I don't often agree with John Major, the ex-PM, but Major is right when he says that Gaddafi will exact a savage revenge on every former enemy that he can capture alive.
If Gaddafi wins, there will also be a lot of fence-mending (ie. grovelling) by western politicians who have supported the uprising and condemned The Mad Colonel. A fly on the wall at a (hopefully unthinkable!) meeting between Gaddafi and William Hague might hear this:
Hague:" Er, well, Colonel, I must apologise for my somewhat intemperate comments during the recent difficulties...."
Gaddafi: "Let bygones be bygones. The training you gave our military and the weapons you sold us were a great help".
Hague: "Speaking of which, Your Excellency, I do have a catalogue of our most up to date riot control vehicles..."
Gaddafi: "Thankyou. Business as usual, then?"
Even a fly on a wall would be sickened at this!

Mervyn King and the Internationale

2011-03-06T13:39:00.003Z

Well, the top people are beginning to take a more realistic view of our present economic ills. Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, has said:
"The price of the financial crisis is being borne by people who did absolutely nothing to cause it."
The people referred to here, which is most of us, have known this for some time, but I suppose it's better late than never. He even went on to say that he was:
"...surprised that the degree of public anger has not been greater than it has".
Mr King should not be surprised; the real cuts have not been implemented yet. Those of us who work in the public sector are bracing ourselves for the massive cuts that are promised at the start of the new fiscal year. This melancholy event is only a few weeks away.
The magazine "Money Week", which claims to have seen the credit crunch coming, says that 2011 will see a further fall in house prices and, following the rise in interest rates, a corresponding increase in repossessions and homelessness. It advises all its readers with money invested in property to buy gold instead. As very few of us are in that happy position, we could well see the explosion in public anger that Mervyn King speaks about. The tuition fees riots that we have already seen show that people still are capable of anger at the failings of the system. Worse could be on the way.
I have forgotten the words of "The Internationale"; I really must look for them...

The Revolution, Wordsworth and Gil Scott Heron

2011-02-25T22:38:00.003Z

As the revolution in Libya and across the Middle East heats up by the hour, it's worth standing back and making some cool observations. Contrary to what Gil Scott Heron said once (see the Featured Artist page) the revolution is being televised. It's also being reported round the clock by the internet, Twitter and mobile phone. I can honestly say that I have seen more images of Libya in the past few weeks than I have in the 40 years of Gaddafi being in power. Unlike previous revolutions( the American, French, Russian, Iranian, Velvet, etc), modern technology gives us a ring side seat to the making of history.
One wonders what Wordsworth would have made of it? He, of course, hailed the French Revolution with the famous line:
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive".
Wordsworth was in France at the time and felt so blissful that he made a French girl pregnant. In later life, he moved politically to the Right and bought shares in railways - but he never forgot his enthusiasm for 1789.
No-one outside Libya seems to feel much bliss for their revolution. All the non-Libyan faces we see on TV have an unmistakable look of concern and worry. There are the relatives of UK nationals trapped in Libya - and their anxiety is readily understandable. There are also the worried faces of our leading politicians - and I think that their worries are founded on more than humanitarian concerns.
They are, of course, worried about the possible outcome of events. There is the possibility of Islamists coming to power in Libya and elsewhere. Failing that, they must be aware that the Libyans fighting Gaddafi feel some bitterness towards the west. One Libyan said on TV:
"All the western countries care about is oil"
Many seem to feel that not enough has been done by western countries to help them by pressurising Gaddafi. They are also aware that Gaddafi's forces have much weaponry supplied by the west - especially from Britain. As they will no doubt see it, international condemnation of Gaddafi has only become vocal now that he is so obviously losing the fight to stay in power. A future Libyan government might not forget this.
Things were so much easier in Wordsworth's day - he didn't have up to date news from Paris. Things were so much simpler.
An updated version of his famous line might be:
"Stressed is it in this dawn to be alive".

Red Faces - Left and Right

2011-02-20T16:22:00.001Z

As the reports come in from Libya and Bahrain about how anti-government demonstrators are being shot down ( 200 reported dead in Libya), it occurs to me that a great number of people on the left and right should, if they have any shame, be highly embarrassed by events in the Middle East.
We never hear much nowadays about the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP). In the 1970s, even people on the Far Left thought of them as a bunch of sectarian lunatics. They were most well known for the fact that Vanessa and Corin Redgrave were leading members. Less well known was the fact that they were vocal supporters of Colonel Gaddafi's Libya. I cannot be bothered to look at their website, but I hope that the WRP are withdrawing their support for the Bloody Colonel (are those pigs I see, flying in formation over London?).
It also needs to be noted that many MPs, of all parties, have had junkets to Libya and enjoyed the Colonel's hospitality. Western politicians must be hoping that if the Colonel is toppled, whatever government replaces him won't be too piqued at the fact that the West was becoming very friendly with their erstwhile leader.
Who knows? Maybe the Colonel and his followers will seek sanctuary here in the UK? As the Vietnamese say: "Only when the house is on fire do you see the faces of the rats".

The Egyptian Revolution and a Book Recommendation

2011-02-13T18:37:00.002Z

The Chinese statesman, Chou En-Lai, is reported as having said:
"The significance of the French Revolution? -- too early to tell."
If that's true of the French Revolution, which began in 1789, then it is certainly true of the Egyptian Revolution, which is happening as I type. I wish the Egyptian people well - I hope that they achieve the freedom for which so many have struggled so valiantly and in pursuit of which, many people have died. It has been truly inspiring to watch the crowds in Tahrir Square and listen to them articulate their hopes and dreams for the future of Egypt. It shows once again that "people power" can still overturn tyrants and lead to a new dawn for democracy.
There have,of course, been voices expressing disquiet about events in Egypt. Some commentators have pointed out that the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic body, are waiting in the wings for their opportuntiy to seize power.
At this point, I would like to refer readers to a book called "Secret Affairs - Britain's Collusion With Radical Islam" by Mark Curtis. It is a fascinating book to read, and there is insufficient space here to give much detail, as it goes back to the beginning of the 20th century. Enough then, is to say that there is a startling and shocking fact on practically every page. The book paints a grim picture of how successive British governments have used Jihadist groups against political leaders and regimes they disliked at the time, despite the fact that these same Jihadist groups weren't too fond of Britain, either. Curtis claims that Britain's policies (and those of the USA) have helped to create the Jihadi terror threat we face today.
In the case of Egypt, he details how British policy makers secretly conspired with the Muslim Brotherhood to assassinate President Nasser in the 1950s. This continued until a more pro-Western regime came to power in Egypt in the early 1970s, when all connections were severed with the Brotherhood.
No wonder some people listen to the victorious chants of the crowds in Tahrir Square with apprehension; they dread hearing the sound of chickens coming home to roost.

Pensions, the Public Sector and Cuts-A-Go-Go

2011-02-06T21:07:00.002Z

With retirement looming, I wrote to my local MP expressing my concern about the switch from the Retail Price Index (RPI) to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is a matter of concern for teachers like myself and all public sector workers, whether retired or not. I didn't expect much in the way of a result from writing my letter, but the reply ran into two sides of A4. My MP began by saying that the priority was to reduce the national deficit. Taxpayers' money goes to enhance public sector pensions and "This cannot continue to be justified..." (i.e. we can't afford it). She went on to say:
"...Lord Hutton highlighted the importance of the public sector to the health of our society...Public sector pensions serve as a reward for public service".
I am sure that many public sector workers, already retired, would say that their pension isn't much of a reward for years of dedicated service, but there are serious issues to be dealt with here.
Commenting on the review, Dr Mary Bousted, General Secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), and no Bolshevik, said it was more "spin and myths" about public sector pensions.
She added: "It's total rubbish as usual. The average pension paid to a retired teacher is £9,000 a year, and £4,000 for a teaching assistant, which is far from gold-plated luxury as Lord Hutton agreed. All teachers contribute to their pensions and they are all in the same Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS) - there are no "special" pension schemes for those in the top jobs, unlike the private sector, and the scheme's rules prevent anyone benefiting from large salary increases in their final few years."
Quite so, and I'm sure that colleagues in other branches of the public sector would agree that the image portrayed in the media of we over-subsidised public sector workers retiring on a taxpayer funded pot of gold is an outrageous myth. It also fails to take into account the fact that we also are taxpayers. Politicians of all parties should remember that we are voters too...

President Obama - Not What Was Said On the Tin?

2011-01-30T19:38:00.000Z

Personally, I quite like President Obama. He seems a lot more genuine than most politicians, and being the first black president of the USA is surely a significant step forward for humanity? He has also, seemingly, tried very hard to improve the lot of the ordinary people of America. Mind you, I'm a bit vague on that score. I hope I never have to answer a quiz question on the subject.
It comes as a surprise to learn that, in some significant ways, he has shown himself to be not quite the shining liberal light I thought he'd be. For example, before he was elected President, gun owners in the US were buying up guns by the truckload. It seems that they thought Obama would impose severe firearms legislation - but that hasn't happened. Not only are guns still freely on sale, but President Obama has allowed firearms to be carried openly in America's National Parks. Mind you, Obama could argue that this is being liberal - for gun owners.
There is also the equally lethal issue of the War on Terror. President Obama gave the impression that the miltary adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan were abhorrent, and should be ended as soon as possible. Instead, he has sanctioned the biggest Military Spending budget ever anywhere. This has led John Pilger to comment:
"... many Americans actually believed Obama shared their opposition to Bush’s wars. In fact, he had repeatedly backed Bush’s warmongering and its congressional funding."
He has also continued America's unconditional support for Israel, and assured Cuban exiles that he will continue to impose the US trade embargo on Cuba.
This is not quite what was expected. Still, we in Britain should now be used to politicians who make promises before being elected to power, then fail to keep them when elected.
I wonder if Obama has ever met Nick Clegg?

Where are All the Protest Songs?

2011-01-22T17:00:00.003Z

In an interview found in "The Guardian" on the 11th January, Bily Bragg laments the dearth of protest songs, given the credit crunch and the Afghan War. He says:
"When I was first plying my trade, people were willing to talk about these issues. Now they'd rather write about getting blasted than changing the world".
For the most part, I agree, although there may be an unwelcome explanation for this. One explanation is simple political apathy, caused by the fact that most people feel that they can have no real influence upon events, whatever they do. After all, runs this line of reasoning, 1000, 000 people demonstrated in London before the start of the Iraq War, and it didn't stop the invasion.
There is also the age issue. I have not encountered the argument that protest songs are "old hat", belong in the past and are for the older generation, but I am sure that this attitude does exist.
Lastly, there is the argument that people like the anodyne pop songs of today because they provide them with an escape from reality. There might be some point to this. In the 1930s, when war loomed, people loved some of the most trivial, escapist music imaginable. How else can we explain the popularity of Gracie Fields and George Formby?
Some would argue that protest songs are a waste of time, pointing to the anti-war songs of John Lennon as an example. Yoko Ono is on record as saying that Lennon really believed that songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" and "Happy Christmas (War is Over)" could change the world and end all war. Ah, say the cynics, such naivety!
As someone who has penned a few polemical verses himself, I find this last point of view the most inaccurate. Songs of themselves change nothing; people do that. But a song can inspire and help to unite people in a common purpose, raising our spirits and pointing us towards the ideals we strive for (I think Lennon would have agreed). We may yet see peace marchers singing "Give Peace a Chance" again, and student anti-cuts marchers lifting their spirits with a chorus of "We Shall Overcome". Deep in my heart, I do believe...

Mark Kennedy and a Question Gone Begging

2011-01-16T10:47:00.003Z

I have never posted here twice in a week, and do not intend to make a habit of it. However, the case of the ex-undercover police officer, Mark Kennedy, has jolted me into action. Mr Kennedy, as we all know, is the former police agent who infiltrated environmental groups for seven years and then baulked at seeing six of his former associates wrongly convicted. Mr Kennedy is now on the run, and anyone wishing to read more about his story can do so in the Mail on Sunday. Much of what he says is frightening, not least his claims that he was beaten up by five police officers while working undercover and that he knew of 15 other operatives like himself, 4 of whom are still in place.
What concerns me is the fact that so much effort and expense has gone into mounting surveillance upon activists who are non-violent. At a time when we face terrorism, civil disorder and global organised crime, why are valuable resources being directed against people who intend harm to no-one, and want to make the world a better place? I wonder if the police are engaged in surveillance of Amnesty International, Greenpeace and the Women's Institute?
It also begs the question: how much do police know in advance of actions planned by violent activists? As I have said before, Anarchist groups are not difficult to infiltrate for agents of the security forces. Such agents must have been in place before the recent violent student disorders in London, and yet they had no warning of the planned violence.
Or did they?

Tunisia - Is This a Portent?

2011-01-15T11:13:00.002Z

The BBC website is quite clear on the subject: "In a string of Arab countries, succession issues loom as ageing autocrats confront the unmet aspirations of their youthful and rapidly growing populations." The article goes on to say that there is a risk of unrest spreading to neighbouring Algeria. It also makes the point that repressive regimes, thanks to the internet, texting, etc, can no longer control news reaching their populations, and are thus unable to pretend that the characteristic features of repressive regimes (corruption, human rights abuse, etc) do not exist. Another point made by another commentator is that many young Tunisians are highly educated, and are no longer prepared to tolerate a state that denies them freedom of expression and (perhaps more significantly) has failed to provide them with productive employment.
Educated elites who feel aggrieved at the political system under which they live are a dangerous force. Such elites were the prime movers behind both the French and Russian Revolutions. The French revolutionary, Danton, said:
"The revolution came: I and all those like me threw ourselves into it. The old regime drove us to it by giving us a good education without opening any opportunity for our talents"

Perhaps we in the UK should take note. We now have an angry student population who feel that they face an uncertain financial future; we have thousands of intelligent young people who will be unable to enter Higher Education because they cannot afford it. The resentment and frustration felt by both groups could lead to problems in times to come. The popular unrest inTunisia, as I suggested above, could be a portent for the future.

Sexploitation - Not Just A Pakistani Issue

2011-01-08T18:34:00.002Z

As we know, ex- Home Secretary Jack Straw has been accused of "stereotyping" after suggesting some men of Pakistani origin see white girls as "easy meat", and groom them for sexual exploitation. This is understandable as far as it goes, because, as has also been pointed out, most sex offenders are white, and black girls are also targets for predatory gangs such as the squalid crew from Derby, whose crimes can be read about HERE, and whose leaders,Abid Mohammed Saddique, 27, and Mohammed Romaan Liaqat, 28, both married men, are pictured above. However, I think that Straw's remarks can be applied to all communities in the UK. The exploitation of vulnerable young girls is clearly a serious issue that is going largely unreported. All communities need to deal with this issue, and Mr Straw's comments - whatever we may think of them - will hopefully focus our attention upon it. As long as young girls take to the streets, predatory gangs of all cultures and colours will be looking for them.

The Blogmeister's New Year Message

2010-12-31T11:46:00.000Z

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

2010-12-23T10:45:00.000Z

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?

2010-12-18T18:13:00.003Z

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...

2010-12-11T21:11:00.004Z

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

2010-12-06T21:41:00.002Z

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?

2010-11-29T19:11:00.002Z

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

2010-11-20T19:16:00.004Z

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?

2010-11-13T22:41:00.003Z

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

2010-11-10T19:54:00.006Z

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?

2010-11-06T15:38:00.005Z

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

2010-10-27T20:06:00.005+01:00

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 faith 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 go charging into other countries to wage war on terror, let's hope they are reminded of the words of the architect of terror - Maximilien Robespierre: "No-one loves armed missionaries".

The Mad Axeman Strikes

2010-10-20T22:14:00.002+01:00

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

2010-10-14T17:17:00.002+01:00

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

2010-10-08T14:55:00.002+01:00

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

2010-10-02T09:40:00.004+01:00

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

2010-09-25T14:14:00.002+01:00

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

2010-09-15T22:09:00.003+01:00

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

2010-09-09T19:53:00.008+01:00

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?

2010-09-04T18:54:00.003+01:00

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?

2010-08-31T19:20:00.000+01:00

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

2010-08-26T19:16:00.005+01:00

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

2010-08-18T23:05:00.004+01:00

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?

2010-08-10T18:01:00.001+01:00

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?

2010-08-06T17:16:00.012+01:00

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

2010-08-01T13:37:00.001+01:00

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?

2010-07-26T20:23:00.005+01:00

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?

2010-07-17T11:08:00.003+01:00

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?

2010-07-11T17:06:00.002+01:00

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?

2010-06-30T11:38:00.005+01:00

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!

2010-06-26T21:12:00.004+01:00

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

2010-06-18T17:31:00.000+01:00

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?

2010-06-13T15:32:00.001+01:00

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

2010-06-03T16:49:00.001+01:00

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

2010-05-28T22:04:00.001+01:00

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

2010-05-23T18:58:00.002+01:00

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?

2010-05-22T10:32:00.002+01:00

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?

2010-05-16T08:13:00.001+01:00

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!

2010-05-11T21:05:00.001+01:00

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?

2010-05-07T17:54:00.001+01:00

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

2010-05-03T22:41:00.000+01:00

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?

2010-05-02T14:28:00.000+01:00

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?

2010-04-28T21:46:00.000+01:00

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?

2010-04-25T22:43:00.000+01:00

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?

2010-04-20T19:30:00.002+01:00

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?

2010-04-10T16:04:00.009+01:00

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.