Prince Andrew and a Right Royal Mess

"The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices
Make instruments to plague us."

I wonder if these words of Shakespeare, voiced by Edgar in Act 5, Scene 3 of "King Lear", were going through the minds of the two men in the photograph. They are of course, the disgraced paedophile financier, Jeffery Epstein, now deceased, and our very own Prince Andrew who, if not disgraced, is pretty heavily tarnished by his association with Epstein. 

Interestingly, in 2019, the prince's legal team denied the authenticity of the photograph above. It was taken in 2010, when the ex-HRH was visiting Epstein, after the financier had been convicted of sex offences. Andrew's ludicrous explanation for this was that he had gone to privately tell Epstein that they could not be pals any more. Presumably, the prince finds emailing difficult. Also, if you don't want to be associated with a sex offender, it's not a good idea to walk with them in a public park in New York City. The accusation that the photo was falsified was scornfully refuted by the journalist who broke the story. The Daily Mail, at the time, said:

"... that suggestion was last night dismissed as ‘preposterous’ by freelance reporter Annette Witheridge, who was with photographer Jae Donnelly on the day the picture was taken."

Now, as we know, this is not the only photo pertinent to this affair that the prince's team have described as faked, but we'll come to that later.

Prince Andrew has said today that he is willing to face a jury trial over his alleged sexual misdemeanours with Virginia Giuffre, nee Roberts, seen below.

Well, if Prince Andrew performs as badly in court, here or in the USA, as he did in his notorious interview with Emily Maitlis, then he'd better be ready to lose. In the interview, he exhibited some strange mannerisms and highly suspicious memory loss, as well as tripping himself up on a number of facts.He described Epstein as a friend at one point, then said he didn't know him that well - but he trusted him (!). At another point, he said that he never saw any girls in Epstein's New York house, then, later in the interview, he said he thought they were staff. When asked by Maitlis why he spent four days in Epstein's house in 2010, after Eptsein had been convicted of sex offences, he said that it was "convenient" (!) and had only gone there to break off friendly relations with Epstein. Besides this being a stupid thing to do - anyone with any sense would break off all contact with a sex offender at once - witnesses say that Andrew's four day stay coincided with a house party. Strangely, the Prince says he never saw it.

As for the allegation that he had sex 3 times with the then underage Virginia Roberts/Giuffre and danced with her in a London club (Tramps), where he was alleged to have  sweated profusely, he tried to make a peculiar refutation. Besides saying that he doesn't dance, he claimed that at the the time, he was unable to sweat, which is a far-fetched claim to make. The condition, he said, had lasted from his service in the Falklands War, 1981, caused by an excess of adrenalin, to his dancing in the club in 2001. This is suspicious indeed, as the condition, known as Anhidrosis, is usually a genetic condition. From what I have read, there is no evidence that it can be caused by excess adrenalin. Besides, there is said to be no known cure, and the prince has been photographed sweating since 2001. He also claimed to have taken his children to a Pizza Express in Woking on the day he was allegedly seen dancing in Tramps.. He said that this was unusual for him. So unusual, in fact, that the local press never noticed.

Andrew was vague when questioned about having sex with Ms Giuffre in Epstein's houses, although he denies any sexual contact took place; it's not the sort of thing you'd forget, one way or another. He was conspicuously defensive and totally lacking in empathy for Epstein's victims. Incredibly, it is said that Andrew thinks he did a good job in the interview; only 6% of the public agree. As I said, the prince will be worth watching under cross-examination.

As for Andrew's declaring his intention to face a jury trial, the Daily Mail comments:

"Royal expert and former MP Norman Baker said Buckingham Palace ‘won’t like’ what could come out at trial, warning: ‘This is going to be very damaging’.

It can fairly be said: a lot of innocent young girls are already damaged. They seem to have been forgotten in this whole murky affair, victims of Prince Andrew's deniable friend, Epstein. As the comedian, Josh Widdecombe, has said, Season 8 of The Crown should be riveting.

As said earlier, there is another photo, of the prince and Virginia Giuffre (then Roberts), that, yet again, the prince and his acolytes claim is falsified. The prince said that it is impossible to prove the photo has been doctored, as it is "a photograph of a photograph". I'll finish by saying that the photo below certainly is a fake.

Robert Maxwell - Perpetrator and Victim

 

For Christmas, a friend of mine sent me the book in the photo above: "The Fall", by John Preston. It is a biography of Robert Maxwell, who has been written about before, but this book has won the Costa Book prize for biography. I haven't read the other biographies of Maxwell, but I endorse the view of Melanie MacDonagh in the Evening Standard that this book reads like a novel and, unlike many biographies, is an entertaining read. It is sometimes short on context details, but is a good account of the turbulent life of its subject, and I have learned a good deal about this man who built up an empire, but died in mysterious circumstances and did not live to see his empire come crashing down.

Posterity has not been kind to Maxwell. Rupert Murdoch, known to Private Eye readers as "The Dirty Digger", said of his business rival: "He was a total buffoon really". Conrad Black, erstwhile Daily Telegraph owner, described Maxwell rather differently, if equally as unkindly. He described Maxwell thus: "Maxwell is a crook, a thief, a buffoon and probably a KGB man".   Private Eye readers will not be surprised to learn that Rupert Murdoch claims he said this. Whoever said it originally, it is an interesting description; thieves are crooks and the KGB had no use for simple buffoons.

While the book has the pace of a novel, it throws up a picture of a man who was perhaps more complex than the crook and the spy that Murdoch and Black dismiss with such contempt. This does not mean that their charges are without foundation; simply that there could be a deeper, underlying explanation of Maxwell's actions. John Preston has done a first-rate job in pointing to Maxwell's humble origins and early life experiences as underpinning his actions and behaviour in later life. 

Maxwell was born into a poor Jewish family in Czechoslovakia on June 10, 1923. In later years, he spoke little about his childhood, but it had a lasting effect upon him, as childhood does for all of us. Maxwell was one of nine children; he himself went on to have nine children. He sometimes spoke of being hungry as a child; when older and richer, he ate gluttonously, weighing 22 stone towars the end of his life. His father, Mehel Hoch, inflicted numerous beatings upon his children. As Preston says:

"Mehel Hoch beat his son on a regular basis - often so hard that he broke his skin"

Preston gives examples of Robert beating his children with a belt when they were younger, and he describes how hard Maxwell could be on them when they were older and worked for him. One example given by Preston is of how Maxwell fired his son, Ian, for failing to collect his father from Orly Airport in Paris in the summer of 1980. Not as brutal as a beating, but an insight into perhaps an inherited attitude to offspring.

One very strange aspect of Maxwell's psyche, which Preston highlights in the book, was Maxwell's readiness to change his name, which he did on a number of occasions. Leaving his Czech home at the age of 16, he assumed several new identities before joining the British Army as Jan Hoch. Having learned English, he transferred to the infantry from the Pioneer Corps. Had he been captured by the Germans, they would have realised from his name that he was Jewish. It was as well for him , then, that he was given a paybook with he name of Leslie Smith. After he had distinguished himself in combat, a Canadian radio broadcast named him as "Leslie Du Maurier". In response to this, his CO gave him a paybook with the name Jones. He became "Robert Maxwell" in late 1944, after becoming a 2nd Lieutenant, because, Preston comments: "...it sounded distinguished and vaguely Scottish". Later in life, one of his surviving sisters, Sylvia asked him, "Why do you always say your name was Jan Ludvik Hoch?". Preston continues:

""...your name is Ludvik. You were named after Uncle Ludvik, not Jan".

Maxwell looked at her in astonishment.

"Was I?", he said."

One thing that even the most hostile of Maxwell's critics would acknowledge was his courage during his military service in Europe in WW2. As a sergeant, he was awarded the Military Cross for leading the rescue of a trapped British platoon. The day before he was awarded the MC, Maxwell learned that his mother and sister had been murdered by the Nazis. This might have led to two incidents, one corroborated, one alleged, where Maxwell personally killed one unarmed German civilian and a group of German soldiers trying to surrender. Again, these actions, if true, are wrong - but understandable.

Postwar, Maxwell set about creating a business empire, based on his purchase of a scientific book publisher which he rechristened Pergamon Press. While this empire grew, with all the trappings of success, together with links behind the Iron Curtain, he engaged in a newspaper war with Rupert Murdoch. As Ian Jack says in The Guardian: 

"Newspapers fascinated Maxwell, as they do many egoists, but somehow Murdoch managed to outwit him whenever he tried to get his hands on a newspaper business. It happened with the News of the World, the Sun, Today, the Times and the Sunday Times".

  As Harold Evans said, quoted by Preston:

 “Maxwell thought he’d entered the ring with another boxer … In fact, he’d entered the ring with a ju-jitsu artist who also happened to be carrying a stiletto".

Maxwell was simply outclassed. In 1988, he paid over the odds for Macmillan US ($2.6bn) and the Official Aviation Guide ($750m). Spending recklessly, he bought the failing New York Daily News, which all pundits agreed, was a waste of money. To raise funds, he borrowed from 44 banks and financial syndicates.

As the years went by, Maxwell became increasingly unkind to his family, absenting himself from home and indulging in extra-marital affairs. His French Protestant wife, Betty (another of Maxwell's biographers), endured much heartache. As Duncan Campbell says:

"There were nine Maxwell children, two of whom, Michael and Karine, died young in tragic circumstances. His treatment of the rest of the family was shocking. Betty would be told to “fuck off” in front of guests".

The end, when it came, is well enough known. The banks called in their loans and Maxwell’s share price needed bolstering. Maxwell sold of his assets, including Pergamon publishing, the foundation of his business from the outset. Eventually, his only, desperate, solution was to rob the Mirror pension fund and, when he knew that was about to be detected, to jump into the sea from the deck of his yacht, November 5th, 1991. In the book, Preston examines Maxwell's death in detail, but comes down in favour of suicide or accident. But there was one person who thought that Maxwell was murdered...

Maxwell's 9th child, Ghislaine, was of the opinion that her father had been pushed, rather than fallen to his death. As we know only too well, Ghislaine has had her fair share of legal problems - in fact, she is a convicted criminal. Preston says that Ghislaine was her father's favourite, and there is speculation that her attraction to the late Jeffrey Epstein was because he reminded her in many ways of her father.

But that is just speculation. In my parting nod to John Preston's book, I find one passage that I think significant. In Chapter 30, he describes how Ian Maxwell found his father bending down with his nose almost touching the screen of his television. The programme on the TV showed a trainload of Jews arriving at Auschwitz.

"What are you doing?" Ian asked.

Slowly Maxwell straightened up, and then turned around.

"I'm looking to see if I can spot my parents", he told him."

Let me be clear: I totally condemn Maxwell's wrongdoing. His sharp business practices, his bullying of his children and employees, his abuse and neglect of his wife, his robbing of money from his employees' pension fund, his supposed KGB links and his lies are all inexcusable. But I think that the memory of what happened in his youth and the loss of seven siblings and his parents must have eaten away at him, and the trauma of their loss might help to explain his actions. For this reason, then, I see Robert Maxwell as both a perpetrator and a victim.

The Rhymes and Routes Christmas Message, 2021

 

At extreme short notice, and at a time when he addresses his own press conference in Moscow, we are gratified to welcome President Vladimir Putin of Russia to Rhymes and Routes once again to deliver our Christmas message. His message is unedited, even where he criticises Rhymes and Routes.

On behalf of the Russian people, I extend season's greetings to the people of UK. I am persuaded to write this message not because I like this blog, but because I still not getting articles printed in Western press. Blogmeister here is speaking badly of me sometimes, but this is better than nothing. 

I want everyone in UK to know that we in Russia are not seeking war with them. Situation in Ukraine is not our fault. It is all due to Fascist government in Ukraine who want to invade Russia and occupy Kremlin. Do you really expect us to take this lying down? Of course we say Nyet. Nor are we happy to let Ukraine join NATO. How would they like it if we joined?

No, we are a peace loving people with a peace loving government. All our military actions have been defensive. Our assertive action in Crimea, if you remember that, was example of attack being the best kind of defence.

But - this is Christmas time! I would like to spread hope and peace everywhere, especially to UK, where we have so many good friends. One is brilliant Nigel Farage and the others are Reform Party UK. They were once called the Brexit Party and they done wonders for world peace by helping get UK out of EU; they have not taken UK out of NATO yet, but I give them time. I was so happy when Brexit Party did not sign letter attacking Iran for holding EU nationals on what they say are are unjust charges. That would have upset me, and they understood that.

I must finish. I am a busy man. I would like for Rednev to know that he is still invited to sing at Kremlin Christmas party. He did not respond to invitation last time. As for Blogmeister, I would like him to move to Ukraine and join Ukrainian Army. That way, if freedom-loving, non-aggressive Russian troops take him prisoner, I get to meet him face to face - for a short time.

I finish now by saying that I hope the Russian and British people become better friends. Believe me, if you knew what we could do, you'd better be friends! Have a wonderful Christmas! Happy 2022!

С Рождеством! С новым годом!

Terror and Racism in Liverpool

I suppose we could make a grim joke about Emad Al Swealmeen, the supposed Islamist terrorist who died when his bomb exploded inside a taxi outside Liverpool Women's Hospital on November 14th. We could describe him as a failed suicide bomber who blew up in anger when asked to pay his taxi fare, or some such thing. Fortunately, for most people, the reaction has been highly responsible, with attention focussing upon the serious aspects of this incident. For a few people, it has given them an opportunity to incite racism, but let's look at that later.

For this incident was no joke. Whatever his level of competence (or incompetence) Swealmeen meant serious, lethal business, even though there is still some uncertainty about his target. The police theory is that he was headed to Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral, where he would have joined the Remembrance Sunday congregation and detonated the bomb. However, as his specific destination request to the taxi driver was for the hospital, there is always the possibility that the hospital itself was his target. The consequences of that are too horrible to contemplate, but our experience of recent terror attacks means that it cannot be ruled out. We can only be grateful that Swealmeen was the only fatality. David Perry, the taxi driver, escaped with minor injuries.

 The obvious question arising, of course, is why did Swealmeen do it? The Sun, with its usual regard for accuracy, was in no doubt: 

"POPPY Day bomber Emad Jamil Al Swealmeen struck after his asylum bids were turned down".

As Swealmeen left no "martyrdom video" or suicide note, we cannot say for definite what drove him to his one-man bomb plot, but we can perhaps glean something from his history in this country. Al Swealmeen had a history of mental illness and lived in various countries in the Middle East before moving to the UK, a member of his tribe in Jordan told the BBC.

Wikipedia says here: 

"He arrived in the UK in around 2014 and claimed for asylum as a Syrian refugee, which was denied as officials believed him to be Jordanian rather than Syrian; his immigration status at the time of the incident is unknown. Seven years before the incident he was sectioned after trying to kill himself and waving a knife in Liverpool city centre; following this he converted from Islam to Christianity in 2015". (The Sun says 2017).

And his conversion is of particular interest, as it led to scrutiny - some of it unfriendly - of the role of the church in Liverpool. As the BBC puts it:

"The Bishop of Liverpool, Paul Bayes, has rejected criticism of the church and how they accommodate asylum seekers, saying it did the right thing in supporting Al Swealmeen. We didn't welcome a terrorist, we welcomed someone who was a little bit lost and not in his own nation and who was on a journey," he said".

This led to the wider point that asylum seekers from the Middle East - particularly from Iran - frequently convert to Christianity because they can then fight deportation on the grounds that they would face persecution or even execution in their home countries.  This is no idle point. The charity "Open Doors" has a "World Watch List" of 50 countries where Christians are being persecuted;8 out of the top 10 are predominantly Muslim states. 

This raises the question: how many of the asylum seekers are genuine converts to Christianity? Much as I hate to quote Anne Widdecombe, she had a point when she said that fake conversions in prisons are very similar, with convicts - "old lags" as Anne called them - trying to work their tickets and gain early release. It has even been discussed in Parliament. Christian News reported in 2017:

"Prisoners are pretending they have turned to Christianity in a bid to get out on parole earlier, an MP has claimed .Convicts are telling officials they're turning to God because it means they stand a better chance of being released, David Nuttall has suggested.

Speaking in the House of Commons he called for those released to have their faith monitored to ensure they have not played the system."

As for Swealmeen , who was perhaps playing the same game, he seems to have inspired confidence among established Christians. Following his conversion, he lived for eight months in Aigburth, Liverpool, with a devout Christian couple, Malcolm and Elizabeth Hitchott. As The Sun says:

"Former soldier Mr Hitchott said: “He first came to the cathedral in August 2015 and wanted to convert to Christianity. He took an Alpha Course, which explains the Christian faith, and completed it in November of that year. That enabled him to come to an informed decision and he changed from Islam to Christianity and was confirmed as a Christian just before he came to live with us."

Mr Hitchott says that Swealmeen's application for asylum was rejected because of the knife incident. He was appealing against this decision and it was under review, so it is a mistake to say that he carried out the attack because his asylum application was refused. As for his conversion to Christianity, that seems to have been short-lived. After he left the Hitchotts and went to live in a bedsit, he is said to have reverted to Islam. As The Times says: 

"One theory is that Emad Al Swealmeen, who had converted to Christianity... was trying to atone for apostasy which is considered to be punishable by death by some Islamic scholars... Associates are believed to have told detectives that Al Swealmeen, 32, an Iraqi asylum seeker, had since returned to Islam, although sources said that was “not a motive for an attack”

In the end, we are none the wiser as to why Swealmeen carried out his botched attack. As the Bishop of Liverpool told the BBC:

""Even to this day the police are telling us, nobody quite knows why he did what he did."

Out of this melancholy story, however, one light of hope shines through. Apart from one pitifully small appearance by a paltry bunch of neo-Nazis outside Liverpool Women's Hospital, the people of Liverpool have remained united ( a failure for Swealmeen AND the Neo-Nazis). For this, they received praise in in a letter published on behalf of Merseyside Police Chief Constable Serena Kennedy, Liverpool City Mayor Joanne Anderson, Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner Emily Spurrell and Liverpool City Region Mayor Steve Rotheram. And a remarkable group of women turned out to condemn the far Right goons...

As theguideliverpool.com says:

"One group of women from Liverpool 8 have been campaigning outside the Women’s Hospital over the past few days, with homemade placards making their opposition to racism clear."

As a local activist, Sonia Bassey MBE, says in the same article "there's no room for terrorism, hate or racism in our city".

And we, in the rest of the UK, must aim to achieve the same. That way, the Emad Al Swealmeens of this world will always fail, however they attack.

Carnage in Birmingham: The Same Old Song

 It's not easy to write posts like this, as there is always the chance that a friend or relative of the person murdered by a mental health patient might read it - and the last thing I want is to add to their grief. There is also the fact that I have written on this topic a number of times before, and I am aware that some uncharitable people will accuse me of having a "bee in my bonnet" on this topic - as if the murder of an innocent person was something to be ignored. I for one do not think that; it's my opinion that all these victims and their loved ones are important, and deserve to be written about.

So it is with the young man in the picture above. Jacob Billington, from Crosby in Merseyside, was 23 years old when he went on a night out with friends in Birmingham on September 6, 2020. Along with seven other innocent victims, he was unfortunate enough to encounter a local man, 29-year old Zephaniah McLeod, seen below.

 In a 90-minute rampage, McLeod carried out five knife attacks in Birmingham during which he made a journey home to change knives. At the end of his violent spree, seven people were injured, some severely and Jacob Billington lay dying. Mcleod then went home, and was arrested at 4AM next morning. He has been sentenced to 21 years of incarceration and it is to be hoped that he will not "respond well" to treatment and possibly be released early - perhaps to kill again.

People who have read my previous posts on this subject will recognise one familiar factor in this case: the fact that Mcleod was well known to the police and the mental health professionals as a man with issues (to put it mildly). At his trial in Birmingham Crown Court last week, the court heard that McLeod, a paranoid schizophrenic, had refused a psychiatric appointment four days before he launched his attacks. As the BBC says: "Prior to that, McLeod had been out of contact with health services after being released from prison that April, despite a history of refusing to take his medication and hearing voices telling him to kill and stab people." (My italics). It comes as no surprise to learn that McLeod had taken narcotics before his stabbing spree, perhaps as a replacement for his medication. Yes, that is sarcasm.

Another familiar feature in this case is the bewilderment of the victims' relatives (and the rest of us) at the fact that this obviously dangerous individual was walking the streets. Jacob Billington's mother told the court that she hoped McLeod's care would be "properly looked into and that all involved remember my son bled to death in the street at the hands of someone well-known to many agencies". That is very well said, and I endorse those words but, sadly, they have been uttered many times before, and these incidents continue to happen. I have been blogging about them for a number of years and, even more sadly, I do not expect them to stop after this terrible event.

I usually end posts like this in a similar vein - a kind of resigned acceptance that these crimes will continue. But these attacks are unacceptable, and that is why I blog about them. In this incident, a young life has been ended, and we should conclude, I think, with the words of Jacob Billington's family. They have said:

"Jacob was the light of our life and we have been devastated by his loss. He was a funny, caring and wonderful person who was loved by every single person he met .He lit up every room with his boundless energy and witty humour and the loss of such a special person will be felt by all who knew him for years to come."

The trauma caused to Jacob's family - and to all such bereaved families - is agonisingly expressed by his mother, Joanne:

"I am haunted about how he died, how terrified he must have been...This tortures me every time I close my eyes."

In this, she speaks for all  the relatives of those who die at the hands of murderous mental health patients. All I can do is to express my  condolences over the loss of her son, and I am sure that I speak for all who read this blog. May Jacob Billington rest in peace, and may the questions raised by his death be satisfactorily answered. It's the same old song, but it needs to be sung.

Anti-Vaxxers: The Growing Menace

 

Back in the early days of the pandemic, and after the commencement of the vaccination campaign, we saw the beginning, in this country and others, of the "anti-vaxxer" movement, led at that time in the UK by Piers Corbyn, Jeremy's brother, seen above. 

At that time, I could not take the anti-vaxxers seriously. Their outlandish beliefs, I thought, would lead to them being disregarded as harmless nutcases and they would become marginalised, noisy, but ineffectual. Events since have led to my revising that opinion. Their beliefs remain outlandish, they remain nutcases (in my opinion) , but they are by no means harmless. In fact, they have become one of the three ugly sister groupings in our society that are ready and willing to use political violence: Fascists, Jihadis and now the militant anti-Vaxxers. Not all of the latter group engage in violence, of course, but neither do all Fascists or Jihadis. But there is a growing trend towards violence among the anti-Vaxxers and, as we will see, there is a significant overlap of membership with the extreme Right. Worryingly, the anti-Lockdown marches have attracted large numbers, some of whom have shown a readiness to attack the police.

It was at one of these rallies that an ex-nurse, Kate Shemirani, issued a threat to all NHS staff. As The Guardian says:

" In a widely circulated public speech, she compared medical staff to Nazi war criminals, referred explicitly to their executions and demanded that people gather the names of doctors and nurses in the UK."

This has led to well-founded fears that her words could lead to further attacks, verbal or otherwise , on NHS staff. I have seen TV reports of doctors coming off A&E shifts being abused by anti-Vaxxer demonstrators. The Guardian again says:

“Some nursing staff have been subjected to abhorrent behaviour throughout this pandemic,” said Pat Cullen, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing."

This would be bad enough, but there is an abundance of evidence of anti-Vaxxer outrages. According to their barmy beliefs, 5G mobile phone masts are linked to Covid-19 and are legitimate targets for attack. 77 masts have been attacked and one engineer seriously assaulted. These outrages stopped after lockdown protests began, but there is reason to think they could start again. However, one of the most despicable of anti-Vaxxer activities has been the holding of demonstrations outside schools. The BBC reports:

"Almost eight in 10 schools said they had been targeted by anti-vaccine protesters in a recent survey by the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) union."

Early last month, protesters (if that's the right word) picketed a school in Gateshead where children were due to be vaccinated. The Headteacher of St Thomas More School reported that pupils arriving were shown pictures of dead children who had allegedly passed away because of vaccination. Sir Keith Starmer condemned the event, while Pritti Patel said:

"It is completely unacceptable for children, teachers, or parents to be intimidated and harassed outside their school by protesters peddling misinformation and dangerous lies about the life-saving vaccine programme."

And this type of action is more widespread that it would appear. News.co.uk says:

"Anti-vaxxine protest group Outreach Worldwide has shared footage of its protesters approaching schools and students in uniform. In one video, a woman encourages students to delay getting the vaccine as it is “still in clinical trials and is causing quite a lot of problems for young people”.

I mentioned above that anti-Vaxxers have been an unpleasant presence outside some hospitals - at least in the South East. One extreme example of this happened last month when a bunch of anti-Vaxxers turned up at Colchester Hospital waving false legal papers quoting the 'Nuremberg Code' at hard-pressed medical staff and accusing them of participating in made-up Covid 'plandemic' crimes. It is ironic that these conspiracy "theorists" quote the Nuremberg Code, set up after WW2 to prevent the repetition of medical experiments on human beings practised in the Nazi concentration camps, as we will see later. But we need to remind ourselves that anti-vaxxer activity is not exclusive to Britain.

In the United States, anti-vaxxer propaganda, especially on social media, has been blamed for the most recent surge in Covid cases. As Mother Jones online newsletter says:

"Yes, COVID-19 is surging again, this time fueled by the highly infectious and deadly Delta variant, which is ravaging the country—especially in places with low vaccination rates such as Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. As of August, about half of the country remains unvaccinated."

Nor have the anti-Vaxxers been slow in using lethal violence. Last month, a Maryland man, Jeffrey Allen Burnham, shot dead his brother and sister-in-law, both pharmacists, because they were "killing people with the Covid shot". 

In Italy, the 9th of this month saw an anti-Vaxxer demonstration in Rome turn violent, with (hello!) neo-Fascists prominent among the rioters. Reuters reported:

"One group of protesters tried to break through police lines to reach Prime Minister Mario Draghi's city"centre office, while a separate group tried to smash their way into the headquarters of Italy's main CGIL trade union". 

This is an appropriate time to return to the Anti-Vax movement here in the UK. As in Italy, the extreme right has been involved with the Anti-Vax, anti-lockdown movement from the very beginning. That involvement, according to Searchlight magazine, is becoming closer and deeper. One manifestation of this is the increasing violence against the police on demonstrations, as seen in the photo above. One such incident, on September 3rd, saw four London police officers injured. In August, anti-Vaxxers occupied the foyer of Channel 4 and ITN news headquarters. The broadcaster, Jon Snow, was the target of abuse on that occasion; like the Nazis, anti-vaxxers believe in attacking the press.

Searchlight, which has an outstanding record for exposing the machinations of the far right, says that Fascists are organising anti-vaxxer groups to renew attacks on 5G masts. Besides this, they are encouraging all eligible activists to apply for firearms licences. Anyone failing to see the danger in this should think back to Thomas Mair, who owned legally-held firearms which he used to murder Jo Cox, M.P. One anti-vaxxer group, Veterans 4 Freedom (V4F), was investigated by the Daily Mail back in August.  This group of disgruntled ex-servicemen were planning to attack vaccination centres, sabotage vaccine supplies and target staff. Ominously, they were talking of stockpiling weapons. Weapon of choice for this group is the crossbow, which is legal to purchase, although some veterans are talking of converting pistols to rifles and, if eligible, obtaining firearms certificates. Since the Mail article appeared, this group has disbanded, although some members have regrouped, forming the Global Veterans' Alliance. 

It's not for me to even begin to speculate what drives the anti-vax movement worldwide, still less in Britain. That is the province of social psychologists. I can, however, point to some political indicators. As Searchlight says:

"We have yet to come across a single Remain voter within the network of anti-lockdown groups". 

It comes as no surprise. Nor do we see many (any?) black or Asian faces on the anti-lockdown marches. The anti-vax, anti-lockdown movement should be seen as what I strongly believe it to be: a menagerie of bigots, fantasists and conspiracy theorists, ripe for exploitation by the extreme right.

Sir David Amess - Another Victim in the War Against Democracy

 

When I learned of the murder of Sir David Amess, my heart sank - for more than one reason. I did not share any of Sir David's Conservative political views. He stood for everything I oppose politically, but I totally condemn lethal violence like this. Sir David was entitled to hold his views in our democracy, as are we all. By all accounts, he was a hard-working, deeply religious man who sounded like the kind of person you could get on with socially, if not politically - you could agree to differ with him. The fact that he is mourned by people of all religions and by his political opponents who knew him bears this out. The hearts of every right-thinking person should go out to his family.

The same could be said about the late Jo Cox, MP. I shared many of her political beliefs, as did many. As a dedicated Labour MP, as a passionate Remainer in the EU Referendum, she did not appeal to many in her constituency and, as we know, one of them took her life in a savage and brutal assassination. Her tragic death shares many features with the murder of Sir David Amess : the randomness, the attack by a stranger, the victim's popularity with everyone, the loving families left to grieve, etc...

I would like to focus here, however, upon the wider significance, as I see it, of Sir David's death. The day he was slain, I said that it was a black day for British democracy. It was, but it was also a black day for democracy worldwide. I saw it as a continuation of a trend that I noted back in March  following the criminal attack by a mob on the US Capitol building. When I first learned of it, I thought of the attack as a purely American phenomenon. Upon reflection, I saw that it was part of a worldwide trend.  I compared what had happened in the US Capitol to three assaults on democratic rights and institutions in three other countries and continents: the military coup in Myanmar , human rights abuse in the one-time democracy of Venezuela and right here in the UK, with the passing of the Police Bill.

Nothing has happened since March to dispel my pessimism. The news from the US has not been cheerful. I did not know until recently how the beleaguered police who fought to defend the Capitol suffered. 140 were injured and one, Officer Brian Sicknick (pictured), died the day after the riot. Four police officers who were present during the attack have since committed suicide. Happily, we saw President Joe Biden elected, but, from conversations with American friends, I am aware that the pro-Trump, anti-democratic coalition in the US remain a potent threat. They are well organised, well financed and  have a plentiful supply of firearms.

In Myanmar, the junta have tightened their grip with absolute ruthlessness. Over 1000 people have been killed, including 75 children. Thousands of opponents of the military languish in prison, and many face the risk of torture, according to human rights organisations and Al-Jazeera.

Things aren't improving in Venezuela. Amnesty International reports that state-sponsored killing of political undesirables continues:

"The crimes documented did not take place at random, nor were they isolated. They formed part of an attack planned and led by the security forces against individuals identified as or perceived to be opponents, particularly in impoverished areas, with the objective of neutralising or eliminating them."

As for here in the UK, the murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess have been correctly identified as attacks on parliamentary democracy, coming from two non-government sources: Islamist terrorism, which motivated Ali Harbi Ali, Sir David's alleged killer, and Right-Wing extremism, which "inspired" the obnoxious Thomas Mair, the murderer of Jo Cox.

Much has been said about how to protect our elected representatives and how to prevent future attacks of this type. It has been mooted that we should be nicer to people who disagree with us. Social media, it is argued, has led to people hardening their views and becoming intolerant of others. Instead, we should be pleasanter to our opponents and this will halt the drift to extremism in society.

I cannot take this view seriously. Fascists and Jihadis have already formed their worldviews and despise all others. Smiling at them won't stop them pulling a trigger or lashing out with a knife.

To conclude, I believe that we should recognise the existence of threats to democracy that exist around the world, and what we have seen in the UK calls for us not just to mourn for our fallen MPs, but mobilise to defend our democratic rights, whether from the far Right, Jihadis or otherwise.

Afghanistan - the End of a Delusion

 

How long, I wonder, will the embattled Afghan Republic survive? The Taliban have just taken Ghazni, which is the 10th provincial capital to fall in a week. Some reports have it that the Afghan Army is unpaid, under-equipped and demoralised. Other reports say that the capital city, Kabul, could fall in 90 days. Total Taliban control over Afghanistan could be established by the end of the year. That will take us back to the status quo of 2001, which is when this whole state of affairs began.

To be exact, it began on September 11, 2001, when Al-Qaeda terrorists launched their infamous attacks on the World Trade Centre and The Pentagon. 3 000 people died, and the USA was seething with anger at this horrific act of terrorism on their home soil. Al-Qaeda, under their leader, Osama Bin Laden, were known to be based in Afghanistan, and the seeds were laid for the Afghan (mis)adventure. The Taliban, we were told, refused to hand over Bin Laden and the US and her allies ("The coalition of the willing") invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.

I had reservations about this from the beginning. Not that I claim to be an expert, but I knew enough about Afghan history to warn that Afghanistan is known as "The Graveyard of Armies", The British colonial authorities suffered two humiliating defeats, one in 1842, which led to the annihilation of an entire army. and in 1880 at the battle of Maiwand. And the world knows what happened to the Soviet Union's "fraternal" attempt to impose secularism, which ended in a ignominious withdrawal in 1989. This was clearly a people who would fiercely resent any foreign interference in their affairs and would struggle tenaciously against it. I am sure that expert scholars in London and Washington were pointing this out, but they were ignored. In the febrile atmosphere of the time, there was a lust for revenge that could only be slaked by blood.

But were the Taliban guilty of refusing to hand over Bin Laden? In May 2011, I wrote:

"We are told that the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, but a number of commentators, including Mark Curtis and Michael Moore, claim that the Taliban (and others) DID offer to hand over Bin Laden before 9/11. In 1995, the Sudanese government offered to extradite him, but the offer was refused. Michael Moore gives details of three offers to hand over Bin Laden before and after 9/11:

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

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

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

 Since 2011, I have seen no refutation of Michael Moore's allegations. Nor was there any refutation of the  minority US Army view that the war was unwinnable. And the latter view has been proven to be correct.

The Afghan invasion was based upon a delusion - the belief that following the installation of a more liberal government and the freeing of Taliban restrictions, the whole population would be transformed into enthusiastic democrats. The old monster of the French Revolutionary Terror, Robespierre, could have repeated his warning from 1789: "No-one loves armed missionaries". Of course, many sectors of the Afghan population did welcome the new freedoms. The fact that those freedoms are soon to be forbidden makes this whole misadventure even more tragic.

The casualty figures of this 20-year conflict point to the scale of the tragedy. Watson Brown puts the figures in total from all sides as about 241, 000, including 71, 000 civilians. I wonder what the supporters of the invasion back in 2001 make of that. And the killing continues today, and it will continue after the Taliban regain control. Anyone who has worked for the Coalition Forces or the Afghan government will be in mortal danger.

They might not be the only ones. As the Taliban see it, they have defeated America and her allies. As Haji Hekmat, a veteran Taliban commander, told the BBC in April: "we have won the war and America has lost". Islamo-terrorist groups around the world will be hugely encouraged by this, and a newly-resurgent Taliban-controlled Afghanistan might well provide these groups with safe havens - which is exactly the situation that existed back in 2001, when the Taliban were harbouring Al-Qaeda. They might well be doing the same thing again soon.

To conclude for now, I would like to say that I have a deep sense of sadness for the Afghan women, artists, musicians, teachers and intellectuals who did benefit from the invasion.  This 20-year incursion has raised their expectations and given them freedoms of which they could only have dreamed pre-2001. I predict a flood of refugees from Afghanistan to rival that from Syria.

All this over a man who was traced and liquidated in Pakistan. And, let's not forget: if the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden in 2001, they would have remained in power.

Lengthening the School Day: A Populist Policy

 Critics of the present government, of which I am one of a multitude, often have particular targets for their antipathy. I don't share in this, as I would like to see the whole bunch turfed out. However, the MP above, Gavin Williamson, Secretary of State for Education, was regarded with particular contempt until the Matt Hancock scandal broke. I hadn't followed his career, until our beloved prime minister announced three days ago that he thought that extending the school day, to make up for time lost during the pandemic, was "the right thing to do". 

The relevance of Williamson to all this is that he was floating the idea back in March. The BBC reported:

"Longer school days and shorter holidays are among the measures the government is considering to help pupils in England catch up on lost learning, the education secretary has said".

Neither of these men - Johnson or Williamson - has any experience of working in schools. Boris was a journalist (of a kind); Williamson was manager of a pottery firm and worked for an architectural design firm until 2010, when he became an MP. As every teacher and teaching assistant will tell you, only by working in schools can you properly understand the pressures on the staff and the needs of the children. Don't expect any such understanding from these two. Johnson almost certainly sees the school day issue as a way to pander to the prejudices of the pub loudmouth/white van man/populist bigot who thinks that teachers have an easy time of it. Williamson probably views children as being empty pots that need filling to capacity.

As a retired teacher and serving school governor, I oppose this measure for a number of reasons. Firstly, children are not vessels to be filled with knowledge. They have been emotionally and educationally affected by the pandemic and need time to get back into a normal school routine. It is ridiculous to expect them to react positively to spending longer in school. In fact, the opposite is only too likely to happen. From experience, I predict that this will only lead to increased pupil resentment and possibly serious discipline problems. As a study by the University of Kent said in June:

"Extending the school day, and the expectance of pupils to concentrate on academic learning for longer periods may result in the opposite effect to that desired. With an increase in overtired pupils and LLCD (Low Level Classroom Disruption) having the potential to reduce teaching and learning time.’

Besides this, a recent study by a University of Cambridge academic casts doubt on the benefits of a longer school day. As The Guardian said in May:

"With the government in England considering extended school hours as part of its catch-up plans, the research found that schools already timetabling longer teaching time in subjects such as English and maths see only modest improvements that may not justify the extra cost".

The researcher, Vaughan Connolly, suggested that the government should give children more time for recreational activities. Don't hold your breath, mate.

Paul Whiteman, NAHT leader, was quoted in The Guardian:

“The marginal gains that might be possible through extending the school day must be weighed against the costs of such a strategy, including the impact on pupils’ mental health, reduced family time and less time for extra-curricular activities".

None of the union leaders featured in the article mentioned teacher welfare, so I shall do it.

Speaking from knowledge and experience, I can attest that teachers are already working long hours - not in the classroom, but at home, They prepare lessons, mark books and carry out assessments. I know for a fact that many - if not all - teachers are working flat out to meet the extraordinary needs of their schools in the pandemic. Many have become ill and many work in isolation, because of Covid restrictions, with potentially serious consequences for their mental health.

How can we expect children to be prepared to work longer hours when adult staff returning to work from furlough are going back to their normal working day? No-one is requiring them to work extra hours, and there will be no shortage of children willing to point this out. By the same token - why should teachers be expected to work longer hours, when all have worked without furlough right through the pandemic, teaching the children of key workers and both preparing and delivering online lessons for children locked down at home? Teacher unions should consider the legality of the extension of school hours. I would have thought it to be a breach of contract.

Lastly, I would like to issue a challenge to the two ignoramuses we began with: Boris and Gavin. As they find it so easy to plan to extend the school day, I would like to challenge either or both of them to take an end of school day lesson on a Friday afternoon. The subject I would choose for them would be a double period of Religious Education, to teach to a Year 10 secondary school class in  an inner city comprehensive. I would love to watch the proceedings on video.

Do you think he will accept the challenge?

 

The Odd Couple of British Politics

 Well, times do change. In the picture above, we see the British political equivalent of "The Odd Couple": George Galloway (GG) and Nigel Farage (NF). Although politically poles apart, they worked smirkingly together during the EU Referendum campaign. In 2019, Galloway disgusted many left-wingers by declaring that he would be voting for the Brexit Party in the European elections. GG wrote on Twitter:

“Given the nature of Labour’s Euro-fanatic candidates list and the crucial juncture we have reached in the fight for the full implementation of the #Brexit referendum result and for one-time only I will be supporting @Nigel_Farage in next months elections."

By 2021, NF had announced that he was giving up politics and handing over leadership of the Reform UK Party, which was the new name of the Brexit Party, to Richard Tice. In his farewell address, Nigel said that he was satisfied that Brexit was here to stay, with all its benefits. However, he declared his intention to continue supporting the Reform UK Party, because: "... he wanted to campaign against "the increasing influence of the Chinese communist party over our whole way of life" and "the indoctrination of children at school", which he claimed meant many pupils were "encouraged to hate this country".

NF's mental health appears to be in a parlous state (or was it always that way?) and his subsequent career would seem to bear this out. He has one career as a financial consultant, looking very lonely in his online advertisements and another as a celebrity sender of video messages for a modest fee - £75. One such message, which was widely featured on TV, was one he sent to "Hugh Janus". Paul Merton commented that NF must have been looking in a mirror. Quite.

As for NF's partner in crime, he has continued in his efforts to be noticed. When GG stood for election in the recent Batley and Spen by-election with a party of another name (the Workers' Party), a lot of media commentators wondered at his motivation. I believe the poster above provides a simple explanation. Clearly, the GG campaign had Keir Starmer and his Labour Party leadership in its sights. GG was a keen supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and - pretty obviously - out for revenge. He sought to rally the Muslim vote by stating that Starmer is "the top supporter of Israel". He also sought to inflame tensions over sex education in schools and religious education, telling some outrageous lies, which have been exposed by Owen Jones, among others. You can learn of these falsehoods HERE (Click).

The byelection was marred by attacks on Labour Party members - some quite vicious. Tracy Brabin, the outgoing MP, said:

“The group I was with included young people and the elderly.
I witnessed them being egged, pushed and forced to the ground and kicked in the head".

 Galloway denied responsibility, but the attackers seemed to share the same agenda as him. In another unpleasant incident, Kim Leadbeater was harassed by a group of men who echoed GG's concern over sex education by shouting:

“Are you going to support Muslim parents who don’t want their children to learn about LGBT domination?” 

GG did condemn this attack, "Absolutely". he said, claiming that two of his party's senior members were gay, but he didn't say who they were. There was also the awkward fact that he had to fire one of his party workers, one Shammy Cheema, who was exposed as a Holocaust denier. GG said that:

"...he “absolutely” condemns antisemitism and Holocaust denial and “cannot be held responsible for the social media opinions of some 200 people helping his campaign”."

I doubt that Galloway would be so lenient towards political opponents whose campaign workers made similar statements on social media. It also raises the question: what attracted a Holocaust denier like Sammy Cheema to Galloway's cause in the first place?

GG was less than candid in other matters. His "friendship" with Muslims is questionable, to say the least.. If he is a friend of the Muslim Uyghurs, they need no enemies. As Ian Dunt says:

"Time and again he (Galloway) has dismissed, ignored, or actively spread disinformation about their death or mistreatment. “NO CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN CHINA,” he tweeted. “And the Muslim population is growing, there are 25,000 mosques in Xinjiang alone, more than in the entire US. FAKE NEWS PEOPLE.”

We should bear in mind that GG is on record as saying that the Tiananmen Square massacre never happened; now he tells us that the Uyghurs are not being persecuted. Nigel Farage might put this down to the increasing influence of the Chinese Communist Party (see above) - which could be why GG and NF are never seen together as a couple any more. 

Any Muslims tempted to vote for GG in future elections should bear this denial of Uyghur persecution  in mind. He has also denied chemical weapons attacks in  Syria, dismissing all contrary evidence. 

Nor is there any evidence of pro-Israeli bias in the Labour leadership. As Dunt says:

"In reality, Starmer’s Labour has maintained a much more critical approach to Israel than we saw during the New Labour years. “Reports that Israeli air strikes on Gaza have killed multiple civilians, including children, are shocking. This is appalling,” Lisa Nandy said last month, during the recent outbreak in the conflict."

Nevertheless, despite the de facto joint efforts of George Galloway, Corbyn loyalists, the Conservative Party and the extreme Right, Kim Leadbeater triumphed. Yes, only by 323 votes, but it is a tribute to her dogged campaigning and faith in her local community.

Congratulations to Kim Leadbeater!

The Hancock Affair - Latest in a Long Line

 Well, I am surprised. I thought for a while that Matt Hancock, seen above with a new hairstyle and Gina Coladangelo, would try to stay in office. After all, Boris had forgiven him (no surprise there) and besides, what else could he do? Perhaps we should all be glad that he was forced to resign by media pressure, "concerned" Tory MPs and the justified condemnation of his proclivities by a cross-section of the public. It is a rebuttal of the Boris doctrine that you can brass it out, whatever your misdemeanour.

The hypocrisy of this man is indeed breathtaking, but we know this already. As The Sun, who published the photo and the video of Matt and Gina kissing, says:

"On 6 May, when the incident took place, Covid restrictions remained in place across the UK.
In England, indoor gatherings for work purposes were permitted but only if "reasonably necessary".

As has been noted, this points out the truth of the adage that there is one rule for Tory politicians and another for the rest of us. Even Piers Morgan has vilified Hancock for his hypocrisy. But this adage applies in other situations, not just pandemic strictures on association. Had these two been teachers, they would have faced disciplinary action for inappropriate behaviour - whether in the privacy of an empty classroom or not. In a church school, the fact that they were both married, and thus engaged in an adulterous relationship, would have led to parental and church pressure for their immediate resignations. In fact, one head of a school in Preston, who had a number of adulterous affairs, one David Ratcliff, was forced out back in 2001. The Guardian commented at the time:

"David Ratcliff, resigned from Broughton-in-Amounderness Church of England primary school last week after confessing to the infidelities in a letter to staff, parents and the board of governors".

As for Matt and Gina, my sympathies are for their families. Both of them have three children, and I can only hope these children, together with Hancock's wife and Coladangelo's husband, are left in peace. I also feel sorry for the whistleblower who leaked the photo and the story to The Sun. It's a safe bet that the establishment will pursue him or her with ruthless tenacity. As for Hancock, he appears to be talking about a future return to the ministerial arena. Personally, when the next general election comes, his rival candidates for election as MP should have a high old time campaigning against him, and I'd love to take part.

Now, as we know, sex scandals involving politicians - straight and gay - are nothing new. In fact, some people trace it back as far as Henry 8th and Ann Boleyn. Sticking to modern times, I can still remember the Profumo Affair, John Major's ludicrous "Back to Basics" campaign, which was not only ignored by his MPs, such as Tim Yeo and Steven Milligan, but by Major himself, having an affair with Edwina Currie. On the Labour side, John Prescott had a 2-year affair in the noughties with his diary secretary, Tracey Temple, who, according to The Sun (again):

" Temple claimed they would have sex in his Whitehall office, at a hotel while his wife was downstairs, and at his grace and favour flat in Admiralty Arch paid for by the taxpayer."

Then there was David Mellor's dalliance with Antonia de Sanchez. The list goes on, but History has some astounding examples of how the so-called "great and good" have flouted conventional morality, some of which put Hancock's little affair firmly into the shade. Here are just four:

Lord Palmerston, (1754 - 1865), twice prime minister, was accused of attempted rape of one of Queen Victoria's ladies-in-waiting when staying at Windsor Castle in 1839. He claimed that he had walked into the girl's room by accident - a claim that did not bear scrutiny, as he tried to barricade the door. The young lady was saved only by lusty screaming. In fact, Prince Albert said:

" "He would have consummated his fiendish scheme by violence had not the miraculous efforts of his victim, and such assistance as was attracted by her screams, saved her".

This did not seem to inhibit Palmerston's career, either in politics or the bedroom. Palmerston was cited in an adultery case at the age of 78. He is said to have died at the age of 80, having sex with a maid on a billiard table.

Herbert Henry Asquith (1852 - 1928) was PM from 1908 to 1916. The Daily Mail describes him as a "world-class" groper. He certainly worked for that title:

"Winston Churchill’s wife Clemmie complained that Asquith was always trying to look down her dress, while the socialite Lady Ottoline Morrell reported that he would ‘take a lady’s hand as she sat beside him on the sofa and make her feel his erected instrument under his trousers’."

It's a shame that there were no whistleblowers around at the time to boot this creep out of office. But times were different then. Asquith was regarded as an ineffectual war leader. His replacement was an even greater womaniser...

...David Lloyd George (1863 - 1945) the last Liberal prime minister. The Mail comments:

"Even at the time, David Lloyd George’s penchant for the ladies was very well known, earning him the nickname ‘the Goat’. As one of his own aides put it, the brilliant Welsh orator was ‘mental on matters of sex. In his view, a man and a woman could not possibly be friends without sexual intercourse"."

He carried on for decades with his secretary, Frances Stevenson, whom he forced to have at least two abortions. And there were many more women — so many that nobody has ever produced a definitive count. He even slept with his son Dick’s troubled wife, Roberta, and this when he was well into his 60s.

And lastly, from an LGBT perspective...

Robert, Baron Boothby (1900 - 86), aka Lord Boothby, is our only LGBT candidate here - though there are many more. The broadcaster, Ludovic Kennedy,  was a relative and said that Boothby's bi-sexuality was well known to his family. It was covered up effectively in his lifetime. He had an indiscreet relationship with Harold Macmillan's wife which never got into the papers; he said that she reminded him of a caddy he'd seduced on a golf course.  It seems that he was the true father of  Sarah Macmillan, who took her own life in 1970. He had an intimate homosexual connection to the London underworld , where, says the Mail:

"...Boothby had affairs with male East End gangsters, including the cat burglar Leslie Holt. This brought him into the orbit of the Krays, who used to arrange orgies for him and allegedly supplied him with compliant young men."

Nick Hancock hardly fits in to this pantheon  - although Boris might. In spite of this, we should all guard against Hancock's possible return to public life. Haven't we suffered enough?

Bashing the BBC, Bashirgate and Boris

 I don't think anyone envies Martin Bashir at the moment. I can only hope that he and his family are not looking at social media or the right-wing press, as they will feel themselves under siege. This is not to excuse Bashir's conduct 25 years ago. He has been exposed - need I tell you what you know already? - as having forged bank statements to facilitate an interview with the late Diana, Princess of Wales. When this issue surfaced last November, I was very suspicious. 25 years to expose such wrongdoing seemed very strange, and the explanations for this seemed unconvincing. It looked to me that the story had broken as a red herring to deflect pressure from the government for its handling of the pandemic and as a handy stick with which to beat the BBC.

Understandably, Diana's sons are deeply upset at the results of the Dyson Report. Prince William has made a deeply emotional speech blaming BBC bosses, as well as a "rogue reporter". Harry has blamed a toxic media culture for his mother's death.  As Jonny Diamond, BBC Royal correspondent comments: "In the past, of course, it's been Harry that's been so angry with the media, William appeared to have made his peace with it, but the second in line to the throne has launched a visceral attack on the BBC, a sign of his deep hurt and deep dismay."

It's certainly ironic that the tabloid press, which upset Harry and Meghan so much that they left the UK, are now attacking the BBC for using tricks favoured so much by those same newspapers. Have we forgotten the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone, Squidgygate and the phone call by Charles to Camilla in which he spoke of how, if reincarnated, he would like to come back as a certain intimate feminine object? And does the Bashir scandal, dating back so many years, invalidate present-day BBC reporting from around the world? Does it render BBC coverage of the Windrush scandal, the negative effects of Brexit and the disgrace of the track and trace system dishonest and fraudulent? Well, there is one man who might think so...

As if you hadn't guessed! Boris has just spoken with concern and gravity on this issue. According to the BBC (the same): 

"The BBC should take "every possible step" to ensure that nothing like its deceit of the Princess of Wales to secure an interview ever happens again, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said".

Boris Johnson, as we know, is just the man to be aware of how harmful dishonesty in journalism can be. He was sacked from The Times for fabricating a quote from his godfather. His career as a columnist for The Telegraph was somewhat spoiled by the fact that he persistently wrote untrue articles about the European Union. He received £275 000 a year for this latter job, describing his salary as "chickenfeed".  Yes, just the man to judge Martin Bashir and the BBC.

. I would be amazed, however, if he and his cronies are not looking at how they can use Bashirgate, to coin a phrase, as another stick with which they can beat the BBC. They have already made several moves in this direction. The first was the appointment of Richard Sharp as BBC chairman. This must have caused Boris great satisfaction, as The Byline Times points out: 

"The newly-appointed Chairman of the BBC has donated more than £400,000 to the Conservative Party since 2001, Electoral Commission records show.
Earlier today, it was announced that former Goldman Sachs banker Richard Sharp is set to be appointed as the chairman of the BBC’s board of directors".

The report goes on to say that Mr Sharp will be leading negotiations with the government over the licence fee. Pensioners beware. And Mr Sharp is not the only appointee in favour with Boris and his pals...

Tim Davie, the new Director-General of the BBC, is definitely the government's man at Wogan House. The Independent rightly says that this is beyond satire:

"How, for example, do you satirise the following? The BBC appoints a new director general whose first act in the job is to tell his staff they can’t go on marches because of the threat of “perceived bias”. Not actual bias, just perceived. Oh, and what do you know, this chap who now runs the BBC and is determined to liberate it from any perception at all that it could be anything less than entirely politically neutral, also once stood for election as a Tory Party councillor and was deputy chair of his local Conservative Association".

Mr Davie has launched a crusade against what the Tories see as Leftist bias in the BBC. We all know about how the Mash Report has been axed, to the delight of the right-wing press. Another of his ventures was the sacking of the junior script editor of Peaky Blinders for unacceptable tweets. Mr Davie is a typical Tory advocate of free speech - for the political Right.

We can be in no doubt that there will be further such measures taken by the Tories at the Beeb. As said previously, the popular satirical BBC programme, "Have I Got News For You" will definitely be in the firing line. The licence fee may well be raised considerably.

To conclude, there might well be another harmful knock-on effect. If the use of forged documents and cover stories is to become banned, it will make genuine investigative journalism very difficult. It will become next to impossible to infiltrate terrorist or criminal organisations or hunt down fugitives from justice. A prime example of such an operation was the entrapment of the gangster, John "Goldfinger" Palmer, by the now-sadly-defunct programme of the 80s and 90s, The Cook Report. Roger Cook, the intrepid eponymous reporter, wrote in 2015 :

"We were initially told our proposed programme was too risky and that Palmer was too clever to get caught. But we weren’t deterred.
We asked two drug barons we had met while filming a Cook Report in Burma’s Golden Triangle to pose as opium growers who needed drug money ‘cleaned’.
It worked a treat. We had Palmer on tape offering to launder $160 million of opium profits for them twice a year, even boasting that his rates were the best in the business".

If deception is to be eliminated, sting operations like this will become impossible. Bashirgate will be a dream come true for everyone who has something to hide, be they politicians, celebrities or criminals.