Like everyone else, I have been appalled by two recent murder cases: that of grandmother Sally Hodkin in Bexleyheath, 2011, and the fatal stabbing of 16-year old Christina Edkins on a rush hour bus in Birmingham on the 7th March this year. These sickening murders have called into question the safety of the general public from mental health patients at large in the community. This is because the perpetrators of both these murders have been people with mental health issues. Sally Hodkin was killed on the street by Nicola Edgington, who had previously been incarcerated for the murder of her mother. The man arrested for the killing of Christina Edkins, 22 year old Philip Simelane, has been remanded in custody to a secure mental health unit. Now, it is very difficult to get accurate figures for such murders, as they do not seem to be compiled by a disinterested body. Julian Hendy, whose own father was murdered in a Bristol street by a mental health patient in 2007, says that there have been about 900 such murders since 1993. As he says:
"We are frequently told that such killings are “rare”, with the implication that
we shouldn’t worry too much about them – but plane crashes are rare and when
they do happen, like mental health homicides, they are always catastrophic. And
I don’t think such killings actually are that rare. So far I have documented
around 900 mental health homicides in Britain since 1993 and I have collected
some 300 official investigations and inquiry reports. The picture that emerges
is of a mental health service that struggles to deal with people with serious
mental illness and that often does not do things as effectively as it should."
Interestingly, the tabloid press do not seem to be blaming the mental health authorities for these terrible events as much as they blame the police. Nor is it just the tabloids; in a rare example of unity, the Guardian and the Daily Mail both have condemned the police for their failure to stop Edgington at an earlier stage. Like Julian Hendy, I believe this to be unfair. When all is said and done, it is the mental health mandarins who release these individuals into the community, and it is they who should be held to account. But it may go deeper than that - as in all NHS issues, there is an issue of resources and political will. As two psychiatrists have commented :
"Because the media only become interested in mental health care when fatalities are involved, this drives Government policy. As a result of over-emphasising the link between mental illness and dangerousness, there is a concentration on treating a small number of offenders in secure hospitals. This costs £1billion per year - 15% of the total NHS investment in the mental health of working-age adults.
The number of standard NHS psychiatric beds has gone down by 60% in the last two decades, while the number of involuntary admissions has gone up by 60%. In other words, it is increasingly difficult to gain access to psychiatric care when acutely unwell." And, as they point out, Nicola Edgington was a voluntary patient - she was trying to be admitted to a unit on the day she carried out her second murder.
As I do not have the answer to this problem, not being a mental health professional, I will not try to offer a solution. More information on this issue can be found at the website started by Julian Hendy.
I can, however, offer an historical perspective. The right-wing press, interestingly enough, never point out that "care in the community", as it is known, was a Tory initiative, put into place by the Thatcher government in the 1980s. It was brought about by a strange alliance of mental health charities, who wished to end the stigmatisation of mental health patients by closing down the large and forbidding asylums and Tory monetarists, who wanted to cut back on public spending. The blame for the present tragic and muddled situation which led to the 900 murders mentioned here can be laid at the door of Mrs Thatcher and her merry band of vegetables (aka "The Cabinet"). Ian Duncan Smith, the ex-Tory leader, now describes Care in the Community as a "£100bn failure". Well, he should know...
Sunday, 17 March 2013
Saturday, 23 February 2013
Back to University at Over 60?
Sat in my Doctor's surgery the other day, I started reading an article in "The Daily Telegraph" (well, there was nothing else to do while waiting). The article, by Tim Ross, "Over -60s are told: go back to University and retrain", outlines the government's latest scheme to reduce the unemployment figures by focussing on that notorious group of slackers and benefit claimants: the pensioners and the retired. I have a special interest in this group, because I am one of them.
As a (semi) retired person, my first thought when looking at this article was to be encouraged. "Great!", I thought, "now I can fulfil my dream of getting a degree in Anthropology and Middle English". I honestly believed (for a moment!)that the government was about to engage in an act of benevolence. Er, no, not quite. It's all about the Tory idee fixe: saving public money. As Ross says:
"One in four people will be older than 65 by 2033 and economists have warned that the ageing population will place an unsustainable burden on taxpayers unless more people work for longer."
Ah, so that's it, I thought. The Higher Education Minister, David Willetts, does try to put a spin on it:
"Mr Willetts, who is accompanying David Cameron in India, urged workers older than 60 to give further education serious consideration. “There is certainly a pressure for continuing to get retrained and upskilled,” he said. “Higher education has an economic benefit in that if you stay up to date with knowledge and skills you are more employable.”
Mr Willetts said a university course had “wider” benefits, making people more likely to lead healthy lives."
The article goes on to sweeten the pill by saying that the upper age limit for student loans has been raised, making over-60s eligible for financial help. It was then that the whole thing began to unravel for me (I had time to do it - the practice Nurse was a bit late). "Hang on", I wondered (silently)," won't that mean people over 60 will have to work for years after graduation in order to repay their loan, as do their younger counterparts?" Tim Ross has the answer:"However, the average pensioner this year will have an income of £15,300 a year, meaning they are unlikely ever to be required to repay the loan".
In which case, I wondered, how will that benefit the economy? After all , the over-60s graduate will need to get a well-paid enough job to earn a good rate of income tax. Besides this, when the over-60s graduate goes for a job, they are unlikely to be seen as an attractive proposition to employers for various reasons. This is especially true in public sector occupations, where employers have an unspoken drive to rid themselves of older staff (ask any teacher over 50). Nor was it made clear in the article how older graduates were going to find employment when younger graduates could not find work. This point was emphasised elsewhere in the Torygraph by a real-life over 60s graduate, Linda Kelsey:
“Education is such a good thing, it is not reserved for young people,” Willetts went on to say. “There will be people of all ages who will want to study. There is great value in lifelong learning.” Now you’re talking, Mr Willetts, as I have lately discovered. But this has nothing to do with the labour market."
Anyway, the nurse was ready, so off I went to get my blood tested. I can only wonder - how long before someone tests the sanity of the present government? This inept initiative will almost certainly go the way of their much-vaunted (and dismally failed) "back to work scheme", which has signally failed in its efforts to get people off invalidity benefit.
Mind you, I'd still like to go back to "Uni" - but not with the aim of finding a high-powered job (which I'd be very unlikely to get).
Next time I visit the surgery, I'll take a book with me - or the Guardian.
As a (semi) retired person, my first thought when looking at this article was to be encouraged. "Great!", I thought, "now I can fulfil my dream of getting a degree in Anthropology and Middle English". I honestly believed (for a moment!)that the government was about to engage in an act of benevolence. Er, no, not quite. It's all about the Tory idee fixe: saving public money. As Ross says:
"One in four people will be older than 65 by 2033 and economists have warned that the ageing population will place an unsustainable burden on taxpayers unless more people work for longer."
Ah, so that's it, I thought. The Higher Education Minister, David Willetts, does try to put a spin on it:
"Mr Willetts, who is accompanying David Cameron in India, urged workers older than 60 to give further education serious consideration. “There is certainly a pressure for continuing to get retrained and upskilled,” he said. “Higher education has an economic benefit in that if you stay up to date with knowledge and skills you are more employable.”
Mr Willetts said a university course had “wider” benefits, making people more likely to lead healthy lives."
The article goes on to sweeten the pill by saying that the upper age limit for student loans has been raised, making over-60s eligible for financial help. It was then that the whole thing began to unravel for me (I had time to do it - the practice Nurse was a bit late). "Hang on", I wondered (silently)," won't that mean people over 60 will have to work for years after graduation in order to repay their loan, as do their younger counterparts?" Tim Ross has the answer:"However, the average pensioner this year will have an income of £15,300 a year, meaning they are unlikely ever to be required to repay the loan".
In which case, I wondered, how will that benefit the economy? After all , the over-60s graduate will need to get a well-paid enough job to earn a good rate of income tax. Besides this, when the over-60s graduate goes for a job, they are unlikely to be seen as an attractive proposition to employers for various reasons. This is especially true in public sector occupations, where employers have an unspoken drive to rid themselves of older staff (ask any teacher over 50). Nor was it made clear in the article how older graduates were going to find employment when younger graduates could not find work. This point was emphasised elsewhere in the Torygraph by a real-life over 60s graduate, Linda Kelsey:
“Education is such a good thing, it is not reserved for young people,” Willetts went on to say. “There will be people of all ages who will want to study. There is great value in lifelong learning.” Now you’re talking, Mr Willetts, as I have lately discovered. But this has nothing to do with the labour market."
Anyway, the nurse was ready, so off I went to get my blood tested. I can only wonder - how long before someone tests the sanity of the present government? This inept initiative will almost certainly go the way of their much-vaunted (and dismally failed) "back to work scheme", which has signally failed in its efforts to get people off invalidity benefit.
Mind you, I'd still like to go back to "Uni" - but not with the aim of finding a high-powered job (which I'd be very unlikely to get).
Next time I visit the surgery, I'll take a book with me - or the Guardian.
Monday, 18 February 2013
OFSTED and Physical Education
Well, the wide awake club, aka OFSTED, are at it again. As readers of this blog know by now, OFSTED has a habit of making periodic scandalous discoveries about education in the UK. They usually never explain why or how they suddenly unearth these horrendous malpractices, but at least we know how long it has taken them to find out that many children in the state education system are not getting the physical education (PE) they deserve. As Richard Garner observed in last Thursday's Independent:
"PE lessons in more than a quarter of Britain’s schools involve so little physical activity they fail to improve pupils’ fitness at all, a highly critical report has found."
What Mr Garner does not tell his readers is that OFSTED took FOUR YEARS to arrive at this conclusion - still, at least they haven't rushed to make their judgement. Unkinder commentators might point out that OFSTED are supposed to have their podgy fingers on the pulse of education and wonder why it took them so long to alert the public of this disturbing situation. Without these "discoveries", there would be no need for OFSTED, but that is another story.
Now, as it happens, I have more than a passing interest in PE, having been a co-ordinator in this subject in several primary schools over the years. While no fan of OFSTED, I have some sympathy with Richard Garner when he says:
"Ofsted, the education standards watchdog, accused teachers of taking the “physical” out of physical education by talking too much in lessons and not involving children in enough strenuous activity to build up their stamina or strength."
There is an element of truth in this, but it fails to account for the reason why so many teachers feel that they have to teach in such a way. This does not happen because schools and teachers choose to follow this procedure; it happens for several reasons:
1. Teacher training, which, in some teacher training establishments, emphasises the explanatory side of PE rather than the physical.
2. Pressure from above to attain academic targets, which leads some schools (especially primary schools) to neglect PE and other non-core subjects.
3. Dreary and uninspiring PE schemes of work, which are often unrealistic and boring for pupils AND staff.
4. Financial constraints on schools, which have led to many schools selling off their playing fields, and to "prioritise" at the expense of PE. Schools have been castigated by OFSTED for not teaching their children swimming - no mention is made of the fact that some schools simply do not have the money to afford swimming instruction.
Strangely, Mr Garner and OFSTED do not take these factors into account. This is grossly unfair, as the problems OFSTED highlight are not, in my view, the fault of the schools under discussion. Teachers in schools have to follow their school's PE scheme; the school follows LEA guidelines; the LEA follows DES directives. The blame for the latest OFSTED shock-horror expose lies elsewhere, but OFSTED are not likely to attack their government bosses.
As a practitioner, I have experienced all 4 of these factors, the most significant being the schemes of work. Some Educational Gymnastics schemes require children to contort their bodies in all manner of unnatural shapes and move in bizarre ways that are about as useful for improving children's fitness as giving them doughnuts and coke in the afternoon. When I taught such lessons, I always tried to incorporate a game of some kind. When OFSTED were visiting, however, I followed the plan strictly! I did not realise that the inspectors might be thinking that the children were not getting fitter for following the plan laid down from above - and which they seemed to approve. Having said that, some OFSTED inspectors do not seem to be up to assessing PE anyway, as a Daily Mail article about OFSTED inspectors puts it:
"One PE teacher was reportedly told that their lesson was ‘unsatisfactory’ as there were ‘children doing nothing at some points in the lesson’.
The decision was overturned after it was pointed out that the pupils were fielding in a cricket match."
My personal view is that all PE - gymnastics, dance, games, etc, should be relevant and enjoyable. Yes, children need to get fitter, but the change needs to come from the top down - simply moaning about schools is not the answer, and is extremely unfair. Yet again, I ask: when schools are feeling the financial pinch, why have there been no cuts in the OFSTED budget?
"PE lessons in more than a quarter of Britain’s schools involve so little physical activity they fail to improve pupils’ fitness at all, a highly critical report has found."
What Mr Garner does not tell his readers is that OFSTED took FOUR YEARS to arrive at this conclusion - still, at least they haven't rushed to make their judgement. Unkinder commentators might point out that OFSTED are supposed to have their podgy fingers on the pulse of education and wonder why it took them so long to alert the public of this disturbing situation. Without these "discoveries", there would be no need for OFSTED, but that is another story.
Now, as it happens, I have more than a passing interest in PE, having been a co-ordinator in this subject in several primary schools over the years. While no fan of OFSTED, I have some sympathy with Richard Garner when he says:
"Ofsted, the education standards watchdog, accused teachers of taking the “physical” out of physical education by talking too much in lessons and not involving children in enough strenuous activity to build up their stamina or strength."
There is an element of truth in this, but it fails to account for the reason why so many teachers feel that they have to teach in such a way. This does not happen because schools and teachers choose to follow this procedure; it happens for several reasons:
1. Teacher training, which, in some teacher training establishments, emphasises the explanatory side of PE rather than the physical.
2. Pressure from above to attain academic targets, which leads some schools (especially primary schools) to neglect PE and other non-core subjects.
3. Dreary and uninspiring PE schemes of work, which are often unrealistic and boring for pupils AND staff.
4. Financial constraints on schools, which have led to many schools selling off their playing fields, and to "prioritise" at the expense of PE. Schools have been castigated by OFSTED for not teaching their children swimming - no mention is made of the fact that some schools simply do not have the money to afford swimming instruction.
Strangely, Mr Garner and OFSTED do not take these factors into account. This is grossly unfair, as the problems OFSTED highlight are not, in my view, the fault of the schools under discussion. Teachers in schools have to follow their school's PE scheme; the school follows LEA guidelines; the LEA follows DES directives. The blame for the latest OFSTED shock-horror expose lies elsewhere, but OFSTED are not likely to attack their government bosses.
As a practitioner, I have experienced all 4 of these factors, the most significant being the schemes of work. Some Educational Gymnastics schemes require children to contort their bodies in all manner of unnatural shapes and move in bizarre ways that are about as useful for improving children's fitness as giving them doughnuts and coke in the afternoon. When I taught such lessons, I always tried to incorporate a game of some kind. When OFSTED were visiting, however, I followed the plan strictly! I did not realise that the inspectors might be thinking that the children were not getting fitter for following the plan laid down from above - and which they seemed to approve. Having said that, some OFSTED inspectors do not seem to be up to assessing PE anyway, as a Daily Mail article about OFSTED inspectors puts it:
"One PE teacher was reportedly told that their lesson was ‘unsatisfactory’ as there were ‘children doing nothing at some points in the lesson’.
The decision was overturned after it was pointed out that the pupils were fielding in a cricket match."
My personal view is that all PE - gymnastics, dance, games, etc, should be relevant and enjoyable. Yes, children need to get fitter, but the change needs to come from the top down - simply moaning about schools is not the answer, and is extremely unfair. Yet again, I ask: when schools are feeling the financial pinch, why have there been no cuts in the OFSTED budget?
Saturday, 26 January 2013
"A Nod and a Wink...."
Back in the 70s, when I was the NUPE representative on my local Trades Council, I knew a number of activists in the building workers' union, UCATT. At that time, they told me of how any building workers who engaged in any activity to improve pay and conditions were placed on a blacklist, compiled by an individual that they could not identify. Recent disclosures have borne this out. It turns out that there was an actual organisation behind this blacklist, not some anonymous individual. This was indicative of the turbulent times for trade unionism in the UK building trade at that time.
Those of us with long memories (and greying hair) will remember the notorious "Shrewsbury Two" trial in 1973, in which Des Warren and Ricky Tomlinson were found guilty of "conspiracy to intimidate" during an official building strike. One of the most disturbing aspects of the case was the fact that the trial judge said that conspiracy could be no more than a "nod and a wink between friends". The facts of the case are disputed - SEE HERE. Besides which, the details of the actual incident for which the Shrewsbury Two were actually arrested are often skipped over. "Mr I" from Shropshire, who has contacted me privately, says:
However, Ricky Tomlinson is surely right when he points out that:
In 1972, building workers held their first ever national strike for decent pay and health & safety at work. Five months after the strike ended, 24 trade union members were charged with offences allegedly arising from picketing in Shrewsbury in September 1972. They included individuals who were convicted of conspiracy and sentenced to imprisonment. Government files relating to the strike have been withheld from the National Archives even though more than 30 years have passed.
Industrial action by workers should not be treated in this way. If it is possible for us to read of government decisions in wartime, 30 years after the event, then we should be able to find out just what the government and others were up to behind the scenes during that long-ago strike back in 1973. Not only are we denied an accurate knowledge of these important events in our labour history, but it will inevitably lead to rumours and wild speculation.
If, like me, you think these materials should be made public, then please sign Ricky Tomlinson's petition. If the government is allowed to suppress the truth about this case - what next?
Those of us with long memories (and greying hair) will remember the notorious "Shrewsbury Two" trial in 1973, in which Des Warren and Ricky Tomlinson were found guilty of "conspiracy to intimidate" during an official building strike. One of the most disturbing aspects of the case was the fact that the trial judge said that conspiracy could be no more than a "nod and a wink between friends". The facts of the case are disputed - SEE HERE. Besides which, the details of the actual incident for which the Shrewsbury Two were actually arrested are often skipped over. "Mr I" from Shropshire, who has contacted me privately, says:
"I was actually working on a
building site not too far from the one at the Oak pub in Shrewsbury where the
incidents took place on the actual day. I did NOT witness it personally.
However the looks on the faces of the guys who came racing up from the site and
told us to get the fuck out of there as a bunch of mad, drunk Scousers had just
taken pick axe handles to guys on their site left me in no doubt as to the
truth of the matter. The driver of the digger never fully recovered. A pick axe
handle to the legs and head tends to do that."
However, Ricky Tomlinson is surely right when he points out that:
In 1972, building workers held their first ever national strike for decent pay and health & safety at work. Five months after the strike ended, 24 trade union members were charged with offences allegedly arising from picketing in Shrewsbury in September 1972. They included individuals who were convicted of conspiracy and sentenced to imprisonment. Government files relating to the strike have been withheld from the National Archives even though more than 30 years have passed.
Industrial action by workers should not be treated in this way. If it is possible for us to read of government decisions in wartime, 30 years after the event, then we should be able to find out just what the government and others were up to behind the scenes during that long-ago strike back in 1973. Not only are we denied an accurate knowledge of these important events in our labour history, but it will inevitably lead to rumours and wild speculation.
If, like me, you think these materials should be made public, then please sign Ricky Tomlinson's petition. If the government is allowed to suppress the truth about this case - what next?
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
From Iran - A Presidental Christmas Greeting
To the people of Great Britain - Salaam! Peace be unto you! I am taking this opportunity to address you all in your millions (I'm glad you think we have so many readers, Mr Pres! - B) as I wish to challenge and refute the calumnies and lies spread about Iran by the Western media, including the infidel running dog (IRD) that runs this blog (Sticks and stones! - B) . All our critics in the west should count themselves lucky - anyone calling me a tyrant in Iran would be put in prison.
First, I must say that the IRD either believes falsified evidence against us or he is a liar himself. For instance, he has repeated the lie that I said the state of Israel should be destroyed. I was, of course, speaking Farsi, and my words were deliberately mistranslated by journalists in the pay of the CIA. I simply meant that the state of Israel should vanish as a state; I did not mean that the people should be exterminated. (What about the ones who don't want to share their land with you, Mr Pres? - B)
I would further add that the IRD's implication that I am anti-semitic is wrong; 25 000 Jews live happily in Iran (No mention of the 75 000 who left since 1979 - B) and there is even a Jewish member of the Iranian Parliament. Jewish visitors to Iran are always made welcome, especially (well, only) the non-Zionists. We see that the case of the IRD and all hostile western media commentators is beginning to unravel.
The other outrageous calumny against us concerns the treatment of women in Iran. The Mossad front organisation, Amnesty International, has said in its CIA-funded report for 2012:
"Women were discriminated against in law and in practice, including by a mandatory dress code. Women’s rights activists, including those involved in the One Million Signatures Campaign to demand legal equality for women, were persecuted and harassed."
This is a gross distortion of facts, and goes a long way to explain why we never allow Amnesty International observers into Iran. The women of Iran have never been happier; not one has ever complained to me. (I wonder why? - B). All Amnesty International members and officials are salaried employees of the CIA and should not be trusted (I'm in AI, Mr Pres, and I don't get a penny - B).
Now, the IRD has repeated allegations that women are subject to rape by Revolutionary Guards, prison officers and officials. He has not presented a very good case. Others of his kind go on to say that rape victims in general are treated unfairly in Iran. If this were true, then let them answer this question - if our prison officials and prisoners were guilty of rape against women and others, would we provide them with condoms? What nonsense! And our Revolutionary Guards are fit young men that no woman can resist.
Now - as for homosexuals, homosexuality is illegal in this country, as it once was in the UK, and I pointed this out to the other IRD, Piers Morgan. At that time, the UK authorities prosecuted these perverts, as we do still. No-one in the UK has the right to criticise us for it. Mind you, when we prosecute them, we really prosecute them! The rest of the world should follow our example.
As for religious minorities, they dwindle in size every year. I am confident that all Iranians will be happy when they realise that Iran is an Islamic republic and true happiness and freedom lies in conversion to Islam. (Either that, or getting out of Iran -B). We have been criticised for persecuting the Bahais, executing Christians who evangelise (it is illegal here in Iran), arresting Moslems who convert to Christianity and repressing political opponents. But - similar things happen in other Islamic countries, so why pick on us? (For once, I partially agree - B).
As for the IRD's suggestion that I would make a comedian - here is something to make you smile.
My list of wishes for the UK in 2013:
1. My friend, George Galloway, should be made Prime Minister.
2. The statue of the IRD, Nelson, should be removed from Trafalgar Square, and replaced with a statue of me.
3.Buckingham Palace should be turned at an angle to face towards Mecca.
4. The IRD who runs this website should come for a holiday to Iran. It will last 10 years.
5. The blasphemous organisation known as Mecca Bingo should be closed down and all its directors and employees publicly whipped.
6. Britain should dispose of her nuclear weapons by firing them all at Israel. Of course, that's not what I mean really; my English isn't that good.
Are you all laughing now?
Merry Christmas from the President of Iran!
Well, thanks, Mr President. I'm sure we all feel better for your friendly message. In spite of what you have said, I have not altered your message in any way. I wouldn't want to, believe me. "Infidel Running Dog"? That'll look good on a T-shirt!
Monday, 5 November 2012
Jerry Sandusky and Jimmy Savile - Contemporaries in Evil
Convicted US Sex Offender, Jerry Sandusky
The other day, I was discussing Jimmy Savile with an American friend. He'd never heard of the late Sir Jim, and it was quite an experience, describing the disgraced knight's rise to prominence, his many awards and honours and his status in British life. I then told him of Jimmy's fall from grace after death and of his many revolting crimes against minors (and possibly young miners) during his lifetime.
My friend, in turn, told me of a very similar case that has happened in the USA - that of the equally despicable child molester, Jerry Sandusky. Some of the features in the Sandusky affair chillingly resemble those of the Savile case. Sandusky, like Savile, was a widely respected public figure. For 30 years, he was the assistant American Football coach at Pennsylvania State University, receiving awards for sports coaching twice in his long career. Another interesting parallel with Savile is that he was very active in charity work, founding his own charity, "The Second Mile" where (shades of Savile again) he met disturbed young boys who became his molestation victims. Disgustingly, and again like Jimmy S, most of his victims were between the ages of 8 to 12. Savile made a point of abusing young girls who were vulnerable and unlikely to be believed (like Broadmoor patients); Sandusky seems to have specialised in molesting young boys from one-parent families. Many people suspected Savile of nefarious activities but ignored it; three senior figures from Penn State, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schulz, now stand accused of failing to inform the Pennsylvania police of Sandusky's vile antics. Let's hope people in a similar position here are also called to account.
Such are the similarities, but there is, so far, one glaring difference: one courageous man, Mike McQueary and an equally intrepid reporter, Sara Ganim, fought to expose Sandusky. This didn't happen with Savile, despite constant rumours. The other obvious difference is that Sandusky was brought to trial and convicted. On October 9 this year, he was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail. And we all know that Savile escaped justice in his lifetime.
So, what do we take from these two cases? First, I think, that child abuse happens everywhere, and no society can afford to be complacent about it. Next, we must be aware that child molesters can be extremely cunning - especially the celebrities among them, and the voices of victims must not be ignored, as happened in the Savile case.
However, I believe that these cases will have a poisonous legacy, the impact of which has not yet been felt. In teaching, for example, there have been numerous false allegations made against teachers (both here and in the USA) leading, in many cases, to ruined careers and lives. I know this only too well - one of my friends, now dead, was a victim of just such accusations. These allegations, post-Savile and Sandusky, could well become more frequent.
Also, these scandals may well lead to other celebrities, who are not engaged in sex crimes and genuinely working for charitable causes, being unjustly suspected of sinister intentions and activities. This has certainly happened to hard-working, celibate, non-child molesting Catholic priests, following the numerous child abuse scandals that have bedevilled the Roman Catholic Church.
Jimmy Savile? Jerry Sandusky? When spoken aloud, those names will forever leave a nasty taste in the mouth.
Friday, 26 October 2012
Jimmy Savile: Laughter From the Grave
The scandal of Jimmy Savile's long career of child abuse has cast a long shadow which continues to grow to gigantic proportions. When it first began, and before the full extent of Savile's criminal activity began to be known (it's still not fully known), I was prepared to give the man the benefit of the doubt. After all, I reasoned, he was no longer able to defend himself, why had his accusers waited until now?
Well, I have my answer, and own up to having been a tad naive. I don't want to repeat what everyone knows already - I try never to do that. However, the fact that Savile was investigated on a number of occasions without being charged, coupled with the fact that his perverted activities were well known to, or strongly suspected by, a large number of people for decades, just beggars belief. How did he get away with it? This question has not been fully answered, but I'll make a suggestion later.
One aspect that keeps being plugged is the role of the BBC in Savile's crimes. As we all now know, the Beeb is the focus of much criticism and soul-searching over the axing of the Newsnight investigation and the fact that Savile carried out a number of attacks on minors on BBC premises. Savile is said to have abused both boys and girls in his BBC dressing-room, all of which reminds me of one of the old roue's favourite phrases, which I paraphrase here:
"How's about that then? Guys AND gals!".
But should the Beeb take all the blame? What, one wonders, were Private Eye and the tabloid press doing while Savile was engaging in his sexual "adventures"? To be fair to Private Eye editor, Ian Hislop, when Jimmy S appeared on "Have I Got News For You", both he and Paul Merton baited Savile over his caravan conquests, yet the Eye ran no stories about them. As for the tabloids, they eulogised Savile at the time of his death and burial; their present vilification of the disgraced knight makes for an amazing turnaround. No tabloid newspaper appears to have tapped Saville's phone.
So what went wrong? Well, digressing slightly here, for what it's worth, I think our primary concern should be for the victims of this scandal. They have suffered in silence for so long, and I think that all the money held by Savile's charities should be diverted to their care, and that of other child abuse victims. We need to learn from this case that abuse victims should be listened to with care and sympathy. Having said this, the rules of justice and evidence need to be followed strictly. I have known teachers wrongly accused of abuse by children, and I don't want to see it happen again.
However, Savile was not a teacher. He was a celebrity with an outstanding reputation as a charity worker, practising Christian, confidante of senior politicians and prelates and friend to the stars. Put simply, he had many powerful friends and allies. Now, I suggest that this is not the only reason why Savile evaded justice. Even the most reputable of people can be quickly disgraced. I believe that Jimmy S used his "connections" in various ways. They undoubtedly helped to build up his cover, but he would have been privy to all kinds of confidential information about all sorts of important and not - so - important people. Knowledge (or gossip) of this kind is always useful to operators like Sir Jim, and could be part of the reason why he remained untouched. Blackmail has its uses.
Also, as has been said elsewhere, his status (not to mention his wrestler's physique) would have intimidated his young victims into keeping quiet. He is also thought to have led his victims to believe that unnamed things could happen to them if they spoke out. This could have been no idle threat; Savile began his career by running Yorkshire dance halls, and might well have retained underworld contacts from that time. He certainly bragged about it - even that he had friends in the IRA.
But the net of blame should be cast wider than this. The fact is that we, the public, generally fell for Savile's image - although there are now many who say they weren't fooled for a minute (Oh, yeah). Had Savile been brought to trial during his lifetime, he would have been no easy mark. He would have appointed the most elite criminal defence team that money could buy, and there would have been long queues of people wanting to appear as character witnesses in his favour. I hate to give the old pervert any praise, but he was crafty enough to cultivate friendships not only with the great and the good, but also with thousands of ordinary people for whom he did "Fixits" and cared for in his charity work. Opinion would have been divided - even had he been convicted. And Sir Jim does not seem to have been alone in his sex crimes. Other celebrities appear to have been involved - which means more people with something to hide.
Should anyone walk through Woodlands Cemetery, Scarborough, late at night, when it is deserted, they may well hear the raucous sound of "Er! er! er!"ringing out in the darkness. It will be the sound of Sir James Savile laughing in his grave, and he is laughing for two reasons: one, that he escaped justice despite committing hundreds of despicable crimes against young children. The other reason will be that he is laughing at all the gullible people he fooled in his lifetime.
In other words, dear readers, he's laughing at you and me.
Monday, 15 October 2012
Jack the Ripper, Sooty and Doctor Who
Is this the face of Jack the Ripper?
A visitor from outer space might well be surprised at the continued interest in the "Jack the Ripper" murders of 1888. So intense is this interest that I think it a good idea to take a step back and examine this remarkable phenomenon which has produced a huge number of books, films, documentaries and articles. There are at least 100 theories about the identity of "Saucy Jacky", as the Ripper is supposed to have described himself. So many, in fact, that a spoof article (in "The Truth", 1988) has been written to advance the theory that the Ripper murders were carried out by Sooty. His diminutive build (8 inches tall) is supposed to be the reason why he was able to escape detection. Nonsense, of course, but the authors intended to show just how wild the speculation about the Ripper's identity has become.
But let us be clear about one thing from the outset: the Ripper murders were no laughing matter. Ripperologists disagree about how many murders Jack committed. Some say as many as nine; some as few as five. Whatever the number, all the poor unfortunate victims were horribly done to death. Anyone who has never read descriptions of the murders, post mortem reports, or never viewed police photographs of the dead victims (especially the photo of the dead and mutilated Mary Jane Kelly) would be well advised to read and view on an empty stomach.
However, I do not intend to dwell on the gory details of the case. What is of interest, given the fact that Jack was never caught, is the bewildering array of suspects. What a crew! Sir William Gull, Queen Victoria's surgeon; the Duke of Clarence; the painter, Walter Sickert; James Maybrick, a wealthy Liverpool cotton merchant. And there are many minor figures, such as Josef Kosminski and Montague John Druitt. More recent theories, of varying degrees of wildness, include that of Tom Slemen, who asserts that Jack was really a hitman for the Secret Service, eliminating couriers who were working for the radical underground; that of Bruce Paley, who claims that the Ripper was in fact Joseph Barnett, Mary Jane Kelly's paramour. It has even been suggested that Jack was a warped social reformer who wished to draw attention to the dire social conditions in the East End at that time!
Our hypothetical space visitor would now be right in asking why we bother. After all, Jack was not the most prolific serial killer ever, nor is there any conclusive proof that any of these theories are correct. The plain fact is, we don't know who Jack was, and never will. Perhaps the best book on the subject is Philip Sudgen's "Complete History of Jack the Ripper" , which debunks many of the silly theories about Jack's identity and examines the simple facts of the case. He says: "...the Ripper heralded the rise of the modern sexual serial killer". And there is the intriguing fact that Jack eluded capture again and again, despite the best efforts of the unjustly derided police force.
It might appear that I'm suggesting the interest in the Ripper to be a complete waste of time and effort. Actually, I don't think that at all; even the wildest theories turn up a mass of interesting facts about Victorian London. But I think it fair to say: if all the erudition and research gone into trying to discover the Ripper's identity had gone into more recent unsolved murders, more recent murderers - still alive - might have been brought to justice. I have it on good authority that the police have no objection to amateur sleuths digging into cold cases, and are always happy to receive fresh information that may lead either to a conviction or the re-opening of a case.
As for Jack, the only person able now to discover who he was is Doctor Who, and, to my knowledge, the good Doctor has never even been to Whitechapel, 1888. One wonders if he has something to hide?
I cannot resist advancing my own theory here. Commentators in 1888 (and later) were amazed that Jack was able to lure his victims to their deaths, despite the panic gripping Whitechapel at that time. I think that we might find an answer in a more recent case - that of Steven Wright, the "Suffolk Strangler" who murdered five prostitutes in Ipswich, 2006. Despite the panic (very similar to 1888), local prostitutes kept going off with Wright. Why? For the simple reason that they knew him already, and trusted him. The Ripper might have been trusted by his victims for the same reason.
Oh, no, now I'm beginning to sound like a Ripperologist.
Can I get therapy for this?
Monday, 6 August 2012
Religion and Alcohol - An Issue Unresolved
I hadn't thought about this issue for years, but since it is relevant to at least two followers of this blog, I believe it's worth raising here. Going back to the 60s, I remember the words of a Boys' Brigade officer to me about alcohol:
"If I was God, or if I was Prime Minister, I would shut up all the pubs, and put all the people who work in them in prison".
Incredible though it seems, that is verbatim. Luckily for all drinkers, pub landlords and bar staff, this man never attained either position and we are still free to drink legally in this country. However, there is a question to be answered: what is the relationship between religion and alcohol?
The answer, of course, is that it depends which religion you are talking about, or follow. For Muslims, things are very clear: drinking alcohol is strictly forbidden. As the Qu'ran states unequivocally:
“O you who believe! Intoxicants (all kinds of alcoholic drinks), gambling, idolatry, and diving arrows are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. So avoid that so that you may be successful.” (Quran 5: 90).
For Buddhists, also, the matter is clear-cut:
Buddhists typically avoid consuming alcohol (surāmerayamajja, referring to types of intoxicating fermented beverages), as it violates the 5th of the Five Precepts, the basic Buddhist code of ethics and can disrupt mindfulness and impeded one's progress in the Noble Eightfold Path.[3]
Christians and Jews, however, find that matters are not quite as clear-cut. Alcohol is used in religious observances, such as Passover Feast and Holy Communion. Jesus himself turned water into wine at a wedding party in Cana, Galilee, and he set aside wine to drink at the Last Supper. In the Old Testament, also, we read:
Ecclesiastes 9:7: "Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do."
However, there are many texts in the Bible which warn against the evils of alcohol:
Isaiah 5:11 “Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!” (KJV)
And from the New Testament:
Ephesians 5:18 “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” (KJV)
As might be expected, this has led to a division of opinion among Christians. There are those who believe that drinking alcohol is all right in moderation. This would include Catholics; every RC social club I have ever visited serves alcohol. On the other hand there are Christians, usually, but not always, evangelical protestants, for whom alcohol is anathema. Thankfully, very few of them share the viewpoint of the BB officer mentioned above.
My own view is that, whatever religious views we have (or don't have), we have to accept that people always have enjoyed drinking alcohol and always will. Attempts to stamp it out, such as by Prohibition in the USA in the 1920s, and elsewhere, have always failed. In Muslim countries, locals and expats risk prosecution by smuggling in booze from abroad, or by making their own on illegal stills. Even in intolerant Iran, young people go to secret parties where alcohol is consumed - almost as an act of resistance.
I respect the right of religious people to speak out against alcohol abuse, but think them naive if they believe their strictures will halt alcohol consumption. God may be on their side, but history isn't.
"If I was God, or if I was Prime Minister, I would shut up all the pubs, and put all the people who work in them in prison".
Incredible though it seems, that is verbatim. Luckily for all drinkers, pub landlords and bar staff, this man never attained either position and we are still free to drink legally in this country. However, there is a question to be answered: what is the relationship between religion and alcohol?
The answer, of course, is that it depends which religion you are talking about, or follow. For Muslims, things are very clear: drinking alcohol is strictly forbidden. As the Qu'ran states unequivocally:
“O you who believe! Intoxicants (all kinds of alcoholic drinks), gambling, idolatry, and diving arrows are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. So avoid that so that you may be successful.” (Quran 5: 90).
For Buddhists, also, the matter is clear-cut:
Buddhists typically avoid consuming alcohol (surāmerayamajja, referring to types of intoxicating fermented beverages), as it violates the 5th of the Five Precepts, the basic Buddhist code of ethics and can disrupt mindfulness and impeded one's progress in the Noble Eightfold Path.[3]
Christians and Jews, however, find that matters are not quite as clear-cut. Alcohol is used in religious observances, such as Passover Feast and Holy Communion. Jesus himself turned water into wine at a wedding party in Cana, Galilee, and he set aside wine to drink at the Last Supper. In the Old Testament, also, we read:
Ecclesiastes 9:7: "Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do."
However, there are many texts in the Bible which warn against the evils of alcohol:
Isaiah 5:11 “Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!” (KJV)
And from the New Testament:
Ephesians 5:18 “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” (KJV)
As might be expected, this has led to a division of opinion among Christians. There are those who believe that drinking alcohol is all right in moderation. This would include Catholics; every RC social club I have ever visited serves alcohol. On the other hand there are Christians, usually, but not always, evangelical protestants, for whom alcohol is anathema. Thankfully, very few of them share the viewpoint of the BB officer mentioned above.
My own view is that, whatever religious views we have (or don't have), we have to accept that people always have enjoyed drinking alcohol and always will. Attempts to stamp it out, such as by Prohibition in the USA in the 1920s, and elsewhere, have always failed. In Muslim countries, locals and expats risk prosecution by smuggling in booze from abroad, or by making their own on illegal stills. Even in intolerant Iran, young people go to secret parties where alcohol is consumed - almost as an act of resistance.
I respect the right of religious people to speak out against alcohol abuse, but think them naive if they believe their strictures will halt alcohol consumption. God may be on their side, but history isn't.
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Cold Callers - Turning the Tables
I'm sure we've all suffered from cold callers at one time or another, trying to sell us products that we don't want and aren't necessary anyway. My wife and I have had so many of these (damned) nuisance calls that I've developed a few tricks I'd like to share with you:
1. Put on a foreign accent and tell them you don't speak English.
2. Tell them you've moved. ( You're Mr/Mrs Somebody)
3. Tell the caller "Just a minute" or "I'll call him/her", put the phone down and leave it off the hook for about 15 minutes. This costs the caller's firm a little more money.
4. Tell the caller to get lost - or words to that effect.
5. Leave the answer phone on, and the caller will proceed no further.
There are many other things that can be done - SEE HERE. But no amount of techniques can replace effective legislation, Nigel Waring, writing from Australia, says:
"We have a Silent Number (Ex Directory), we are also on the "Do Not Call" register, callers are often fined for ignoring this, it's so easy for the authorities to trace calls nowadays."
Sadly, no such measures exist in this country. Even though vulnerable people have been tricked and harassed by cold callers, not one cold calling firm has ever been prosecuted. The BBC Panorama programme highlighted this appalling fact recently.
Anyway, I have no sympathy for the cold callers at all, and if anyone out there has some other techniques for dealing with this problem, you are very welcome to share your ideas with us on this blog.
"Mr M", from Uxbridge has sent this gem of an idea:
"I am often a foreign painter working in the house and say that I will call the owner so hang on. You can then later tell them later that the owner is in - Leicester, Armenia or wherever".
Which opens up possibilities for those of us who speak other languages!
1. Put on a foreign accent and tell them you don't speak English.
2. Tell them you've moved. ( You're Mr/Mrs Somebody)
3. Tell the caller "Just a minute" or "I'll call him/her", put the phone down and leave it off the hook for about 15 minutes. This costs the caller's firm a little more money.
4. Tell the caller to get lost - or words to that effect.
5. Leave the answer phone on, and the caller will proceed no further.
There are many other things that can be done - SEE HERE. But no amount of techniques can replace effective legislation, Nigel Waring, writing from Australia, says:
"We have a Silent Number (Ex Directory), we are also on the "Do Not Call" register, callers are often fined for ignoring this, it's so easy for the authorities to trace calls nowadays."
Sadly, no such measures exist in this country. Even though vulnerable people have been tricked and harassed by cold callers, not one cold calling firm has ever been prosecuted. The BBC Panorama programme highlighted this appalling fact recently.
Anyway, I have no sympathy for the cold callers at all, and if anyone out there has some other techniques for dealing with this problem, you are very welcome to share your ideas with us on this blog.
"Mr M", from Uxbridge has sent this gem of an idea:
"I am often a foreign painter working in the house and say that I will call the owner so hang on. You can then later tell them later that the owner is in - Leicester, Armenia or wherever".
Which opens up possibilities for those of us who speak other languages!
Friday, 13 July 2012
House of Lords reform – a con trick
As most people will
know, the Coalition Government has proposed the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012. Ministers are trying to bludgeon this bill through with comments such as:
- We’ve been arguing about this for 100 years – let’s just do it.
- This is just a Westminster issue; ordinary voters are more concerned about jobs, education, health and their declining living standards.
- The Opposition supported House of Lords reform in their manifesto, so opposing this bill is just political posturing. Let’s just get it done and dusted.
All these arguments
are over-simplistic. The reason why it has taken 100 years is that there is no
agreement on what should replace the Lords. Some politicians want a wholly
appointed chamber (which was Tony Blair's preference), some want a mixture (with no agreement on the ratio of
appointed to elected), and a few want it fully elected. Just saying, “let’s get
it done”, ignores this fact. A rush to get reform through should not mean that
we should be prepared to accept something that is scarcely better than the
present system. “Get it through quickly before they can think about it!” is the
motive here.
The suggestion that
most people are not much interested because of other concerns is patronising.
Obviously on a day-to-day basis, people are worried about practical matters,
but that doesn’t mean that the way our country is governed is of no interest to
them. If that view were generally correct, hardly anyone would vote; in fact, most
voters take part in general elections. The White Queen in “Alice Through The
Looking Glass” asserted “nobody can do two things at once, you know”, but in
the real world, where politicians and the White Queen do not live, it is
possible to hold views about more than one thing at a time.
So why do they keep
saying that? Because they want us to believe this is simply a bit of
constitutional tidying up that is long overdue and we needn’t worry our pretty little
heads about it. Are they right? I think not.
So what is wrong
with their proposals?
- The size of constituencies: these will be enormous, region-wide in size, thus eliminating any meaningful link between a candidate and the people s/he is supposed to represent.
- Lists: you will vote for a party, not an individual. You will have no say who the successful candidate is; s/he will come from the lists decided by parliamentary whips in consultation with party leaders. Individuals will be able to stand as independents, in which case you can vote for them, but with the enormous constituencies, your chances of knowing much about them are very slim.
- One fifteen year election term: they say this is to ensure continuity in the chamber, although there is no logical reason why continuity cannot be maintained by an elected Lord getting re-elected, except then s/he would then have to satisfy the voters who put him or her there in the first place. And therein lies the rub: they will not be accountable to their electorate, because they will never be seeking re-election, which means they can do what they like. An election without accountability does not constitute democracy. It is, at best, elective oligarchy.
- Public disengagement: a system that gives you a vote once every 15 years for a remote candidate who can then ignore your wishes is not likely to engage the electorate in the political system. We have enough trouble with public disenchantment with politics as it is; this will do nothing to change that, except perhaps for the worse.
Okay, it’s not
perfect, but it’s an improvement on what we’ve got now, isn’t it? No, not much.
We will be in the position that the whips, in consultation with their party
leaders, will decide who goes on the lists. You can be certain that a lot of
retiring MPs will be jockeying for position, and the promise of a place on the
list will probably be conditional on behaving. It will be another bribe to keep
otherwise unruly backbenchers in line, not good for democracy in the Commons - rather like now, come to think of it. This
means that most elected Lords will be party nominees, just like they are under
the present system of honours. They will not be accountable to the voters,
because they’ll never have to face re-election – just like the present system.
Their link with the electorate will be extremely remote – little better than
the present system.
So what is different?
They will be there for 15 years, instead of for life – that is the biggest difference, and it’s not that great really. It will still be a nice little job
creation scheme for ex-MPs, one that, as now, we have no control over; instead
the parties in the Commons will control the intake. No matter how you vote,
nearly all of the elected Lords will come from party lists: unless you vote for
an independent, you will have no say who the successful candidate is. You will of course have no say whatsoever in
the one fifth of the chamber who will be appointed, not elected, nor the 12
bishops, nor the eight ministerial members appointed by the government so that
they can put people who aren’t MPs into the Cabinet, as they do now with life peerages - where's the democracy there?
Why are they doing
this? Basically, it’s control freakery, which I believe is proved by the
argument that a fully elected Lords would challenge the supremacy of the
Commons. This is rubbish. The Parliament Acts will still be in place and the
powers of the new chamber will be the same as the old Lords; they can only
delay Bills, and the Commons would still be supreme on financial matters.
Changing how we put people there will not affect these limitations on the Lords’
powers in the slightest. Many other countries manage with two elected chambers;
so would we, although it might take a period of adjustment. But raising the
false spectre of a constitutional clash is designed to stifle demands for a
more genuinely democratic upper chamber.
It’s no more than a
big con trick, designed to maintain the present system while coating it with a
veneer of fake democracy. The problem is that if this is passed, we will be
stuck with it for at least another 100 years as party leaders use the charade
of democracy to maintain their political patronage into the foreseeable future. The recent defeat in the Commons means that it cannot now be rushed through; this should give more time for reflection and scrutiny as to the real implications of this Bill. Let's hope that time isn't wasted.
Sunday, 24 June 2012
Andrew Marr and the Titanic
Now that I have finally recovered from the coverage of the Titanic disaster which was all over our media a couple of weeks ago, I think it time for a personal assessment. For myself, I found a good many of the programmes and articles which appeared to be of great interest. However, after a few days of it, I began to get a little tired of the whole thing. At the finish of the commemorations, I could not even bring myself to watch James Cameron's film on TV. Andrew Marr, on his Sunday morning programme, commented that he hoped the dead of the Titanic (including, presumably, the survivors of the disaster, who are also now dead) would be allowed to rest in peace.
I have to admit, he had a point. Besides the over-exposure of the 100th anniversary, there are one or two questions that never get asked. Why, for instance, do we pay so much attention to the Titanic disaster, in which 1,523 people died and not to the world's worst maritime disaster - the torpedoing of the Wilhelm Gustloff in 1945, with the loss of 9,500 lives? Nor was the Titanic's sinking the worst British catastrophe at sea. The troopship Lancastria sank on the 17th June, 1940, with the loss of at least 4000 lives (some say that figure is too low). Also - why do the names of some (not all) of the poor souls who perished in the Titanic disaster live on in our memories, and yet others who died in similar events remain anonymous? I myself know the names of quite a number of people who died on the Titanic in 1912, as well as some survivors. However, I do not know the names of any of the 32 people who perished on the Costa Concordia on 13 January 2012, and don't suppose I ever will.
So why is this? I think it has happened - at least partly - because of a nostalgic image of Anglo-American Edwardian society. TV programme makers regularly present pre-WW1 Britain as a golden age, the passing of which is symbolised by the wreck of the great ship Titanic. This rose-coloured spectacle has a wide appeal, shown in the success of series such as "Upstairs Downstairs" and "Downton Abbey". Even "Dr Who" has featured an episode about the Titanic.
Anyone who has studied the period, however, will know that the Edwardian Era was no golden age. There was widespread industrial unrest and dire poverty in urban areas all over Britain. The women's suffrage movement was agitating violently for the right of women to vote. In Ireland, a massive conflict was brewing with Ulster Protestants mobilising against Home Rule for Ireland (with the active support of leading Conservative politicians), and independence movements in the Empire beginning to become active. Some people even maintain that a revolution would have happened in Britain, had WW1 not broken out.
So, perhaps we need a re-assessment of the Titanic tragedy. Should we not stress the fact that it was all completely preventable? Had Captain E. J. Smith, whose house is pictured above, halted the Titanic when he learned of the presence of icebergs in the Atlantic, it is very unlikely that the ship would have sunk. And of course, had there been enough lifeboats, most passengers and crew - perhaps all - would have been saved.
On the positive side, should we not honour the forgotten heroes of the disaster? I am referring here to the men who did not rush the lifeboats, or the men and women who manned the lifeboats so gamely. One individual who deserves credit is Captain Arthur Rostron, skipper of the Carpathia, who sped to the aid of the survivors. No mention was made of the fact that the USA thought enough of Captain Rostron to award him a Congressional Gold Medal. All the Titanic survivors praised the crew and passengers on the Carpathia.
Lastly, I was saddened to see that very little mention was made of the Titanic's crew below decks, who worked to the last minute to keep the generators working to power the doomed ship's lights, and to pump out as much water as they could, in order to keep the ship afloat as long as possible. Very few of those brave men survived.
Or, as Andrew Marr has suggested, is it time to forget?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
