Coronation Reflections: Age, Protest and Tom Paine

 Yesterday, my wife and I went early to Trafalgar Square intending to watch the journey of the new King and Queen as they travelled in their coach along The Mall and turned into Whitehall. We found what we thought was a good observation point, and began our long vigil. On the corner opposite, anti-monarchist demonstrators had gathered to protest against the Coronation. When the republicans chanted "Not my King!", the "royalists", who outnumbered them, responded with loud "Boos" (I didn't join in on either side).. Having said that, there was very little ill-will. In fact, one anti-monarchist carrying a placard walked among the crowd near us, and suffered no ill effects. It came as a surprise to learn that 52 republicans had been arrested, as we saw nothing of it. We saw little of the parade either, but I'll come to that. 

This was an unusual experience for me. Had my younger self seen me, he would have been aghast. Back in the 70s, as an SWP member, I participated in the SWP's "Stuff the Jubilee" campaign in1977. 46 years later, I was standing among royalists.  My younger self would have been outraged.

Nonetheless, we waited. As you might expect, time passed slowly. Frequent downpours of rain did not help the situation. Shortly after 10.30, there was a burst of excited cheering in the section of the crowd in front of us. Those of us at the back, which included my wife and myself, wondered what was going on. In fact, the Royal coach had passed by, and we had seen nothing. The crowd in front was too dense. After hours of waiting and getting soaked, our feelings can well be imagined.

Curiously enough, I didn't feel that we'd wasted our time. Even in our small section of the crowd, there were a number of different nationalities: British, Irish, Americans, Australians, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, all mixing well together as friends. Friendships have been forged during the preparations for the Coronation, all along the parade route, and that's a positive thing. As we left the Square (it wasn't easy), we felt positive about what we had experienced, despite the disappointment and the rain.

Now, I am well aware that coming away with a feeling of positivity does not justify the whole Coronation event in the eyes of sceptics and republicans. One republican, were he with us today, who would be scathing about the Coronation rituals and pageantry, is Tom Paine, the 18th century English radical author and Founding Father of the USA. As might be guessed, he was a fervent anti-monarchist, one of his quotes being:

"Vice and virtue, ignorance and wisdom, in short, every quality, good or bad, is put on the same level. Kings succeed each other, not as rationals, but as animals. It signifies not what their mental or moral characters are".

After assisting the American colonists to achieve independence, he returned to England for a while to build a bridge. Nowadays, he would have been arrested as a traitor, or, like Shamima Begum, had his citizenship removed. The authorities left him alone until he published "Rights of Man" - a rebuttal of Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France". Paine was lucky to escape to France, where he was elected to the National Convention. Now, it might be thought that Paine would have supported the execution of the French king, Louis XVI, but he didn't. Like the Girondins, he supported the abolition of the monarchy, but opposed the Terror and the king's beheading. In fact, Paine wanted Louis XVI to be sent to America, where he could learn to become a good citizen. This enraged the Jacobin faction, led by Robespierre, and Paine found himself in the Luxembourg Prison, where he was lucky to avoid execution. For those interested, this is how he escaped: 

"The evening before his death a physician came to visit Paine and for the duration of the visit his cell door was kept open. During the visit guards came through and dutifully marked his door with an “X.” But without thinking they drew the “X” on the inside of the door that had been swung open. When the doctor left and the door of Paine’s cell was shut, the “X” was concealed. The next morning guards passed over his cell since no “mark of judgment” appeared. An open door to a visiting physician had saved his life."

Paine survived to see the fall of Robespierre, but not before most of the Girondins had gone the way of so many in revolutionary France.

So, what's this got to do with the Coronation, or anything else? Well, it goes some way towards clarifying my view of today's monarchy. A friend asked me if I'd ever imagined standing in  a royalist crowd and I found myself harking back to the French Revolution, the Girondins, the Jacobins, Paine and Robespierre. I said that I might have lined up with the Jacobins when younger, but would have supported the Girondins, had I attained to middle age or older. 

While I support the right of Republic to demonstrate against them, I cannot bring myself to bear malice towards the monarchy in general and the King in particular. So many people, including the Labour MP, David Lammy, have spoken in his favour that, were the monarchy to fall tomorrow, I would not send Charles to the USA to learn good citizenship. I think he is a good citizen already.

I know that there are many other issues involved. I thought that the the police action against Republic was heavy handed, and there needs to be a full investigation. And there is always the matter of royal expenditure at a time of economic crisis. But, an American friend asked me the crucial question: do I believe in the monarchy? My answer, influenced no doubt by age, is that I have no wish to campaign for their abolition while so many of my fellow citizens want to keep them. I save my energy for campaigns against Brexit and the far right. The situation might change over time, but that is for future generations to bring about.

I just wish it hadn't rained so much yesterday.

OFSTED and the Power of Delusion

 For the first time in a long time, I had to stop myself from shouting at the TV. The OFSTED supremo, Amanda Spielman, seen above, was on the BBC about a week ago, defending the inspection results of Caversham Primary School. These results, as we know, contributed directly to the suicide of the much-loved headteacher, Ruth Perry. Ms Spielman's comments had wider connotations, and I think them worth commenting upon here.

Quoted in The Mirror from the BBC interview, Spielman said:

"I think the findings were secure and I think the inspection team worked with the professionalism and sensitivity I would expect from our inspectors. Pressed on whether she had any concerns at all over the downgrading of the school from outstanding to inadequate, she added: "From what I've seen I don't have any reason to doubt the inspection".

Let's ponder that. When we examine the reason for the school's downgrading, we find that the school was performing well in most areas. OFSTED, however, were not impressed. They found the school: “welcoming and vibrant”, staff/pupil relations “warm and supportive” but there was lack of “appropriate supervision during breaktimes” so pupils were “potentially at risk of harm."

Quite what is meant by appropriate supervision is not made clear. Professor Julia Waters, Ruth Perry's sister, quoted on WSWS, elaborated:

"Apparently, Julia told BBC South, an altercation in the playground between two boys and another incident involving a boy performing a floss dance, was the “scant” and “sensationalist” evidence for inadequate safeguarding. The playground fight was interpreted by Ofsted as evidence of child-on-child abuse and the dance as the sexualisation of children."

Speaking as a retired primary school teacher of 34 years' experience, and having done more playground duties than Spielman has had hot dinners, I can say that I have seen and intervened in an abundance of playground altercations, some very violent indeed. I don't know what a floss dance is, but I have seen numerous manifestations of what can be termed inappropriate behaviour. If fights and dances in the playground were grounds to fail a school, then half the schools I have ever taught in (full time and supply) would be judged "Inadequate". I note that OFSTED did not ask whether these incidents were  commonplace or not - nor if the pupils involved had special needs. And, of course, no positive or supportive measures were put in place by Ms Spielman's merry men and women. Downgrading was the order of the day, and a popular, caring headteacher was driven to take her own life. And Spielman has no doubts that her team did the right thing. Such is the power of delusion.

In a previous post, on March 24,  I have looked at previous teacher suicides related to OFSTED inspection,. WSWS notes another:

"Perry is not the first tragic victim of Ofsted inspections. Carol Woodward was the head of Woodford Primary School near Plymouth and took her own life in 2015 after a negative Ofsted inspection".

Even the normally anti-teacher Daily Mail reported on this case: 

"A popular headmistress hanged herself after Ofsted inspectors rated her school 'inadequate' when they visited ...Carol Ann Woodward was found in the garage of her home in Plymstock, Devon in July following a 'swift decline' in her mental health".

Ms Woodward's tragic death was not widely reported in the media.

 Research by the Hazards Campaign charity and University of Leeds has implicated Ofsted in coroners’ reports into the deaths of 10 teachers over the past 25 years. It reports teachers suffering cardiac arrests, strokes and nervous breakdowns due to the stress of inspections.  Andrew Morrish, a former head and inspector and founder of the helpline Headrest, said most calls from stressed heads are about Ofsted. "Inspection is a sensitive process", says Spielman. Yeah, right.

Another comment of Ms Spielman's delusional comments is of particular interest to me. She said, relating to inspections: "For the vast majority of schools, I know that it's a positive and affirming experience."

I found that statement hilarious. I have been in a school that failed its inspection, gone into Special Measures, been inspected by HMI inspectors every term for two years, emerging to a variation of educational parole. I can attest that none of us staff found it positive and affirming. We were just heartily glad that it was over.

On the other hand, as a school governor, I have played a part in a school previously rated as Good being inspected again after five years, and again being graded as Good. This time, all staff, governors and children breathed a huge sigh of relief. Positive? Affirming? Maybe - but I did help the the sole inspector leave through the school gate after the final briefing, which was surely an affirmation of a caring environment in the school. The most positive aspect for all staff is the knowledge that OFSTED won't be back for a while.

Ms Spielman has said that Ruth Perry's death was a "tragic event" and told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg show she was willing to speak with the family. As Ruth Perry's family have been justifiably outraged at the consequences of the inspection, the meeting, if it happens, should be a lively event.

Labour's Mistake: Tactical, not Strategic

 

Putting it simply, the Labour Party's Twitter post pictured above has not been well received. As we know, it has been condemned by Tory politicians and commentators, Labour politicians and supporters and a number of celebrities of various political hues. 

John MacDonnell, a veteran Labour M.P., quoted in the Daily Express said: "This is not the sort of politics a Labour Party, confident of its own values and preparing to govern, should be engaged in. I say to the people who have taken the decision to publish this ad, please withdraw it. We, the Labour Party, are better than this."

SNP MP John Nicolson said: "This is absolutely nauseating. Politics cheapened and debased. The Labour Party wants to win, of course, but like this?"

Actor and director Samuel West wrote: “Please withdraw this. It’s lower than low and I’m embarrassed to be a member when this is the way you campaign.”

With breathtaking hypocrisy, Tory MP Robert Largan said: "I'm not going to quote tweet it. But that Labour Party post about the Prime Minister is in the gutter. Really shameful stuff."

With rather less reservations than Largan, and no hesitation about launching personal attacks, an anonymous Tory source said: "Labour HQ (??) have highlighted Sir Keir's appalling record at keeping children safe. During Sir Keir's controversial tenure as director of public prosecutions, less than 30 percent of child pornographers saw the inside of a prison cell".

The source went on to say: "criminals want a Labour government." No evidence of this remarkable claim was provided by the anonymous Tory spokesperson. We can only wonder if the source is close to our late and unlamented prime minister, Boris Johnson, who launched a highly personalised attack on Sir Keir Starmer in the House of Commons in 2022. Johnson claimed that Starmer, when Director of Public Prosecutions in the previous Labour government, "spent most of his time [as DPP] prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile". This was widely condemned as the slur that Starmer said it was, and was decisively refuted by many commentators, including the BBC Reality Check.

Returning to the Labour tweet, and more factually based, Rob Powell, on Sky News, pointed out that:

"Rishi Sunak was elected as an MP in 2015 and only became prime minister six months ago, so pinning this all on him is a stretch."

Conservative commentator Iain Dale echoed all other right-wing commentators by saying Labour's attack on Sunak was 'a new low in British political attack ads'.

For myself, I have to admit that I did not like the personalisation of the Tweet, if only because it places all the blame for the figures on one man. A group photo of the government or a general statement ("It's all the fault of the Tories") would have been more accurate, and less open to criticism. The Labour Party - which I support - have made a tactical error in trying to emulate Tory methods by appealing to populist anger.

However, I have heard some interesting statements from people who support the tweet, One caller to LBC said that he was happy to see the Tories get a taste of their own medicine. As he went on to say, Tory politicians, and their allies in the right-wing tabloids, unfairly target whole groups of people. The list grows by the week. Asylum seekers, refugees, trade unionists, teachers, Remain voters, Remain politicians, human rights lawyers, civil servants - and these are just a few that we can expect to see vilified in the Daily Mail and the other right-wing tabloids. The caller to LBC might have included individuals too: Harry and Meghan, Gary Lineker, Sir Keir Starmer, Stephen Fry, all of whom have faced tabloid hostility. And who can forget the relentless tabloid campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, which lasted during the whole of his tenure as Labour leader? This reached its pinnacle in a Daily Mail article of 2019: "Fifty infamous moments that shame Jeremy Corbyn". There is even a test you can take to see if you are likely to be hated by the Daily Mail. The Labour tweet was a mistake, but Labour have a long way to sink before they are in the gutter with yer actual gutter press.

In conclusion, let's hope that the Labour Party does not resort to this tactic again. There is no need. This present Tory government is digging a pit for itself daily, and we should focus upon that. Personalised attacks miss the whole target and are, as we have seen, counter-productive.

A better Labour Party creation - strategically, tactically and factually correct.

Religion, Parliament and the SNP

 

When Kate Forbes, candidate for leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), in the wake of the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon, said recently that she would not have voted for gay marriage had she been an MSP, there was considerable criticism made from all quarters. The critics came from both the wider LGBT community, but also from some leading SNP figures. Ms Forbes did not help herself by saying that she believed it was "wrong" to have a child outside marriage. Nor was she helped by inadvertently drawing support from conservative quarters such as The Spectator. Stephen Daisley wrote in Boris Johnson's old paper:

"There is an uncommon graciousness and generosity of spirit at work in this woman. She is a nationalist ideologue, utterly committed to breaking up the UK, but she’s so achingly, infuriatingly reasonable about it."

In spite of this unwanted approbation, Ms Forbes responded with dignity to the attacks made upon her, issuing a statement on Facebook and Twitter:

"I will defend to the hilt the right of everybody in Scotland, particularly minorities, to live and to live without fear or harassment in a pluralistic and tolerant society.
I will uphold the laws that have been won, as a servant of democracy, and seek to enhance the rights of everybody to live in a way which enables them to flourish.
I firmly believe in the inherent dignity of each human being - that underpins all ethical and political decisions I make."

Now, my initial reaction was to condemn Ms Forbes outright - without giving her a fair hearing and without examining the context. After some reflection, however, I came to believe that this was part of a larger issue of politics and religious belief and decided to investigate further. What I found was, to me, surprising.

So, I thought, how unique is Kate Forbes? Is she the only practising Christian, nay, the only religious believer in our political setup? The answer is: far from it. The first political religious group I located online was Christians in Parliament, which, as it says, is: 

"...an All-Party Parliamentary Group, which exists to support all Members and staff in their work in the Houses of Parliament",

Members include Tim Farron, MP, and Lord David Alton (LibDems), Stephen Timms, MP, Marsha de Cordova, MP, (Labour), Desmond Swayne, MP, Gary Streeter, MP, (Conservative) and Sir Jeffery Donaldson of the DUP. There is a YouTube video, featured on their website and hosted by the one-time Tory MP, Nicky Morgan, called "Why should Christians get involved in politics?". All of which suggests to me that perhaps Kate Forbes is not alone in being a practising Christian and a politician.

Of course, political party divisions can sometimes override religious solidarity. This is proven by the article in Premier Christian News, which recorded Keir Starmer's supplanting of Jeremy Corbyn by saying: 

"Labour’s new top team consists of 14 MPs who ascribe to the Christian faith.A week after being elected as Jeremy Corbyn’s replacement, Keir Starmer has chosen his shadow cabinet – the MPs who will speak and work on specific topics.In a team of 98 there are fourteen politicians who are members of Christians on the Left, which is affiliated with the Labour party."

This 2020 article informed me that....

"On the front bench is Jonathan Reynolds, chair of Christians on the Left and the new shadow work and pensions secretary. A broad church of people join him, including David Lammy and Marsha De Cordova. Bridget Phillipson, a Roman Catholic, and Cat Smith, a Methodist who says her faith led to her involvement in politics, are the shadow chief secretary to the treasury and minister for young people respectively.

So, then, Christians of all denominations are already active in politics, some of whom must share Kate Forbes' views on gay marriages and births out of wedlock. Kate Forbes, then, is hardly an exception.

But what about other faiths? Well, I was interested to learn that 18 Muslim MPs were elected to Parliament in 2019. As The Muslim News says:

"Muslim candidates won a record of 18 Parliamentary seats at this month’s General Election, three more than in 2017 but slightly less than expected as Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party scored a resounding 80 seat majority.The number of successful Muslim candidates are spread over London, the South-East, the Midlands, North-West and North East, though none are in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. No less than 10 are Muslim women, including Apsana Begum, 29, in the safe Labour seat of Poplar and Limehouse, who is the first hijab-wearing MP".

And, of course, our present prime minister is a Hindu. There was once even a Mormon MP, Steven Kerr, who was Conservative MP for Stirling from 2017 to 2019.

Jewish MPs of course, have a long and distinguished place in our parliamentary system, dating back to the time of Benjamin Disraeli. The Jewish Chronicle names a number in the present cabinet, including Dominic Raab and Grant Schapps. It lists others:

-Michael Howard, Tory leader, 2003 to 2005
-David Miliband, current Labour Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
-Malcolm Rifkind, Foreign Secretary from 1995-97
-Sydney Silverman, Labour MP responsible for the abolition of capital punishment in 1965
-Leo Abse, a Labour MP for nearly 30 years who pushed through reforms on homosexual relations in 1966
-Leslie Hore-Belisha (British Liberal, then Conservative), who Introduced the driving test and in 1934 the Belisha beacon
-LibDem peer Lord Lester, whose two Private Members’ Bills became the models for the Human Rights Act 1998
-Lord Lawson, Chancellor from 1983-89
-Edwina Currie, Junior Health Minister from 1986-88
-Leon Brittain, Home Secretary from 1983-85
-Lord Emmanuel (Manny) Shinwell, a minister in the two pre-war Labour governments. In 1938 he slapped a Conservative MP who had shouted: “Go back to Poland, you Polish Jew”

Does this mean that religious groups hold sway over our political life? Not so. Unbelievers will rejoice to learn that the National Secular Society is alive and active in the UK Parliament and is campaigning for a separation of church and state, beginning with the abolition of parliamentary prayers. As Megan Manson writes on the NSS website:

"Conservative MP Crispin Blunt (who also happens to be gay and Humanist) addressed this issue earlier this month. He raised as a point of order that MPs "who don't have faith or subscribe to faiths other than the established church" are required to sit through Anglican prayers simply to secure a seat in the chamber. Blunt was also among 15 MPs who signed an early day motion calling for the abolition of parliamentary prayers last year. The MPs who signed this EDM were politically diverse, representing the Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and SNP, in addition to one independent MP. The principles of inclusivity, equality and modernisation are supported by members of all parties."

Religious faith, or the lack of it, is a major presence in UK political life. So why all the fuss about Kate Forbes? Well, I think the answer might lie in the internal politics of the SNP...

All three candidates in the SNP leadership race were out to win - of course. But the SNP is seen as a progressive party. In fact, some say it is the gayest party in the House of Commons. By getting Kate Forbes to come out (no irony intended) about her religious beliefs would be a very effective way of knocking her out of the leadership race (although she nearly won). Still, there is an irony in having a Muslim elected as SNP leader. When Muslims in general are vilified in the UK as extremists, how refreshing it is to have Humza Yousaf, a practising Muslim, taking a tolerant stand towards LGBT rights and unmarried mothers.

Before Ruth Perry - Three More Victims of OFSTED

 

In the wake of the tragic death of Ruth Perry, it was interesting to see the comment made on BBC TV this morning by the man once called "the Dirty Harry of OFSTED" - Sir Michael Wilshaw. Following a heart-rending account by Lisa Telling, a Head Teacher from Reading and a friend of the late Ruth Perry, Sir Michael made an interesting comment:

 "... former chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw said Ofsted had been "a force for good", but admitted he did not think it was "appropriate" that heads should have to sit on the result of an inspection for so long."

This is his view on the fact that Head Teachers, should their schools fail, are bound by OFSTED rules not to reveal it to staff for a long time. Lisa Telling spelt this out:

"She told BBC Breakfast that Ms Perry had to bear the "world-destroying" verdict by herself for 54 days, saying head teachers live in fear of inspections as they can be "personally damaging"

Indeed so, especially for Ruth Perry, whose life has been damaged irrevocably. A two day inspection has ended a 32-year career and taken a popular, caring teacher from her family, friends, staff and pupils. What is remarkable that someone like Sir Michael Wilshaw is making even the mildest criticism. As we know, though, the Chief Inspector, Amanda Spielman, refuses to entertain the idea for serious changes in the inspection system, as called for by the teacher unions. Still, at least the matter is now under serious review, which I find truly remarkable.

The reason that I am so surprised is the fact that, sadly, Ruth Perry is not the first educationalist to commit suicide because of pressure from OFSTED. Far from it. These tragic events go back over nearly a quarter of a century. As I said in my previous post, in my last 11 years of full-time teaching, I had a good deal of experience of OFSTED and HMI inspections. When I retired, and started blogging, OFSTED was one of my favourite subjects for adverse comment (some would say vituperative comment).

Back in June, 2011, I wrote a blog item titled "Arise, Sir Chris!" , in which I expressed my chagrin at the news that the former OFSTED supremo, Chris Woodhead, was to be made a peer of the realm.

Sir Chris died of Motor Neurone Disease in 2015, and I noted that, at the time of writing in 2011, he was considering suicide as he felt his life was not worth living. I pointed out that, because of pressure from his department, a number of teachers had committed suicide already. I named three in the blog item, and I will take a closer look at those three unfortunates here.

Keith Waller, a 35-year old teacher, hanged himself at his home in Sudbury, Suffolk in May, 2007. At the inquest, his headteacher said that she had observed a lesson by Mr Waller  after she joined his school in January, 2006. She testified:

"At that time I judged his lessons to be between satisfactory and inadequate," she said in a statement. In June 2006 there was an Ofsted inspection and again the same judgement was made that improvement was needed".

Mr Waller felt himself to be under severe pressure - so much so that he was seeking another job. A friend of his, Peter Thornton, said: 

"He resigned from a very senior post at the school in an attempt to reduce this but to no avail...
He felt he was being bullied and victimised. It seemed nothing was ever good enough."

Like Ruth Perry, Keith Waller was a very popular teacher. Following his death, dozens of tributes appeared to him online.  One parent said: 

"As a teacher myself I applaud his excellent teaching, hard work and fun nature. He was a complete asset to the school."

Jed Holmes, a Headteacher, died at home on the eve of an Ofsted inspection at his school, Hampton Hargate Primary School, Peterborough, in July, 2007. Already off work with stress, he was found dead from carbon monoxide poisoning at his flat, with remnants of a barbecue fire in one room.

The coroner said the evidence showed he was concerned about the inspection.
"We can't exclude the proximity of the Ofsted inspection at the date of his death," said Gordon Ryall, Peterborough coroner. "It was that impending inspection that triggered off the action he decided to take".

His doctor, Dr Neil Sanders said: "The reason for his depression at this time was his feeling of stress and pressure at work and his feeling of letting other people down."

Sixteen years later, we see similar factors at work in the case of Ruth Perry.

An even earlier example of teacher suicide due to OFSTED pressure is that of the third and last of the examples I quoted in 2011: Janet Watson (photo unavailable at present). Ms Watson was 33 at the time of her death in 1999. She was subject leader for religious education at Rudheath Primary School at Northwich in Cheshire.

John Hughes, North Wales Coroner at the inquest held at Mold, Clwyd, reading from statements presented to the coroner's office, said Ms Watson had suffered from depression and the Ofsted inspection had put her under increased pressure. Ofsted inspected the school in May 1998 and Ms Watson's worry over the event adversely affected her health. The coroner said it was an "absolute tragedy" that such visits should cause such a degree of stress.

And we should bear in mind that these absolute tragedies have continued up to the present day. I am left wondering when or if they are going to end.

As we know, OFSTED are expressing their sympathy for Ruth Perry's demise, but intend to continue, despite growing condemnation from many quarters. OFSTED, following investigations into Mrs Perry's case will make a sophisticated version of the "Jobsworth" defence: "Only doing my job!". I always think that this resembles the excuse made by Nazi war criminals: "I was only obeying orders!". The less sympathetic officials will shrug off criticism with a lengthy rehash of the Robert Louis Stevenson quote (Not Lenin, as frequently cited): "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs".  They will stress the overriding need to provide full and accurate information to parents and government on the performance of our schools. The fact that this inspection regime breaks lives, careers and is driving young teachers from the profession is just unfortunate. 

OFSTED inspectors with a conscience - and that might well be all of them - face a dilemma. What they do might be legally justifiable, but certainly not morally justifiable. The cases above - and there are probably many more than I have covered here - spell out the need for a review of inspection criteria and judgements at the very least. Too many lives have been lost already.

It is my fervent hope that Ruth Perry's tragic end will bring an end to the melancholy train of suicides that have continued for far, far too long. May Ruth Perry, Janet Watson, Jed Holmes, Keith Waller and all other similar victims of OFSTED pressure rest in peace.

Ruth Perry - a Tragic and Unnecessary Demise

 I am writing this blog post with a feeling of deep anger, so I must apologise in advance if I sound over-emotional at times. Not that any apology is really needed. The suicide of the dedicated teacher and Headteacher, Ruth Perry, seen above, has shocked many, whether involved in education or not. Mrs Perry took her life in January, ahead of the publication of an adverse OFSTED report. I was in a school which failed its OFSTED inspection some years ago and I can empathise with the feelings of all staff at Mrs Perry's school (Caversham Primary School in Reading). Times will be tough for all staff at that school now; were Mrs Perry still with us, she would have had to resign. For a dedicated teaching professional of 32 years, that would have been galling and humiliating in the extreme. I can well see why Mrs Perry found it unendurable.

Regular readers of this blog will remember that OFSTED was one of my principal targets for criticism some years ago. This was because I had recently retired after the best part of eleven years in a school which had failed its OFSTED in 2000 and gone into Special Measures. During those years, we were subjected to repeated visits from OFSTED and HMI inspectors. We, as a staff, worked slavishly to get the school out of those measures. Even when they ended, OFSTED still retained an interest. Even after my retirement in 2011, and I worked as a supply teacher, I saw the pressure on school staff when OFSTED were due to pay them a visit. Consequently, I took great pleasure in exposing what I considered to be the follies of OFSTED.

Of course, OFSTED is not the only burden that teachers have to bear. There are the constant bureaucratic pressures of planning, target setting and assessment. There are the unremitting onslaughts of  government initiatives and, latterly, financial constraints. For many teachers, especially in secondary schools, there is the regular hazard of pupil indiscipline, leading to abuse and assault. No wonder, then, as The Independent said, in 2017:

"The suicide rate among primary school teachers in England is nearly two times higher than the national average, figures have revealed."

These figures have not been updated, but when they are, I predict that, post-pandemic, they could well be higher. Risk of suicide among primary and nursery school teachers was 42 per cent higher than patterns in the broader population of England during the period 2011 to 2015, according to data released by the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

The Independent goes on to say:

"There were 139 suicides among teaching and educational professionals during the period, and almost three quarters (73 per cent) of these — or 102 suicides — were recorded as primary and nursery schoolteachers."

When these figures are updated, it hardly needs to be said that Ruth Perry's tragic demise will be included. 

And, of course, this is all part of a bleak picture for teachers. The National Education Union (NEU) points out:

"44% of England’s state-school teachers plan to quit by 2027, according to the latest NEU poll. Half of those (22%) intend to leave within two years.
Schools are struggling to fill vacant posts, leading to a doubling up of roles. 73% of teachers say this has worsened since the start of the pandemic.
Over half (52%) of teachers say their workload is either ‘unmanageable’ or ‘unmanageable most of the time’, up from 35% in 2021".

The OFSTED response to this whole tragedy reads like a computer-generated blurb, quoted by the BBC:

"Matthew Purves, Ofsted regional director for the south east, said: "We were deeply saddened by Ruth Perry's tragic death.
Our thoughts remain with Mrs Perry's family, friends and everyone in the Caversham Primary School community."

This resembles previous OFSTED statements issued after previous OFSTED-related teacher suicides. No positive measures, such as counselling, in order to prevent further tragedies, are even remotely considered. The government response is equally bland:

The Department for Education said inspections were a "legal requirement".

A spokesman said: "Inspections are hugely important as they hold schools to account for their educational standards and parents greatly rely on the ratings to give them confidence in choosing the right school for their child.
We offer our deep condolences to the family and friends of Ruth Perry..."

Most kind - I don't think.

To come to the point, I shall say that, while I have completely retired from teaching now for eight years, I am a serving school governor. My school recently passed its OFSTED inspection - deservedly so. The Head, deputies and teachers are dedicated, hard-working and consummate professionals. In spite of this, I would not change places with any of them. I only wish them, and all serving teachers the best of luck.

Finally, I know that I speak for all readers of this blog in sending condolences to the family of Ruth Perry and to the staff and children of Caversham Primary School in Reading.

For all readers of this item who are outraged at this latest loss of a dedicated teacher and who wish to take some positive action, the NEU has started a petition to replace OFSTED. You can sign by clicking on this link HERE. Either alternatively, or as well as, there is a petition on Change.com calling for an inquiry into the OFSTED inspection at Caversham Primary School which is LINKED TO HERE.

Defending Gary Lineker: "First they came..."

It has to be seen to be believed. If you click on THIS LINK, you will be amazed at the number of articles written about Gary Lineker by that bastion of objective journalism, the Daily Mail. Gary joins the pantheon of people that the Mail hates. What a list! Cross-channel migrants, trade unionists, asylum seekers, teachers, lawyers, civil servants, junior doctors, Meghan and Harry, human rights activists - and that's just this week. I wish I was exaggerating. It's not just the Mail, of course. As we know, all other right-wing media outlets have joined in, together with many Tory politicians and, to an extent, some Labour luminaries, such as Yvette Cooper and Emily Thornberry. As the Daily Express gloatingly says:

"Corbynite MP Emily Thornberry joined in the criticism of BBC presenter Gary Lineker last night, arguing his language has been "really unfortunate" and she wouldn't have used it."

So, what exactly did Lineker say that has given such offence? His tweeted words were directed at the government's asylum policy. He said:  “An immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s.” The meanest intelligence can see this to be a single sentence, whether we agree with it or not. Had it been tweeted by me or you, (and I don't have a Twitter account), it would disappear into the ether. Much is being done to counter the double standards and hypocrisy of the Tories and the Tory media on this issue. Even as I type, the indomitable James O' Brien of LBC is tearing into them, but I would like to look at two examples of eminent media personalities who are defending Gary Lineker.

The first eminent defender is Emily Maitlis, who herself was reprimanded in 2020 by the BBC for her interview with Dominic Cummings which the broadcaster said did not meet its standards for "impartiality" after Cummings appeared to break lockdown rules. As Lineker could well be facing a similar reprimand, Ms Maitlis says: "Curious that @GaryLineker was free to raise questions about Qatar’s human rights record - with the blessing of the bbc - over the World Cup , but cannot raise questions of human rights in this country if it involves criticism of government policy…"

That is very well said by Prince Andrew's interrogator, but another defence comes from an unexpected quarter. Piers Morgan is not known for his concern for human rights, but he makes a sterling point in Lineker's favour when he says of a man with whom he, Piers Morgan, has crossed swords on  a number of occasions: 

“We both have strong opinions, we both believe in what we say and we express them forcefully, but we agree to disagree.And I have no problem with Gary Lineker, a football presenter, sports presenter, from giving his views.He’s not a BBC news journalist, he’s not anchoring The News at 10 or Question Time or Newsnight, he’s a football presenter doing Match Of The Day and other major sporting events."

Both telling points, and I would like to join in Gary Lineker's defence by examining what he said. I believe his words in the original tweet to be more accurate than his critics are saying against him once the anti- migrant vituperation of the tabloid press is factored into the topic.The language employed by Tory politicians and their lackeys in the press about cross-channel migrants is frequently similar to that of Nazi propagandists in the 1930s. As Tom Peck says in The Independent: 

"If the home secretary writes execrable garbage in the newspapers, and repeats it in the House of Commons, about how “100 million people are coming here,” people are not merely entitled but obliged to show zero tolerance. To call it what it is".

It has been said that the real reason for the outrage of the Tories and their press is the fact that Gary Lineker has 8 million followers on Twitter, and cannot be safely ignored, like the rest of us. That should not preventing us from speaking out. While we have democratic rights of free speech, we should  exercise them. "First they came for Gary Lineker..." and one day, it could be our turn.

Lastly, to bear out Gary's point, it's worth doing a direct comparison between Nazi propaganda and the anti-immigrant tropes of the right-wing press, in this case, the Daily Mail.

Now, it's no secret that the Mail has a lot to live down for its dealings with Nazism in the 30s. Before the Nazi takeover in 1933, after the 1930 German elections, the Mail welcomed the Nazi success as "the birth of Germany as a nation". In 1934, it ran a story "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", praising Moseley's British Union of Fascists (BUF) as  the correct party to “take over responsibility for [British] national affairs”. This earned the Mail's proprietor, Lord Rothermere, a dinner invitation from Hitler. And of course, the Mail has been at the forefront of every campaign of populist xenophobia since WW2, from Enoch Powell in the 60s, to Ugandan Asians coming to Britain in the 1970s, to the present day.

But to return to Gary Lineker's charge, here is visual evidence to support his case. Thanks to Global Justice Now, I present two cartoons, one from Nazi Germany in the 30s, the other from the Daily Mail in 2014. One portrays Jews as parasites on the German nation, the other of refugees as invading parasites. Both include images of rats, implying that both minorities are vermin.

And this from the Mail, 9 years ago:

Gary Lineker has made a very effective point.

Shamima Begum: Flawed Logic and Unanswered Questions

 

Well, at least the Daily Mail is happy at the refusal of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to restore Shamima Begum's British citizenship. In a gloat-filled article, Sue Reid concludes:

 "It is dispiriting – if entirely predictable – that so many on the Left have swallowed Begum’s pathetic attempts to paint herself as a peace-loving young woman with every right to live among us, rather than as the Isis fanatic she clearly was. But at least some semblance of sanity still exists within our judicial system".

I know that friends of mine on the Left will demur at my quoting the Mail, but it is important inasmuch as it highlights what a lot of people think of this case and how the government want us to think about it. It is a pervasive view, but it needs to be faced up to, if we are to challenge it effectively. I realise that I lay myself open to the right-wing accusation made about the BBC - that it has acted as a "useful idiot" for Shamima Begum. That is a scurrilous charge to make against the BBC, and I will show later that I am no such dupe for what is alleged to be Shamima's "sob story". But let's look at why she lost her citizenship in the first place.

Sajid Javid, as we know, was Home Secretary in 2019, and it was he who deprived Ms Begum of her citizenship. As The Independent says: 

"The Sunday Times later published a first-person article by Mr Javid repeating that deprivation powers could be used. He asked for an updated MI5 security assessment on Begum on 15 February, and received it at 5pm 18 February. At 7am on 19 February, his private office sent an email saying Mr Javid “agreed with the recommendation to deprive Ms Begum of her British citizenship”, and her family was informed by letter the same day".

Some people might consider this a mite hasty, but there it is. When grilled by Richard Madeley on ITV about his decision, Javid said that if Madeley knew the reason for his decision, he'd understand why he made Shamima Begum stateless and Madeley, in his place, would have made the same decision.

This is the "flawed logic" issue of the title. As this reason has never been revealed by anyone, it is impossible to comment upon it properly, but there is, I believe, a glaring anomaly that can be pointed out. If this reason concerns a criminal action, then surely Ms Begum should be brought here and placed on trial. If not, she is a criminal going unpunished. If it was not a criminal action, then what is the problem with reinstating her as a British citizen? I don't expect answers, but the question remains valid.

The refusal to readmit Ms Begum  on security grounds is also based on flawed logic. Along with some security experts (I'm not one), I believe that Shamima is more of a threat to British security if she is not returned to Britain. If she is left to rot in a Syrian detention camp, she may well become radicalised again and escape to rejoin Isis. Should anyone doubt this, it has already happened with Sharmeena Begum (no relation to Shamima), a Glasgow University student who had already joined Isis and had encouraged Shamima and her two friends online to join Isis in 2015. This other Ms Begum has fled a detention camp, returned to the remnants of Isis and thus become a serious potential terrorist threat. 

And there are more such potential threats. In 2019, the Evening Standard reported: 

"More than 4,500 of the 7,000 foreign children in the radicalising squalor of Al Hol, the camp in north-east Syria from which the UK repatriated a small number of British orphans last week, are under 12 years old. Of these about 60 have a fair claim to British citizenship".

In other words, 60 more potential terrorists. But there is another angle to this matter...

I've written on this topic before, and about the man in the picture above. Thomas Haller Cooper (1919 - 1987) was a traitor who was forgiven, and I think it useful to compare his case with that of Shamima Begum. Cooper was the progeny of an English father and a German mother. Before WW2, he went to live voluntarily in Nazi Germany. After war broke out, he joined the SS and was wounded in action. In 1943, he became an NCO in the newly-formed British Free Corps, a ragtag unit recruited from British prisoners of war. They are regarded as a bunch of fascists and misfits, but Cooper stands out because of a claim he made to his fellow traitors. He claimed that, while serving with the SS, he had murdered 280 civilians - 200 Poles and 80 Jews - in one day in Warsaw.

After the war, Cooper was tried and sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted for reasons which bear significantly on the Shamima Begum case. His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment because, says Wikipedia: " [he] had been [a follower] in treason rather than [a leader]". Sentenced to Life imprisonment, he was released in 1953. Compare this leniency towards a murdering fascist traitor to the treatment of Shamima Begum and it raises the question: why is Shamima Begum being so harshly treated when her crimes are nowhere near as grave as were those of Thomas Cooper? Also - if Cooper was a follower in treason but not a leader, then what, pray, is Shamima Begum?

To conclude, should Sue Reid, or someone of her ilk, read this article and accuse me of being an apologist for Shamima Begum, I say that I think that if Ms Begum is guilty of crimes here or abroad, she should serve time in prison. Her present treatment is both unjust and counter-productive.

And finally, let us show some sympathy for the Kurds, who were our infantry in the fight against Isis. They have now been lumbered with the burden of thousands of ex-Isis international refugees who are not wanted by their home countries. That is yet another injustice in this whole sorry business. Surely the Kurds deserve better?

One Year On: Putin Still Leads The Gang

 

A year ago yesterday, I wrote about Putin's invasion of Ukraine. So much has happened since, so much blood has been spilt and so much discussion has taken place, that I thought I'd revisit my post from a year ago, to see if my original view has been changed by events.

I found one statement that I think has been proven to be accurate, and I stand by it now:

"I think he (Putin) operates like the street gang member he was. As Wordsworth said: "The child is father of the man", and Putin will only act according to the instincts he developed on the streets as a kid."

I believe that, like any teenage gangster, Putin thought that, as he had got away with military aggression in Chechnya, Georgia and the Crimea, he could do the same when he invaded Ukraine. Well, he got that wrong. The Ukrainians, as we know, have resisted magnificently. A terrible price has been paid by Ukraine in terms of destruction, displacement and bloodshed, but, contrary to Putin's expectations, his illegal incursion was repulsed, and the initial Russian territorial gains have been considerably reduced by Ukrainian counter-attacks. The Ukrainian will to resist, despite much suffering, remains undiminished, albeit with NATO support.

For someone who grew up during the Cold War, the Russian military performance has been a revelation. For decades, we were led to believe that the Russian/Soviet/Red Army was a formidable, unstoppable force. I remember one Tory windbag in the 70s, a devout Daily Telegraph reader, declaring that "They (the Red Army) could be at the Channel in three days".

Well, events in Afghanistan, Chechnya (in the first Chechen War, at least) and now in Ukraine have proven that fear to be groundless, even though that fear did assist our military in acquiring more funds. The Russian Army has had a bloody nose in all those places, and it is still bleeding in Ukraine. Some estimates put Russian casualties at 200, 000. Like all armies that are doing badly, they have lashed out at innocent civilians, and there is ample evidence of Russian war crimes. When the Red Army occupied Germany in WW2,  they acquired a fearsome reputation for sex crimes against German women. Some Russian soldiers have followed this example by carrying out multiple rapes in Ukraine.

What interests me here is how Putin has reacted to these reverses and to international opprobrium. Like the leader of the gang he sees himself as being, hostile criticism and the suffering of innocent people are irrelevant for him. In fact, he never mentions it. Failures on the battlefield he sees as not being his fault. Unsuccessful or cautious commanders are replaced, as happened under Stalin in WW2. It's not clear if any have been shot yet - but give it time. Dissent in Russia is suppressed, so it's no wonder that up to 700, 000 young Russians have voted with their feet and fled abroad. This will mean nothing to Putin. All that matters to him is his ego and personal aggrandisement, channelled into Russian nationalism. Human life, and humane considerations, mean nothing to Vladimir Putin.

NATO support for Ukraine is welcome and effective, but undoubtedly late. Action was urged before, during the invasions of Georgia and Crimea, but nothing happened. The main reasons were because of business links with Russia and - very important - Russian "support" for the "War on Terror". It's often forgotten that Putin allowed the US military to supply the initial invasion of Afghanistan, post-9/11, from Russian territory. I can see no way out of this situation, but Putin must be resisted effectively. However, even if defeated, his abiding feeling of resentment will lead him to take other kinds of action. We already have indications of this.

Last year, I knew of the Salisbury poison attack and the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. After the invasion of Ukraine, though, I decided to learn more about Putin, his rise to power, and his interference in the affairs of other countries, such as the US 2016 presidential election and Brexit. I happened upon one very interesting book, which showed me that Putin has been behind many more murders of opponents, not simply in Russia, which I knew about, but here in the UK and, to a lesser extent, in the USA. The book, "From Russia With Blood", by Heidi Blake, is a good starting point, listing a number of murders and suspicious deaths over 20 years of people who have incurred the displeasure of Vladimir Putin. This includes the well-known killing and attempted killings of Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal to the lesser-known killings of Scot Young and Boris Berezovsky (both officially dismissed as "suicides"). Also covered is the death of Alex Chapman, who was married for four years to the Russian spy Anna Chapman. 

The book is not without flaws, as has been pointed out by Leonid Ragozin, but Blake's research into these deaths and near-deaths is admirable. I believe that we should make a realistic assessment of  Putin and his street gang attitudes. We should face up to the fact that he will be a threat to the west, whatever the outcome in Ukraine. We should look upon these assassinations as a portent of how Putin will react. Russia, as Afghanistan was said to be, could become a haven for terrorists. Let's face up to the fact that British citizens and others living here have been killed by Russian terrorists already; more could follow.

Dawn Sturgess, a British victim of Russian state terrorism. Died after finding a discarded bottle of Novichok used in the Salisbury Poisonings, 2018. R.I.P.

Jeremy Hunt and Retirement Myths

 

Yes, I know. We all know already that Conservative politicians are out of touch with reality. We all know that they have no idea what life is like for the rest of us and have patronising views of us. Yet a recent quote by Jeremy Hunt reads like that of someone who is either on hallucinogenic substances or simply a charlatan. As the Chancellor of Exchequer for this week at least, Mr Hunt has outlined his fantastic plans - perhaps better described as fantasies - for boosting the British economy. A key component of Mr Hunt's vision is to raise the retirement age to 68 which, says LBC:.. "would add millions into the UK economy, according to Treasury analysis." In addition to this, he wants to entice retired workers back into the workplace.

"He told the Times: "Many of those people who decide to retire in their fifties will have a life expectancy well beyond 80.
That is a very long time in which a rich and happy life could be one in which work plays a very important part.”

Of particular annoyance to me, though, was this gem: "The Chancellor said that life "doesn’t just have to be about going to the golf course" for people in their 50s."

As a retiree myself, and I know that I speak for very many others, I found this quip ignorant, condescending and offensive. He is clearly unaware that many retired pensioners can hardly afford to heat their homes and most retirees certainly could never meet the cost of golf club fees. He obviously thinks that retirees spend their time idly indulging themselves, which is an insult to those retirees who do voluntary work or care for sick relatives. His remarks bear no relation to the nature of retirement life in this country, but they need to be countered because so many of Mr Hunt's ilk believe him to be speaking the truth and confirming their own reactionary prejudices.

Fortunately, Mr Hunt's vapouring has drawn criticism from a number of sources. One surprising voice of dissent is found in The Telegraph, where Tom Haynes raises the obvious objection that most retirees are not working for health reasons. As he says: 

"Half of over-50s who have dropped out of the workforce are jobless because of long-term sickness or disability, new analysis shows, in a blow to Jeremy Hunt’s ambitions to lure more of this group back into employment."

These figures, please note, are given by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). Mr Hunt clearly did not think it worth consulting any relevant data.

Nor did Mr Hunt allow for subjective factors. Many retirees would not consider returning to work if it meant going back to their old jobs. Why, for instance. would a policeman or NHS worker who has been assaulted while doing their jobs wish to return, after events that could have traumatised or even disabled them? I know that these will be dismissed as extreme examples, but that is the point: many retired people have left jobs that became increasingly unpleasant over the years, were grateful to escape from them and would never consider going back.

An added factor that I encountered in my latter years of teaching was the fact that many headteachers and other senior staff were overly keen to be rid of older staff. They knew they had legal restraints, but it was quite plain what their intentions were in their dealings with staff over 50. I remember being asked bluntly by one head (no names) in a personnel interview: "When are you going to retire?". Other modes of pressure included monitoring and questioning the sick absences of school staff. As the same head said to me: "Older staff have high rates of sickness absence". Other, more unpleasant forms of "persuasion" to get older staff to leave include giving them difficult classes and failing to properly support them with violent or abusive pupils. That did not happen to me, but I know it to have happened. At least one Local Education Authority(LEA) I knew of had very few teachers over 55. There were other methods, of course, and I have no doubt that similar things happen in other occupations and industries. Mr Hunt should take note: why should retired workers try to return to workplaces that only recently wanted to be rid of them?

This badly thought-out initiative will founder for the reasons above and also the fact that even retired people who want (or need) to return to work are not being given incentives, such as an alternative career structure. As The Telegraph article says:

"Kim Chaplain, of the Centre for Ageing Better, a charity, said many of the retirees highlighted by the data were “currently stuck within, or outside, of an employment support system that does not work for them.”

These are my thoughts, but, perhaps I should not have been surprised. Mr Hunt has a reputation that goes before him. Back in 2019, the Scottish National Party (SNP) drew up a list of Hunt's 10 greatest mistakes. After some thought, I insert them here, as printed in The National:

"In 2005, Hunt co-authored a paper calling for the NHS to be dismantled and replaced by a personal health accounts system.
In 2009, he was forced to repay £9500 for falsely charging taxpayers on his expenses to kit out his ‘second home’.
In 2010, Hunt accused innocent football fans of hooliganism – suggesting they played a part in the death of the 96 people at the Hillsborough disaster – he was forced to apologise to the city of Liverpool the families of those killed.
In 2012, Hunt called for the abortion limit to be halved from 24 weeks to 12 weeks – a view described as "insulting to women" by medical professionals.
In 2018, Jeremy Hunt breached anti-money laundering rules for failing to declare a multi-million pound purchase of seven luxury flats.
Last year, a group of leading health professionals won the right to sue for Hunt’s "backdoor privatisation of the NHS".
In 2019, Jeremy Hunt said he agreed "150%" with a tweet from Donald Trump that described London as "Londonistan" under Mayor Sadiq Khan.
Last month, Jeremy Hunt has suggested that he will block any future independence referendum regardless of the outcome of the Scottish Parliament elections in 2021.
As health secretary Hunt ran the NHS – forcing junior doctors to go on strike for the first time in 40 years, while the British Red Cross declared a "humanitarian crisis" in 2017 following record-low A&E waiting times."

The SNP said that Hunt had a "track record of extreme views, dodgy dealings and ministerial failings".

Did this qualify him for the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Competition Time!!! - as you can see, the book cover featuring Jeremy Hunt is titled "Greatest People"? Can you think of a word to replace "People"?

Prince Harry and Unintended Consequences

 

During the Brexit Referendum (and since) opinions in the UK divided into two main camps: Leavers and Remainers. The whole Harry/Meghan/Royal family saga has split us three ways into three broad based camps: pro-Harry and Meghan, anti- Harry and Meghan and those of us who are sick to death of the whole matter and wish it would end.

With reservations, I align with the latter body of opinion. To me, it is little more than yet another welcome distraction for the Conservative government, who must be delighted at seeing us argue about the merits and demerits of a wealthy family washing their dirty linen in public - and the world's public at that. Such acrimony deflects attention from government handling of the economy and so much else. My only reservations lie in the fact that Harry has not thought out the full consequences of his recent book publication for himself and others. However, while I refuse to take sides in what should be a private affair between families, the fact that the right-wing tabloids have declared themselves so openly against Harry and his wife does inspire some sympathy in me for the royal couple. Anyone that the Daily Mail vilifies in over ten pages in one issue can't be all bad. There is nothing new about this antipathy. It dates back to the tabloid fury over the interview the couple gave to Oprah Winfrey back in 2021. As James O'Brien has said on LBC several times, this is the same press that lied about Brexit, defended Boris Johnson and vilified asylum seekers.

All well and good, and, as all of us who watched the Tom Bradby interview with Harry on ITV know, the prince makes repeated attacks upon the British press for their negative reporting of his wife. Some of these attacks, such as that made by Jeremy Clarkson, are exercises in vileness and I don't blame Harry for being angry about that. Having said that, I believe that he deserves criticism for a number of things he said, without (apparently) thinking of the consequences. 

For someone who considers himself to be a victim of a hostile press, he has placed his neck squarely between their eager jaws.  The very fact that Harry is seen to be betraying his family by revealing so many deeply personal secrets has made him an easy and, I think, justifiable to some extent, target for attack. And the tabloids have seized upon this move by Harry with a relish:

King Charles pleaded with his warring sons William and Harry not to make his 'final years a misery' at meeting following death of Prince Philip;
Harry called his therapist before his wife Meghan after being 'knocked to the floor' by his brother;
Duke of Sussex claims William and Kate told him to wear a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party;
Princes Harry and William refer to each other as 'Willy' and 'Harold';
King Charles allegedly told Harry's mother Princess Diana on the day that he was born: 'Wonderful! Now you've given me an heir and a spare – my work is done".

All this is a family matter, but the most serious consequences could flow from Harry's claim that he killed 25 Taliban during his service in Afghanistan. I was initially surprised at how Harry could be so precise about the numbers he killed, but, as The Guardian says: 
"Harry writes that “in the era of Apaches and laptops” it was possible to establish “with exactness how many enemy combatants I had killed. And it seemed to me essential not to be afraid of that number. So my number is 25. It’s not a number that fills me with satisfaction, but nor does it embarrass me.”

This revelation drew condemnation from a wide variety of people - from senior military and ex-military figures in the UK to the Taliban themselves. The Guardian again:

"The retired army veteran Col Tim Collins, best known for delivering a rousing speech before the start of the Iraq war in 2003, said the prince’s kill-count talk was crass and “we don’t do notches on the rifle butt”.

According to Sky News, a Taliban spokesperson said:

"Responding to revelations in Harry's new memoir that he killed 25 Taliban fighters, Anas Haqqani, a senior aide to the interior minister, tweeted: "Mr Harry! The ones you killed were not chess pieces, they were humans; they had families who were waiting for their return."

Now, of course, the Taliban's condemning Harry for what they claim elsewhere as a war crime, is rather like having a major bank robber condemn a man or woman for shoplifting. But they do have a point, even if it is rather blunt and ineffectual - not to mention disgustingly hypocritical.

Now, as we know, Harry has been most put out by the accusations of boasting made against him on this issue. As the BBC says:

 

"The prince has been criticised for discussing killings in Spare, with some military figures saying it was wrong to refer to the dead as "chess pieces". But on US TV, Harry accused the press of taking his words out of context and said the spin endangered his family."

I am trying to be charitable here, but I marvel at Harry's apparent surprise. I find it very difficult to believe that the Prince and his advisers were unable to foresee the reaction that has ensued. By his claim in the book, boasting or not, he has not only endangered his and his family's safety, but also just about any major (or minor) military personality who fought in Afghanistan. Kevin Maguire, associate editor of the Daily Mirror, posted this image on Twitter:

 Maguire thought this in slightly bad taste, but I'm not too sure. The Taliban will studiously avoid sending their own operatives on a revenge mission - but that won't stop their sympathisers.

So, what's the prime motivation behind Harry's actions? Well, the respected writer, Yasmine Alibhai Brown has said that she sees Harry as a "hurt little boy", and, indeed, while watching the Tom Bradby interview on ITV, there did seem something childlike about the candour of Harry - or was it the outpourings of a patient to his therapist? There is, I believe, another prime motivation.

 As Hello magazine puts it:

"In figures released by the book's publisher, Penguin Random House, it was revealed that the memoir had broken their personal record largest first-day sales total for any nonfiction book in its history, with nearly one and a half million copies being shifted across the United Kingdom, United States and Canada".

Cash registers are singing, not ringing, and as The Standard says:

"The book is part of a three-title deal worth £36.8 million, and the Duke was reportedly paid an £18.4m advance for the three books. Penguin Random House did not disclose financial terms but noted that Harry will be donating his profits to charity – though it’s not been confirmed whether this includes his sizable advance, and is believed to relate to royalties".

The Book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, 10:19 says that "money answereth all things" and it is not difficult to discern another motive for this book's having been written.

Whether we discern monetary motives or not, there are two final unforeseen consequences that could well flow from Harry's decision to reveal so much of his family's trauma.

The first is the fact that this matter has, for the very first time to my knowledge, led to the anti-monarchist pressure group, Republic being quoted in the national media. In fact, the group sees Harry as a possible anti-monarchist campaigner. As they say on their website:

"Campaigners have today called on Prince Harry to step up and call for the abolition of the monarchy, following comments he made about the damaging impact of growing up as a royal.
Graham Smith, speaking for the group Republic, said today:
"Harry is clearly not interested in the royal life, and wants a better upbringing for his children than the one he was given by Charles."
"When he quotes Meghan saying 'You don’t need to be a princess, you can create the life that will be better than any princess', that's a democratic, republican sentiment. That's a call to bring the monarchy to a close."

The second, and final, consequence lies in what may happen to the Royal children, be they of Wills and Kate, or Harry and Meghan. Both sets of children, be they in London or California, will have to grow up with the fallout of these revelations. They could (very) well become targets of insults and abuse. They may go to the most exclusive schools, but their lives could be made a misery. Rich kids can be every bit as nasty as their poorer contemporaries.

Now, why did no-one think of that?