Trump Triumphant - Reaction and Future Action

 

There's no denying that Donald Trump's election victory came as a shock to millions. One of our right-wing rags, The Sun, smirked triumphantly:

"LIBERAL late-night show hosts were seen losing their minds following Donald Trump's sweeping election victory. The US TV stars (Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert and Seth Myers) went into full-blown meltdowns with some tearing up and others becoming emotional live on air".

Kristin Tadlock-Hunter, an American living in Britain, told in The Guardian of her feelings:

“Devastated doesn’t cover it ... I think it’s a unique experience, to be an immigrant watching it from afar. It feels like you’re watching your house burn down from across the street, with all your friends and family still inside".

And I know that very many British people, including me, were shocked to see a convicted felon elected as leader one of the world's greatest democracies. I'm sorry to say, though, it was only similar to shocks to the system that I felt after Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol building, after the Brexit referendum vote, when Boris Johnson was elected and when Reform UK won seats in the last election. It was larger in scale, but similar in type - a dull horror, mixed with disbelief, at the triumph of the populist Right.

Like very many other people worldwide, I was wondering what had brought this about. Throughout the electoral campaign, I was convinced that Kamala Harris must win. After Donald Trump (DT) won, I struggled with a variety of explanations provided by the media. They all seemed valid. Then, on Friday, I did something I never usually do: I bought a copy of The Times (The Guardian had sold out) to read before meeting my wife for a meal out. The lead articles weren't as scurrilously gloating as the articles in The Sun, but, as expected, there was a message to us "Liberals" by Hugo Rifkind. "Face it, liberals, this is what millions wanted". I refuse to provide a link, as The Times will try to charge you for the privilege. Essentially, Rifkind provides the "bread and butter" explanation that DT appealed to US voters worried about declining living standards. He comments:

 "...liberals will never understand Trump's success because they literally don't se it...it must, really, be about them...it can't possibly be about people thinking him to be a better bet for a bit less immigration, and a decent job, and perhaps slightly cheaper eggs".

The trouble is that DT is now in a position to influence international events such as the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. To its credit, The Times covers this in an article by Iain Martin: "Stand by for the West's betrayal of Ukraine". Now, that stirred a memory...

DT promised to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Neville Chamberlain, seen above, promised Peace in 1936, having sold Czechoslovakia out to Hitler. He failed dismally, as we know. DT is behind schedule, but the Ukrainians have good reason to be concerned. As Martin points out, DT: 

"...has a friendly relationship with Vladimir Putin and it is likely the Russian leader will welcome an attempt to freeze the conflict..."

He continues by saying that a Peace Deal: 

"...means surrender to Russia and the rewarding of aggression".

Martin hopes that DT might decide to stand up to Putin, but:

"...what seems more likely is that we will wring our hands while Ukraine is forced to endure ritual humiliation." 

But there could be consequences for US democracy itself, as Kamala Harris predicted during the electoral campaign. It calls to mind an image I saw the other day on Facebook:

As DT has promised to forcibly deport 10 million men, women and children from the United States, there is a possibility that he will need to establish transit assembly camps. The parallels with the Nazi concentration camps are only too obvious and surely a breach of US law. Then there is the fact that DT has promised to exact revenge on all his active opponents and critics of the last four years. This could lead to journalists, lawyers, politicians, comedians, TV presenters, musicians, singers and Stormy Daniels facing vindictive reprisals, and all with enthusiastic presidential approval. Goodbye to the venerable American tradition (and constitutional right) of free speech.

The other day, I joked with a French lady, who lives in Geneva, that if the Statue of Liberty is indeed walking across the Atlantic, it could land at St Malo in Brittany. My friend said that it would look good in the port area. I concurred, and suggested that it could be turned to face towards America, where it it would provide a welcome to American refugees landing in France.

At the time I first wrote that, I thought it was funny. I'm not so sure now...

But, there is one UK initiative to befriend DT (I'm getting a dose of the DTs) of which I completely approve.

There has been a suggestion that we could send Nigel Farage to the US as our ambassador. I think this is a very good idea. If Farage goes to the United States, he might never come back...

Gaza, Lebanon, Israel: Conflict - Who Benefits?

 

As I type, the proverbial balloon is going up in the Middle East. The BBC is announcing an Iranian missile attack against Israel and Iran has made it clear that it is prepared to mount another. Israeli troops have entered Lebanon and Israel is continuing to carry out airstrikes in urban areas. Hezbollah remains defiant, despite a number of its key operatives and leaders being liquidated by surgical airstrikes that only killed a few innocent civilians - at least that's how the Israelis see it. Instead of entering the discussion of present events, at this point, I would like to draw attention to the approaching first anniversary of the present situation on October 7th.

Last year, shortly after the October 7th Hamas incursion into Israel, I wrote a post titled "Hamas - a Provocation Too Far?".  I contended that the Hamas onslaught, and attendant atrocities, were a deliberate provocation to draw Israel into a massive over-reaction that would cause huge civilian casualties and lead to international opinion turning against Israel. It brought me up with a jolt when I stumbled upon a post I wrote in 2014, and had part-forgotten about. In "Israel, Gaza and a Hamas Victory", I wrote about the Gaza conflict of that year, which was on nothing like the scale of the present ongoing conflict. Hamas killed three Israeli civilians and Israel launched a furious punitive strike by way of retaliation - like that we saw in Gaza following the October 7th attacks last year, but, of course, the latter has been much more intense and has lasted to the present day.  The UN said that both sides had committed war crimes in 2014 - this is even more the case now. Back then, I hoped that things might improve. Well, hope springs eternal, but I got that wrong. But I think I got one thing right. I said (quoting myself):

"...we should not let our feelings for the deaths of innocents in Gaza or Israel cloud our judgement or analysis of the underlying strategic achievements and blunders of both parties."

I also said that the world's reaction had been adverse towards Israel: 

"The brunt of death, destruction and suffering has fallen on innocent Gazan civilians, leading to widespread condemnation and opprobrium of Israel around the world. Result - an important propaganda victory for Hamas".

I now know what deja vu feels like. I could just as easily have written those words now. And yes, Hamas did celebrate the end of that conflict as seen in the photo; whether the rank and file of Hamas feel that way now is debatable. But as far as the leadership of Hamas are concerned - especially the strategic planners - they have cause for satisfaction. I repeat: Hamas strategists must have known that their atrocities would lead to Israel unleashing overwhelming force. They knew from previous experience that the ensuing devastation and inevitable civilian death toll would lead to international opprobrium towards Israel. They had prepared tunnels and fortified housing in order to conduct a long-lasting guerrilla war - and they are still fighting, despite Israeli efforts. They might even have hoped that the Gaza conflict would lead to a widening of the war. If so - and I believe that I am right - they must be smirking with pride at their achievement. The huge number of deaths and injuries of their combatants, the dead, wounded and injured civilians, will not have dismayed these men. Hamas is a death cult, and they will see no need for remorse. Their biggest achievement will be that they now have a huge wellspring of hatred for Israel that will endure for generations. In 2034, should Hamas launch another attack against Israel, they will have many more recruits from Gaza for their combat units. And surely we can understand why the civilian in the photo below, carrying his child, dead or injured by Israeli action, might have an abiding sense of searing animosity towards the state of Israel? Yes, and the Hamas strategists will be very pleased about that.

As for the present day fighting in Lebanon, while the Hezbollah rocketing of Israel is reprehensible, the Israeli airstrikes on urban areas in Lebanon are working well for the death mongering mandarins of Hamas. Bombed-out Lebanese people are vehemently expressing antagonism towards Israel and Hezbollah will prove to be very tough fighters, as they have shown in the past. That could well draw in more Israeli troops - which could weaken their operations in Gaza. How long Israel can sustain a war on two fronts is a matter for conjecture, but war weariness could well set in.

So, to answer my own question - who benefits from this war? Well, as I hope I have made clear, my view is that the Hamas leadership and planning staff have succeeded considerably in their strategic aims, if not, as yet, decisively - but they will have expected that. That's for the long term. So far, so bloody, so good - for them.

I wonder though: is there anyone else happy to see how the Middle East conflict is absorbing so much international attention? Well, there could be...

I have said this before, but October 7th is Vladimir Putin's birthday.

All a coincidence, of course...

 

Moving On From the Riots - to Where?

 

The riots, which began on July 30th in Southport and spread across the country, now seem a long way back in the past, which happens with all traumatic events that we seek to forget. For those who suffered during those horrible disturbances, the people trapped in the Southport Mosque who feared for their lives, the local residents whose walls were knocked down, all the injured police officers, the families of the three murdered children of the July 29th attack who suffered added anguish, the Asian families in Middlesbrough who were targeted by rioters, etc, this is understandable. For them, healing and forgetting is needed.

But for those of us who monitor the far Right, there is much to learn and a need for assessment of the riots. Only by analysing the origins of the riots and their development can we hope to stop them from happening again. I begin by relating a personal attempt at research.

The day after the Southport disturbances, I tried to find an explanation of the riots on far Right websites. I thought that this would give me an insight into how the mobilisation had happened so quickly and why the Southport Mosque was a target. I knew vaguely that the Southport knife attacker was thought to be a Muslim, but could not understand why the mosque had been targeted. After some browsing, I found an EDL chatroom, where, among a host of semi-literate vapourings celebrating the riots, I found one posting that seemed to provide an answer. According to one EDL supporter, the knife attacks in Hart Street on July 29th had been planned in the mosque. If this was a widespread view, it explains why the rioters gathered where they did and what they did - which was to attack the mosque.

At this point, I have to own up: I did not record the link, or the EDL supporters name (which was a nom de guerre anyway). When I tried to locate the chatroom again, I could find nothing. Hopefully, that is because the security authorities took it down. Obviously, I cannot substantiate what I have said, but I think events show that I hit on the correct explanation. And, of course, many rioters went simply to attack the police, to cause criminal damage and to loot shops.

Still, the principal query in my mind was: who organised the riots? To get the best information, I turned to Searchlight, the anti-fascist magazine with an outstanding reputation for monitoring the extreme Right. Expecting to find a conspiracy described, I was surprised to learn: 

"Fascist groups... who have done their damnedest to incite such angry racism for years, are secretly whooping with delight at what has taken place since the awful Southport murders. But let’s not make the mistake of believing that they actively organised it".

The Fash group leaders have tried to distance themselves from the riots, while privately rejoicing at the disorder and violent racism. Instead, Searchlight pins the blame on a number of individuals, including Tommy Robinson, but blames the direct agitation and mobilisation on one of Robinson's associates: 

"The man who bears more responsibility than most for the dreadful events of the last few days is Tommy Robinson’s mate and right-hand man, ‘Danny Tommo’, a criminal lowlife who is more than ever Robinson’s representative in the UK since Robinson scarpered back to Spain at the weekend to avoid a court appearance and probable jail".

It was "Tommo" (Daniel Thomas) who issued the call for the gathering in Southport. In a live broadcast online from his car, he summoned the mob:

“Every city has to go up.”

“Get prepared. Be ready. We have to.”

“It has to go off in different cities.”

“We have to show them we’ve had enough.”

“I’m ready to go. I know that a lot of you are. I’m speaking to other people at the moment”.

“We’re ready to go. We are, literally, ready to go.”

“Just get ready."

Surprisingly, "Tommo" was nowhere to be seen when things did go off - like Tommy Robinson.

Now, as we know, the police cracked down hard on the rioters, and have arrested hundreds, with the aim of tracking hundreds more. Perhaps the most fitting end to these disgraceful events, which blackened the name of Britain worldwide, was the magnificent turnout by many thousands of anti-racists on August 7th to counter Fash activity. In the event, the vast majority of the racist thugs stayed away.

It might be too soon to speculate, but we need to consider what the far Right will do next. After all the sentences have been served, the released extremists might, in some cases, abandon their extremism. The unrepentant (and the unarrested) ones will be left with a number of options. They could channel their activities into small scale persecution and thuggery, rather like British Movement and the National Front in the 1970s. They could wait, in the hope of another incident like the knife attack in Southport, which will arouse anger that they can exploit and cause another bout of rioting. Or they could, at least some could, aim to infiltrate a suitable right-wing , populist political party that they could influence from within.

I am, of course, referring to Reform UK, whose leader, Nigel Farage (NF) has been accused of helping to aggravate the situation on July 30th. Some commentators, indeed, describe the riots as "The Farage Riots". NF should be concerned that Patriotic Alternative's leader, Mark Collett, has talked of putting "clean skin" infiltrators into Reform UK. Searchlight quotes Collett as saying:

“So, in a very real sense, a dedicated group of ethno-nationalists who have not been previously politically exposed could join Reform UK and do great things – effectively turning them into a vehicle for something better and more robust”.

According to the BBC, NF today, at the Reform UK conference in Brighton, has said that there is no place for the extreme Right in his party and party officials will be seeking to keep them out. As the BBC says:

"He added the party would be "vetting candidates rigorously at all levels," after dropping candidates during the general election following reports they had made offensive or racist comments. "We haven't got time, we haven't got room for a few extremists to wreck the work of a party that now has 80,000 members and rising," he added".

NF might yet eat those words. The only right-wing extremists expelled from Reform UK that I know of were all exposed in the press or by anti-fascist groups. 

All in all, apart from the splendid mass anti-racist turnout and the many arrests following the riots, the shock of the riots will remain with us for a long time. But some people might seek to turn the events to their advantage...

Tory leadership candidate Robert Jenrick has made the astounding claim that mass migration and "woke culture" (what is that?) have put England's national identity at risk. Jenrick has been heavily criticised for this , but his views bear a close resemblance to the "dog-whistle" assertions of far right speakers such as Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins and Laurence Fox (and many of the rioters). Sky News comment here:

"Mr Jenrick suggested a suppression of England's identity helped lead to riots this summer following the Southport stabbings".

Mr Jenrick, you see, has detected a window of opportunity created by the riots. As he sees it, he has an issue that he can exploit with the section of the electorate who have a degree of sympathy with the rioters. Like them, he blames something called the "metropolitan establishment" for this English identity suppression and, like many Tory politicians, he fears the rise of Reform UK. And this man may become Tory leader and, perhaps, prime minister one day. 

Time may heal many of this summer's traumas, but I fear that we may have more to come.

 

Problems With Democracy: One Man's View

 

As most of us would agree, Democracy worldwide is under pressure and has been a frequent topic for discussion on this blog. My old friend and musical collaborator, Mick Cooper, has kindly written on this topic for us here. Readers who have any comments are welcome to post them on the Comments section below Mick's contribution.

Here are some observations from someone with a degree in political, social and economic history. I’m not coming at this from left or right, and I’m not wishing to offend anyone; I am just making observations. I’ll start by saying that facts are facts, but opinions are only valid if based on provable facts; otherwise they are merely assertions at best, prejudice or bigotry at worst.

Satirical cartoons have a long and valid history going back to the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch, the woodcuts of Albrecht Durer, the engravings of Hogarth and the scrawlings of Gerald Scarfe. Of course they were originally designed for the illiterate; but so were pub signs and barber poles. Perhaps political cartoons are still mostly for the politically illiterate. In which case I will upset no one in that category because they won’t bother reading this.

Portraying a lettuce as a Liz Truss, or Pinocchio as a Starmer, or a Boris Johnson (whose nose wouldn’t fit on the screen), or a Trump (whose nose would circumnavigate the planet) may raise a smile, but it doesn’t raise the level of political debate. However, political debate is only apposite for those who have the intelligence and the knowledge to be able to pursue it.

So that is the first problem with democracy – the fact that the vast majority of those who have the vote are lacking in the knowledge and objectivity to use it properly, if they bother to use it at all.

The second problem is the basic nature of humanity. This one is an assertion not a fact, but evidence leads me to believe that approximately 30% of humanity is innately good, 20% is innately evil and the middle 50% will go either way depending on what they can gain from it, or what they are led to believe.

When teaching history at A-level, IB and university entrance the first thing I always stressed was that the truth does not really matter, it’s what you can make people believe that governs their actions. I’m sure I don’t need to point out all the examples of this: from the scapegoating of the Jews in Hitler’s Germany and in much of Europe long before that, to the demonisation of migrants and asylum seekers today. Joseph Goebbels’ contention was: tell big lies and tell them often, and enough people will believe them. Who is doing that today? You don’t even have to look across the Atlantic or towards Moscow to the obvious candidates to find a contemporary example. If you can turn enough of the population against a minority you can control them to your own ends. The innate selfishness of humanity makes it an easy exercise.

One of the most stupid things I have heard said in recent times is “I don’t give a sh*t about history”. History doesn’t just tell you about the past, it also predicts the future. This is because the unwisely named species, homo sapiens, has not significantly changed since it evolved about 1 million years ago. As a species we’re still driven by the same motivations of survival, greed and advantage taking. We are not more innately intelligent than we were then, we are merely able to draw on the accumulation of knowledge, theorisations and technology. Constructs, whether they be intellectual, such as religion, or physical, such as tools and weaponry, can make an impact for good but are also often used for evil.

Before I return to our parlous political status in UK I will throw out a few random historical observations to support my conclusions.

Migration has driven the whole of human history. No nation will ever be able to stop it, the best it can do is control it for its own advantage. Homo sapiens is the product of a second migration out of Africa from about 100,000 years ago. We certainly interbred with Neanderthals and then probably outcompeted them into extinction. There were no humans in what is now Great Britain during the last ice age which ended about 10,000 years ago. Everyone living in Britain is descended from a migrant. I’m sure the Beaker People sat around campfires bemoaning the arrival of the Celts; as did the Celts the arrival of the Romans; as did the Romans the arrival of Anglo-Saxons; as did Anglo-Saxons the arrival of the Vikings; as did Vikings the arrival of the Normans. None of them could stop migration, or sometimes conquest, and we are all the genetic product in some proportion of those migrants, and of others more recently – Jews, Huguenots (probably including the Farage family), slaves directly imported from Tudor times, or descendants of Afro-Caribbeans invited over to cover post war labour shortages and Central Asians to work in the cotton mills now derelict in north-west England, etc.

Although Malthus was proved wrong in his estimation of the capacity of Britain to sustain a larger population in the 1830’s it is true that there has to be a limit. We are all feeling the pressures of the fairly rapid increase in population in the past two decades. It’s possible to argue that this pressure is not the result of the larger population per se, merely the inability of the current economy of the UK to cope with it. We have chosen not to invest in extra infrastructure and in the services required to maintain the standard of living we have come to expect. Instead we have seen a massive disparity of wealth between the super rich and the working majority. Up to a point their discontent has been bought off by benefits or by cheap distracting technologies (Playstations, Netflix and cell phones). As the Romans found out with bread and circuses: that only works for so long. Then you need to channel that discontent away from those who should really be held responsible. The Argentinian junta did it by attacking the Falklands. In Britain we bought a little time by selling off the family silver (privatisations, encouraging oil sheik and Russian oligarch investment, foreign owned “British” utilities, Chinese nuclear power stations) then we did it with the great scam of Brexit. Not a scam? Well you tell me how your life is so much better after Brexit than it was before.

But we were a great nation once right? Not really – we were a pre-eminent nation once. A pre-eminence based on good fortune and, primarily, exploitation. Exploitation is not always a bad word. The early exploitation that made this nation powerful includes the mere fact that it is an island and therefore less susceptible to disruptive invasion, rather than gradual migration. When we were invaded by Romans (who exploited tin, lead and grain) and by Normans (who exploited Anglo-Saxon learning and culture) both created an infrastructure that the native population was able to exploit to its own advantage as well. During the early modern era we were able to exploit the seas around us. Fishing of course, but mostly the ability to trade: which led to the slave trade (the exploitation of other human beings) and later the opium trade (the exploitation of Chinese goods without having to pay gold and silver for them). The creation of empire enabled the exploitation of the natural resources and products of overseas territories, to the massive disruption and a long-term legacy of conflict in those areas. Not that we were morally any worse at this than other European nations.

Then we learned to exploit Britain’s own natural resources more effectively – water power, coal and iron for example. Most of those apparently great British inventions (steam engines etc) were actually adaptations and improvements of earlier developments by ancient Greek inventors, Roman engineers and Arab mathematicians. We were the first major industrial nation, thanks to the exploitation of those resources and the exploitation of slave plantations in the Caribbean, and small children working in coal mines and cotton mills. Free trade and the great “invisible hand of the economy”; but Adam Smith did not write down the first rule of capitalism: money is more important than the lives of people. John Locke did not write down the first rule of liberalism: that the ultimate freedom is the freedom to dominate and exploit those weaker than yourself.

Now Britain has run out of things to usefully exploit. We are falling back into the status of a third rate nation. Successive governments, since probably the last successful British government of Palmerston in 1865, have not been able to stop the inexorable movement of economic power around the globe – Germany, USA and now China. Not least because power and pre-eminence invites challenge. All empires ultimately fall through Imperial overstretch or complacency, revolution and dissatisfaction from within.

Starting with the unnecessary war of 1914-18 (unnecessary in the sense that it was a dynastic war of imperialism against nationalism which could possibly have been limited by common sense diplomacy) and ending with the necessary war of 1939-45 (necessary in the sense that it was a war against true evil, but possibly unnecessary had there been a greater determination to stop Hitler in the Rhineland rather than in Poland). So we should be stopping Putin in Ukraine instead of waiting until he needs stopping in Poland too. If you think Churchill’s wartime government was more successful than Palmerston I would like to suggest that firstly Britain did not stand alone against Germany after the fall of France because we had a massive, though sometimes reluctant, empire behind us; secondly it was really Russian blood and American money that won the war, with the  assistance of the fact that all leaders made mistakes but Hitler’s were the most self-destructive.

To repeat my point: Britain is a nation in relative decline and successive governments have done little to stop that decline from becoming an absolute decline. In the last 150 years the Tories have held power alone, or been in a Tory led coalition, for 94 years; the Liberals have held power or dominated the WW1 coalition for 28 years ; Labour has been in power for 31 years. By all means apportion blame appropriately, but it was the 1906 Liberal budget that created the first UK OAP and National Insurance schemes; it was the 1945 Labour government that created the Welfare State - both of which the Tories opposed. It was the Thatcher government that de-nationalised and sold off council houses without replacing them. It was the Cameron government that started hammering a few more nails in the coffin lid with the Brexit referendum.

You can follow false gods if you like, but whether they are Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage or George Galloway, they’re not going to save us. Nothing will, short of a massive world reset – and who wants world war three, another pandemic or a water world caused by climate change?

Meanwhile I try to live by 3 E’s: Equality of opportunity, Equity of reward and Empathy (a word which should not be confused with the word “sympathy”. Empathy is about being able to understand different points of view even if you don’t agree with them, and to be able to put yourself in the position of others around you). So rather than dismissing points of view I disagree with by means of ridicule or violence, I would rather try to make a rational and reasonable argument instead.

I try to make decisions on the basis of what is morally correct rather than what is convenient for me. That’s not being sanctimonious, that’s because if the whole world was selfish, society could not exist at all.

A final thought: you cannot drive a car legally without passing the driving test. These days you cannot adopt a rescue dog without scrutiny. Yet you can have children without any qualification in parenting and you can vote without any awareness or understanding of society, economics, politics and history.

I invite those who disagree with me to do so on the basis of provable fact rather than prejudice or emotion.

Mr M.J.Cooper. http://www.educatorsabroad.org/

Nottingham to Southport and Beyond - Mental Health Assessment Problems

 Yesterday, in my home town of Southport, 7-year old Elsie Dot Stancombe was laid to rest. Elsie, as we know, was one of the three children who died during the mass stabbing at a Southport dance class on July 29th. Her two fellow murder victims, Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, and six-year-old Bebe King, were buried earlier this month. Southport remains a town in mourning. The families of the murdered children will suffer the pain of bereavement for the rest of their lives; the children and adults who survived the attack will have memories that never cease to disturb them; Southport itself will never forget the collective trauma that struck on July 29th - and has remained. 

While we, rightly, focus upon the plight of the victims, I think it worth focussing for a moment upon the perpetrator of this hideous crime: Axel Rudacubana.  Since his arraignment on August 1st, we have heard little of him. This is to be expected, as the police have further inquiries to make and - of interest here - there will be a need for an intense psychiatric assessment. The assessment will determine whether or not Rudacubana has mental health issues that led him to kill, and, if so, he can claim diminished responsibility. Personally, I cannot see any other assessment being made, but it's not my decision. What may come to light are possible failings on the part of the mental health professionals who knew Rudacubana previously. As readers of this blog know, I have looked at many such cases in the past, and it's been the same old story of dangerous mental health patients being allowed out to walk the streets. They kill innocent people, there are inquests, the killers are sent to secure mental health institutions, the mental health mandarins say that "lessons have been learned" - and then it happens again. However, a recent such incident has aroused wider public attention...

On June 13th last year, the man in the photo, Valdo Calocane, killed three people - Barnaby Webber, Grace O'Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates - and injured three others in Nottingham city centre. To the anger of the victims' relatives, who believed he should have been charged with murder, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter with diminished responsibility and was confined to hospital. However, this time the Care Quality Commission (CQC) took an active role. As the BBC say, the CQC report is damning: 

"In the lead-up to the attack, mental health assessments document how he often stopped taking his medication and was showing increasingly violent behaviour. But despite these red flags, the risks he posed were minimised and there was a "series of errors, omissions and misjudgements...".

The families of the victims say the failings highlighted in the report are much worse than they had anticipated. Highly articulate and outspoken, they have been told there will be a public inquiry.
At the centre of the criticism is the Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (NHFT), which says it accepts the findings of the report and is working to improve its services. I have to say here that this is a familiar response from such bodies when these killings occur, but they seem to have little impact. For instance, on August 3rd, in West Ashby, not far from Nottingham, Christine Emmerson was stabbed to death by her son, Shaun Emmerson, a paranoid schizophrenic. As might be expected, as Lincolnshire Police say: 

"Crown Court Judge Simon Hirst, who presided over the trial, has placed an indefinite order with restriction for Emmerson to stay at a secure hospital for treatment until he is deemed fit to stand trial...  It was previously concluded that Emmerson was not fit to enter a plea and to stand trial in criminal proceedings due to a mental disability."

I predict that similar action will be taken in the case of Axel Rudacubana. Perhaps, also, he will be found guilty of manslaughter because of diminished responsibility and, to the chagrin of the families, the survivors and probably the whole of Southport and beyond, not guilty of murder.

Now, in many previous posts, lke the CQC with the Valdo Calocane case, I have criticised the mental health authorities. I stand by those criticisms, but must, in fairness, account for another factor: the fact that the mental health services are overstretched. As the BBC say: 

"The most up-to-date NHS figures, external show that in June this year 1.94 million people were in contact with mental health services in England – an increase of more than 30% in three years.
There are also significant staffing shortages. According to the King’s Fund think-tank, in September last year there were 28,600 staff vacancies in mental health - about 19% of the total workforce."

Faults in the system must be exposed, but we need to ensure that mental health staff - especially those who deal with cases like Calocane and Emmerson - are treated fairly. Otherwise, we might find that fewer and fewer people want to do the job and the situation will become far worse. 

Murder and Mob Violence: a Southport Tragedy With Consequences

 

My home town of Southport is in deep mourning and continuing shock. As everyone knows, one of the most horrific and murderous knife attacks in British criminal history happened last Monday, 29th of July. Again, as we know, a dance class for young children in Hart Street, Southport was attacked by a man wielding a knife. Three children were killed:  six-year-old Bebe King, seven-year-old Elsie Dot Stancombe, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, aged nine. With respect, I post their photographs here.

Two adults and eight more children were hospitalised with stab wounds , although two have since left hospital. I don't live in Southport anymore, but, like other expat "Sandgrounders", I felt the shock and grief that swept the town and experienced the common feeling of bewilderment that such a horrible event could happen there. To see streets that I have known all my life on the TV swarming with police following such an evil event was truly disturbing. Even more disturbing was the fascist-inspired violence near the Southport mosque on Tuesday evening.  On Wednesday morning, I was faced with the fact that two topics that I cover regularly on this blog had dovetailed, with tragic consequences, in my home town. 

I have written numerous times over the years about random, unprovoked murders of innocent people by people with mental health issues. The murderer of the the three little girls, Axel Rudakubana of Banks, near Southport, reportedly suffers from autism. Now, this could point to an explanation, although I have been reminded that this has not been established yet as a cause. So, are autistic people violent? Well, the answer, for a minority, would appear to be Yes. In 2021, Autism Science and Research News asserted: 

"Aggression in autism can involve severe tantrums, anger, hostility, sudden-onset violent outbursts including self-harm and rage ‘episodes’. Up to 20% of individuals with autism exhibit such violent behaviours. In many cases, aggression involves destruction of property and direct violence towards other people including carers, causing them bodily harm."

Well, if this is correct, Rudakubana certainly belongs to the violent 20%. What we do not know, as yet, is the trigger that led him to take a taxi to the Hart Street Centre and slaughter so many innocent children. We may never know. However, my belief is that a familiar pattern will be followed: Rudakubana will plead guilty to manslaughter owing to diminished responsibility; he will spend years in a mental health institution, possibly Broadmoor; if he "responds well to treatment", he may well be released one day - and may kill again, as has happened before.

But there will be another reason for committing Rudakubana to a mental health facility. If he is found to be mentally competent, he will be sent to a regular prison, where he will be a marked man, as are all criminals who harm children. He will be lucky if he lives to be released. Few tears will be shed for him, whatever his mental health status.

Since the 1970s, I have monitored the activities of the extreme Right in the UK. During that time, we have seen the rise and demise of two populist Far Right Parties: the National Front (NF) and the British National Party (BNP). To cut a long story short, both these groups failed electorally, largely because both groupings had Nazi affiliations of varying degrees of involvement and because they lacked electoral appeal. Reform UK has noted the NF/BNP mistakes, and made a comparatively successful effort to present themselves as a credible party which espouses constitutional methods.

But - for the fascists and the "physical force" (thugs) element of the extreme Right, who prefer direct action, they have mainly been drawn in by the English Defence League (EDL). Now, the EDL, under the leadership of Tommy Robinson at its inception, denied any Nazi links when it began in 2009. Instead, it focussed at first upon attacking Islam and promoting Islamophobia. It fell into decline in 2013 -15, but the membership spread out into other violent groups, united and mobilised by social media. This conglomerate (for want of a better word) was behind the riot outside the Southport Mosque, seen above - and have continued to create mayhem in our towns and cities since.

Early reports said that the riot in Southport was caused entirely by outsiders, but, as I would have expected, some locals were involved. The Metro of August 1st highlighted the case of Brian Spencer, a painter and decorator from Southport, who joined in the confrontation by wiggling his hips towards the police lines. Until, as the Metro says:

 "...a brick launched from the rioters hits him straight in the back of head.
Another rebounds off the officer’s shields directly onto his chest, leaving him seemingly stunned as he begins to stagger away.
But it only gets worse for the rioter, as he walks away clutching his head in pain another brick lands straight in his groin area".

The excuse offered for Spencer by one of his friends was remarkable: 

"...Everyone knows Brian. He’s a bit of a party animal and I think he just got excited last night. His head will be hurting this morning.’'

Mr Spencer's head will recover; the families of the the three children who died have far worse pain which will never leave them. The children who were stabbed, but survived, have suffered an experience that no child should face, and will live with the trauma caused by that horrific attack for the rest of their lives. As a father of two, you would expect Spencer to have shown some respect for their feelings. Still, when it's party time...

Thankfully, the vast majority of Southport residents responded magnificently, as has been widely covered in the world's press. Especially deserving of praise are Leanne Lucas, the 35-year old Yoga teacher who tried to protect children by covering them with her own body, despite being stabbed herself; Jonathan Hayes, the businessman who went to help and was stabbed in the leg. Both are still in hospital. Then there were the police officers who tackled Rudakubana while he was still armed with a knife. Also - Joel Verite, who confronted Rudakubana and told SkyNews how he:

"... stopped to help at the scene of the Southport stabbings described "locking eyes" with the attacker and says seeing the injured children will "probably stay with me for the rest of my life".

If the stories of these heroes inspire you, then I suggest that you could nominate one, or more of them, for the Pride of Britain Awards. It is easily done, and, for those interested, click on THIS LINK and nominate a Southport hero -they deserve it.

To close this section, and as the radio reports on fascist riots in our cities, we might wonder what has happened to the EDL's "prince over the water" - Tommy Robinson. The Fash rioters still call out his name as they brick the police and make Nazi salutes. The Mirror reports that Robinson:

"... insists the far right is on the "verge of something massive" amid the UK riots - even though he appears to be sunning himself abroad.
The anti-Islam campaigner and activist, who was a political advisor to former UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Gerard Batten, fled the country last month after allegedly committing "flagrant" contempt of court relating to a film played at a protest."

In this man's name, thugs are setting fire to buildings and terrorising peaceful communities as I type. This man who has a lurid criminal record and made himself a laughing stock in Canada, is still revered by the criminal hooligans rioting today, while he holidays in Cyprus. All Robinson has achieved is to make an exhibition of himself.

 Southport has been plagued by mental health issues: the hideous crimes of a psychopathic knife attacker and the violence of equally psychotic racist and fascist thugs. The malaise of rioting has spread across the country and besmirched our country's reputation here and abroad. Malaysia is now warning its citizens not to travel here. These so-called patriots have brought us into disrepute. 

As for the victims of Rudakubana, they deserve our maximum support, whether given directly by Southport residents or prayers in foreign lands. Last Monday, when I heard the news, possessed by powerful feelings, I wrote the poem below. I send my sympathy to all affected in Southport and all afflicted by fascist violence in our cities. This poem is for them.

THEY DANCE ON

 

King Herod came to Southport,

Though he bore another name.

With innocents to slaughter,

The outcome was the same.

 

Happy children dancing,

They hopped and bopped and twirled.

They did not know the stranger

Who came to end their world.

 

His taste was indiscriminate –

He struck both young and old.

And can we find a motive

In a heart so hard and cold?

 

And was there mental lightning

Or hardship in his past?

For the injured and their families,

He brought them pain to last.

 

For those who’ve passed the bounds of pain,

Those young lives that have gone,

Still loved, and unforgotten,

Somewhere, they dance on.

   

Presidents Biden, Trump and Political Violence: A Horse Long Bolted

 

I have a good deal of respect for President Joe Biden, despite the speculation about his fitness for the office of President. The recent assassination attempt on his rival, Donald Trump, was a truly shocking event and Biden, to his immense credit, speedily condemned the attack. Following the attack, however, Biden addressed his people and made a statement that I found odd. After acknowledging past political shootings and assaults, he said: 

“In America we resolve our differences at the ballot box," he said. "At the ballot box. Not with bullets."

Thankfully, of course, that applies to the majority of the American people, but the USA has a long history of political violence, dating back to the American Civil War and the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. This is well known, but the first attempted  event happened in 1835, when one Richard Lawrence tried and failed to kill President Andrew Jackson. In 1865,Lincoln was the first US president to die by assassination. He was followed by James Garfield in 1881, William McKinley (1901) and, of course, John F. Kennedy in 1963. Three presidents have been injured in attempted killings: Theodore Roosevelt (1912), Ronald Reagan (1981) and, as of this year, Donald Trump. And, of course, there have been many other incidents, lethal and non-lethal, such as the vicious attack on the husband of Nancy Pelosi and the notorious January 6 attack on the US Capitol building in 2021. 

All these occurrences seem to point to one thing: political violence is an American tradition. As the 60s radical, H. Rap Brown said :

"Violence is a part of American culture.  Violence is as American as cherry pie."

Brown ought to know. He is now a Muslim convert with the name of Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin and serving time for the murder of two police officers. If he is right, he has embraced that culture. A penetrating article by Time magazine has focussed on the problem of US political violence and come up with some disturbing statistics:

"In a December 2021 survey by the Washington Post and the University of Maryland, 1 in 3 respondents said they thought violent action against the government can be justified, compared with fewer than 1 in 10 in the 1990s. In an April PBS/Marist poll, 28% of Republicans and 12% of Democrats said they believe Americans may “have to resort to violence to get the country back on track.”

The article goes on to say:

"More people are bringing guns to demonstrations. Every politically charged event, from Supreme Court decisions to Trump’s trials to congressional hearings, elicits menacing warnings and talk of “civil war.” The last presidential election ended in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol by an angry mob that left five people dead and 140 injured. The vibes feel even darker this time,.."

The young man who tried to assassinate Trump was only 20 years old. During his short lifetime, Thomas Crooks grew up in a nation where high-profile attacks against elected officials became increasingly common. He was 7 when Democratic Representative Gabby Giffords was shot, meeting with constituents in a supermarket car park in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011. He was 13 when Representative Steve Scalise was shot by a left-wing extremist during a GOP congressional baseball team practice in Virginia in 2017. When Crooks was 17, federal authorities foiled a plot to kidnap Michigan’s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer that was hatched by a right-wing militia group that posted violent anti-government pamphlets online. Crooks was in high school when America was shocked by the attack on the U.S. Capitol building. Even if we do not believe that political violence is an American tradition (and I don't), we can see that Crooks might have believed that attempting to kill a major political figure was entirely normal.

As I said, I do not believe that political violence is an American tradition. If it is, then it is a British tradition also. Spencer Perceval, pictured above, was our Prime Minister when he was killed in 1812 by John Bellingham. Including Perceval, eight British MPs have been murdered, the most recent being Jo Cox (2016) and Sir David Amess in 2021. There have been targeted killings by foreign intelligence services - Georgi Markov, Alexander Litvinienko and Dawn Sturgess are examples of this. There was the murder in the street of the soldier, Lee Rigby, together with the 7/7 bombing  the murderous attacks on London and Westminster Bridges and the Manchester Arena Bombing by Jihadi fanatics. We, it would appear, are not immune to political violence. But perhaps we in Britain, and the USA, should remember, as The Hill comments:

"Any decent citizen abhors violence and its presence in the political system. But can we ever eradicate it? No major European country can boast a history free of assassination or attempts. Heads of government have actually been killed in Serbia, Israel, Lebanon, Sweden, India, Egypt and South Korea just in the last 50 years."

That is a very good point and a question that no-one seems to want to answer. Presidents Biden and Trump have called for all Americans to unite. Similar calls are made here for people of strongly differing views to engage in dialogue and learn to tolerate each other. Sadly, dialogue and debate do not achieve much when people who hold views antagonistic to others return to those views once the dialogue is over. When at university, I attended debates between Jewish and Palestinian students. The debates were lively, but resolved nothing. No-one from either side of the debates changed, or even modified, their views. I do not hold out much hope for such approaches. Anyone keyed up to carry out an assassination is not going be dissuaded by a chat and a cup of tea. Political violence is an international plague, always has been and is unlikely to improve. There's no point in closing the stable door for a horse that has long since bolted.

A Reflection on the Election

 

To a limited extent, it's possible to feel sorry for Rishi Sunak, our ex-Prime Minister. He began the election campaign by getting soaked in the London rain, and ended it yesterday with his wife watching him, while she held an umbrella. As The Mirror noted with amusement: 

"The emergency umbrella caught the attention of viewers online who took to social media to share their reactions. One person wrote on site X, formerly Twitter: "Rishi Sunak's wife waiting in the wings holding an umbrella is killing me," while another said: "Rishi Sunak leaving Downing Street. Note the umbrella. Not making that mistake again, so he has learned SOMETHING."

Sunak's conduct during the election campaign certainly indicates that he has a lot to learn. Besides making a fool of himself by getting soaked when he announced the election, there was his gaffe in leaving the D-Day commemoration events early. What he failed to see was that, besides upsetting the press and public, it gave ammunition to his enemies in the Conservative party itself. As The Guardian said in June: 

"Conservative candidates and aides have looked on aghast at the missteps of Rishi Sunak’s campaign over the last fortnight. Anger has been building over Sunak allies being parachuted into safe seats, including the party chair, Richard Holden, the lack of preparation for the snap campaign within Conservative party headquarters (CCHQ) and the avoidable row over Frank Hester’s donations. But nothing has come close to the fury within the party over the prime minister’s decision to skip part of the D-day ceremony in France, leaving the stage clear for Keir Starmer to show leadership and patriotism, as well as for Nigel Farage".

The Tory knives will be out for Sunak now; in fact, LBC are discussing his putative replacement as I type. And I know that many people will demur at my feeling sorry for him. He is a very rich man, as has been pointed out many times, and could leave the UK tomorrow for a lucrative future in California. However, I have sympathy for him over the recent insulting racist comments made about him on Channel 4 by a Reform UK activist (disowned by Farage) which must have been hurtful to Sunak and his family. I have no doubt that there are Tory Party members who share those vile views, and are sharpening their knives to stick in Sunak's back. 

Keir Starmer, naturally, has a lot to smile about - as have all of us who voted Labour on July 4th. It was a truly remarkable victory, whatever the causal factors. Yet, as some pundits have noted, there has been rejoicing without euphoria. We all know why - there is the crisis in the NHS, where the junior doctors' strike needs to be resolved and, says Sky News:

"The workforce is depleted and exhausted. And yet that same workforce will be asked to deliver an extra 40,000 appointments a week. Nobody, Labour assure us, will be forced to take on the extra work. Extra doctors, nurses and trained clinical staff can't be magicked out of thin air".

There is the matter of crime and punishment, for which Labour has promised a campaign of crime prevention. There is also the war in Ukraine, which Keir Starmer is committed to support by supplying aid to Ukraine. Clean energy is also going to be a thorny problem. International relations will be challenging, with the possible return of Donald Trump as US President and the growth of right-wing extremism in Europe. But extremism at home, of two kinds, could also be a problem...

The first type of extremism referred to above comes from activists who support the Palestinian cause in Gaza and feel that Labour is not doing enough to bring about a cease fire. The extremist elements who hold this view were seen on Election Night in Birmingham where Jess Phillips, MP (seen above) and Shabana Mahmood MP told in their victory speeches of the intimidation and harassment they faced during the general election campaign. Jess Phillips was heckled during her speech. As the BBC reported: 

"Jess Phillips spoke of party workers being filmed in the street and making regular calls to police, while Shabana Mahmood said masked men had disrupted a community meeting, "terrifying" people in attendance".

In areas where there is a large Muslim community, there has been intense activity on the Gaza issue, as is well known. This activity has come from the Workers' Party, led by George Galloway (who lost his seat in Rochdale) and independent candidates who stood on the Gaza issue. As Sky news reports" 

"A Gaza effect has seen Labour lose a handful of seats to independents who campaigned on the conflict in the Middle East. In total, five seats were won by candidates who had campaigned against the new government's stance on Palestine. This includes Jeremy Corbyn keeping his Islington North seat, as well as Shockat Adam winning in Leicester South, Ayoub Khan winning Birmingham Perry Barr, Adnan Hussain winning Blackburn and Iqbal Mohamed winning Dewsbury & Batley".

With the exception of Jeremy Corbyn, the four Muslim independents in the new parliament will surely lead extremist Islamophobes of the far right to complain about "the Muslim vote". And we know one of them already...

As if you hadn't guessed, I mean that indefatigable crusader for the far Right, Nigel Farage (NF). I have writtten about him more than I would have liked during this election campaign because I felt I had to. The election of NF, Richard Tice, 30p Lee and two other Reform UK candidates as MPs gives me no pleasure and I was shocked at the number of votes Reform UK gained nationwide - 14% of the total votes cast. As the BBC noted: 

"Reform UK candidates ... came second in 98 constituencies. In an early sign of Reform's success in winning over former Tory voters, the first two results of the night in north-east England - in Blyth and Ashington and in Houghton and Sunderland South - saw the party beat the Conservatives by more than 4,000 votes".

Significantly, NF received congratulations from the resurgent convicted criminal, Donald Trump:

"In a social media post, Mr Trump wrote: "Congratulations to Nigel Farage on his big WIN of a Parliament Seat Amid Reform UK Election Success. Nigel is a man who truly loves his Country".

Sounding like certain other extremist orators of history - such as Oswald Moseley - NF has declared his intention to "change politics forever" and build a mass movement. Personally, I find this sinister. Mass movements of the far Right tend to be violent and intimidating, rather like Mussolini's Squadristi, the Nazi SA - and the thugs who tried to intimidate Labour Party workers in predominantly Muslim constituencies. We cannot afford to be complacent. And, as I hope I showed in my previous post, the extreme Right are using Reform UK as a Trojan Horse. It's not on the horizon, but Reform UK might develop their own paramilitary militia one day (only joking).

By this, I do not mean that a coup or a civil war is imminent, but, with five Reform MPs and five Independent MPs, extremist views that belong in a dustbin are going to become prominently publicised and, worse, be perceived as normal. NF will see to that.

We exercised our hallowed democratic right to vote on Thursday. If NF and his ilk do change our politics forever, the right to vote could become a thing of the past.

An image from Facebook. Surely an exaggeration?

Yeah, surely...

Farage Evasions and a Trojan Horse

 I was hoping not to write about Nigel Farage (NF) and Reform UK again during this election campaign. After my last three postings, I began to think that was enough. However, NF's appearance on the BBC Question Time Leaders Special on June 27th has changed my mind for me. As everyone knows, NF was asked the highly relevant question:

"What is it about you and your party that attracts racists and extremists, whether you say you want them or not?"

The relevance stems from the undercover Channel 4 report from Clacton which saw a certain Reform Campaigner, Andrew Parker, make some highly offensive statements. As the Independent said, quoting Parker: 

"... army recruits should use migrants arriving by small boats in Kent as “target practice”, and labelling Islam a “disgusting cult” in widely condemned comments.
Referring to Mr Sunak, who is of Indian descent, he said: “I’ve always been a Tory voter. But what annoys me is that f****** p*** we’ve got in. What good is he? You tell me, you know. He’s just wet. F****** useless.”

As is known, Parker has been "outed" as an actor, and NF seized on this point. The BBC said: 

"Mr Farage argued that he had done more to drive out the far-right than any living person in British politics.
"I took on the BNP just over a decade ago. I said to their voters, if this is a protest vote but you don't support their racist agenda, don't vote for them, vote for me, destroyed them."

He repeated claims made earlier the same day that Mr Parker was an actor with an alter ego and suggested it was "a political setup of astonishing proportions". Quoted by the BBC again, NF lamented:

"This was designed to hurt us, and sadly some people believe it."

NF's claims about the destruction of the BNP are highly questionable, but we can look at them later. What is of interest here is the fact that no-one in the media has noticed: Farage did not answer the question. He was not asked about Andrew Parker, he was asked why racists and extremists like joining Reform UK. Instead of trying to answer this, he threw down a dead cat, and got everyone talking about a political set-up.

As well he might. Hope not Hate has published "Far Right Rally behind Farage and Reform" , which details how all the far-Right groups in the UK have lent their support to the Reform UK electoral campaign. Starting with Tommy Robinson:

" Stephen Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson), has said “Nigel Farage’s winning over the people and he’s putting across our arguments to the nation very skilfully and in a great way. There is only one option at this election and that is Reform UK.”

Paul Golding of Britain First agrees with this:

“In the General Election on July the fourth vote Reform because they are taking a sledgehammer to the two party system."

By far the most interesting contribution, though, comes from Mark Collett, leader of the openly neo-Nazi Patriotic Alternative party. Bearing in mind Farage's claim to have destroyed the BNP, Hope not Hate reports: 

"Collet goes on to explain how the British National Party’s (BNP) old election leaflets “were actually markedly tamer than Farage’s current rhetoric,” arguing that, “the same man who boasts about destroying the BNP is now standing on a platform that is more explicitly about demographics than the BNP did at its height.”

Collet has been working on leaflets for the English Democrats (a tiny bunch of extremists) in which he, like NF, advocates the stopping of refugee boats and leaving the ECHR. With no doubt a huge smirk Collett is quoted as saying: 

"I’ve spent the last few weeks working on election leaflets for a number of nationalist candidates. […] These leaflets read ‘Deport All Illegal Immigrants’. It’s almost like Nigel has been aware of this and, to put it politely, is copying our homework. If one was to be less polite they might say he stole our policy.”

Despite this apparent plagiarism, Collett goes on to tell people in constituencies where no ED candidates are standing: “I suggest you vote Reform and help them to complete the wipeout of the Conservative Party.” 

Clearly, there is a great deal to attract right-wing extremists to Reform UK. Were NF to be confronted with this, however, he would probably attribute it to a sting by the establishment press. 

Another matter not noticed is that while NF focussed on the apparent setup with Andrew Parker, nobody pointed out that he wasn't the only Reform UK member in the Channel 4 report to express objectionable views. There was a certain Mr Jones, who told the undercover reporter why Clacton had been chosen for NF: 

“Have a look around. Proper England. You know what I mean? Proper English. Not like in London when you’re a foreigner in your own country, and if you say ‘hello’ to someone they look like they’re about to f****** knife you in the face”.

Mr Jones expressed this violently homophobic view when a police car passed by: 

"You see that f****** degenerate flag on the front bonnet? What are the old bill doing promoting that crap? They should be out catching nonces not promoting the f******.”

NF did not mention this man, nor did anyone quiz him about the man's homophobic outbursts. NF got off lightly.

Nor does NF seem to have been tackled about his claim that he destroyed the British National Party, which is patently absurd. James O'Brien, in "How They Broke Britain", compared NF to the BNP leader, Nick Griffin. Griffin tried to make the BNP more electable by moderating the party line. As Wikipedia says:  

"The BNP replaced Tyndall's policy of compulsory deportation of non-whites to a voluntary system whereby non-whites would be given financial incentives to emigrate. It downplayed biological racism and stressed the cultural incompatibility of different racial groups."

Interestingly, Griffin appeared on Question Time in 2009 and made a similar claim to Farage's claim made on Thursday, again on Question Time, that he had striven hard to keep right-wing extremists from dominating his party. James O'Brien says that Griffin wasn't quite "class" enough to carry this off, and NF is setting out to succeed where Griffin failed, with broadly similar policies, but more polished presentation. The BNP collapsed through internal dissension, not because of any words of Farage. As Wikipedia says:

"  By 2010, there was discontent among the party's grassroots, a result of the change to its white-only membership policy and rumours of financial corruption among its leadership. Some defected to the National Front".  Or, perhaps, UKIP?

   But it could be that NF and Griffin have more in common than similar policies. Griffin recently claimed on X that Farage was once a member of the National Front. Farage has not tried to refute this, despite being challenged by Searchlight magazine. NF was in the NF? It's not beyond the bounds of possibility. 

My own view on Reform UK is that it functions as a Trojan Horse for the extreme Right. The Reform UK leadership might deny this, but it is a fact that extremists are only expelled when they are exposed in the press, or by anti-fascist groups. It's my belief that the numbers expelled are only the tip of the iceberg. There will be more and some will be in deep cover, seeking to get into positions where they can influence policy and strategy. The less discreet ones will be expelled when they step publicly out of line - and only then. This has happened on the Left as well. In the 1930s, until the early 60s, the Communist Party in Liverpool infiltrated the local Labour Party, sometimes even becoming local councillors. "Entryism", as it came to be called, was practised by Militant in the 70s, again targeting the Labour Party. We are seeing it again with Reform UK, and I do not believe, like the Tories say, that a vote for Reform UK is a vote for Labour. Rather, it is a vote for the extreme Right, no matter how many election candidates Reform UK disown.

Lastly, I would like to say that I believe my words of 12th November to have been accurate. Since NF re-entered the political scene, the campaign has got nastier. As Rishi Sunak said of the Channel 4 report:

"My two daughters have to see and hear Reform people who campaign for Nigel Farage calling me an effing 'P***'. It hurts and it makes me angry and I think he has some questions to answer.
And I don't repeat those words lightly"

I am no Tory, but I sympathise completely with the Prime Minister and his family. It is hurtful and disgusting and is probably being used again by racists towards people of South Asian origin. When Farage was asked on Question Time, he refused to make any apologies. NF remains NF in spirit. And political life has got nastier.

I wonder if the man who snapped is now a Reform UK member? It could have been Nigel Farage. I found this photo on Facebook. It might have been published in 2016, but it rings true today.