Anne Maguire and a Rubicon Crossed

Although retired from full-time teaching, I work regularly as a supply teacher. This morning, after leaving the house, I was suddenly struck by the cold realisation that this was what the late Anne Maguire, murdered by one of her pupils yesterday, must have been doing 24 hours before. Just another teacher on her way to school, totally unaware of what fate was waiting for her... I tried to blank it out at that point. Like the vast majority of teachers, I have had to face "difficult" pupils and violent school situations; like all teachers this morning, I had to face the fact that it could have been me.
I do not propose to dwell upon the details of this horrific murder; the press will be doing that for weeks to come. All I will say is that the news of this sickening crime brought tears to my eyes when I first learned of it - that has not happened for decades.
Instead, I would like to preempt some of the media coverage that is bound to surround this incident. It will not be long before the "blame game" starts. The Right will see this murder as symptomatic of what David Cameron has called "broken Britain"; the Left will probably try to link it to public spending cuts. Or some such things. We have already heard the usual soothing noises made by the Yorkshire Police and others, reassuring us that such attacks are very rare. Quite how that is supposed to help Anne Maguire's relatives, colleagues, pupils and ex-pupils is beyond me. After all, plane crashes are very rare, but that does not lessen the impact upon bereaved relatives.
There will, hopefully, be some fruitful discussion about measures that can be taken to protect pupils and staff from "awkward" pupils. It is slowly dawning upon the public at large that children can be violent. In the last two decades, we have seen some appalling crimes committed by children - the murders of James Bulger and Rhys Jones in Liverpool are extreme examples, but the instances of reported violence against teachers are numerous. Many incidents are not reported or are dealt with "in-house", as Heads fear adverse public and OFSTED reaction if too many (or any) violent pupils are excluded. Special Education Units, condemned as "dumping grounds" by Leftie academics in the 1980s, were gleefully axed by Right-Wing Tories, anxious to cut back on public spending. Not many such units remain today, despite their usefulness in withdrawing "difficult" pupils.
Not that this would have made much difference in the Anne Maguire case - no school can anticipate the actions of the brooding, alienated loner, such as the murderous 15 year old arrested for her stabbing. The boys who carried out the lethal Columbine High School massacre in the USA, in 1999. were of a similar type.
Whatever is discussed, proposed or recommended, whatever sorrow, condemnation or horror is expressed, a British teacher has been murdered by a pupil for the first time ever. A "Rubicon" has been crossed, and there is no going back.

The Oscar Pistorius Case - a South African Tragedy

Thokozile Masipa, the chief judge in the trial of Oscar Pistorius recently rebuked the prosecuting attorney, Gerrie Nel, for laughing in court during his cross-examination of Pistorius. She also told spectators in the public gallery that the trial was not entertainment. Indeed so. A young woman (Reeva Steenkamp) has lost her life and a young man (Pistorius) is on trial for his life. We are a long way from South Africa, yet I find the case intriguing. From the beginning of this ongoing tragedy, I have been troubled by certain aspects of the case, and I would like to discuss them here.
First, it needs to be understood that South Africa is a dangerous place to live. Statistics show an average murder rate of 35 to 50 people a day, and in 2012 there were 65 000 sex crimes. Those who can afford to live in gated communities (like Pistorius) reside behind the protection of fences and armed guards. Those who can not, live in fear.
Burglary is rife, also, and is frequently accompanied by violence. Even a simple car ride can be fraught with danger, as carjacking is another common crime. I once asked a lady who lives in South Africa what happens if your car breaks down. "Oh", she replied grimly," you don't want to do that". It is understandable, then, that there is widespread gun ownership for self and property defence and it is against this menacing background that we need to look at the Pistorius case.
Which leads to my first question - since Pistorius lived in a secure compound with armed guards not far away, why did he not simply phone for help when he heard the noise in the bathroom? Incredibly, he did not even put the light on in the bedroom - which would have shown Steenkamp to be missing. Besides this, there is the seemingly minor point that Pistorius says quite specifically that he thought the sound was caused by "an intruder" - but how did he know there was only one? There could easily have been two, or even three, and they, also, could have been armed. What follows next requires an explanatory diagram and can be found HERE.
What he did next is difficult to comprehend. Home Defence experts in the USA train people to go for the safe option if you have intruders in your home. This involves moving yourself and your family to a place of safety with only one entrance, eg, upstairs, where you can cover the means of access ( ie, the staircase) with your firearm (legal in the USA), while waiting for the police to arrive. You are specifically warned against sallying forth to engage your intruder, who could be waiting  to ambush you. Pistorius lived in a flat with no stairs, but could have stayed in the bedroom covering the entrance to the bathroom with his pistol until help arrived. If he had been as frightened as he said he was, that would have been the sensible thing to do.
Instead, assuming he is telling the truth, he foolishly proceeds into a dark bathroom where at least one intruder could be waiting, hears a noise which puts him in fear of his life (!!! - dangerous noises?) and shoots into the darkness in a blind panic.
Now, for me, these claims just do not add up. As he was armed, the obvious course of action (if not as sensible as staying in the bedroom) would have been to shout out a warning, or even fire a warning shot above head height. That should have been enough to deter an intruder - even the toughest burglar respects a gun - and  would certainly have given Reeva Steenkamp a chance to identify herself. More puzzling - if he was firing wildly into the darkness, how did he manage to hit the toilet door four times? If he saw enough to hit his target, he should have been able to see that he was facing no danger.
Undisciplined, "panic" shooting, such as Pistorius says he did that night, would be understandable from someone with no firearms experience - but Pitorius had extensive firearms experience, which has been well documented and includes, allegedly, shooting through a car roof.
Anyone who learns to shoot is taught to fire only aimed shots to try and roughly hit in the same area. This is called "grouping". Allowing for panic, stress (or anger?), Pistorius' shots were all aimed well enough. They all hit the toilet door with two rounds hitting close together. Had he been firing wildly, bullets would have been  found all over the bathroom wall, as well as the toilet door.
Pistorius appears to have fired in what are known as "double taps", i.e. fire two shots in rapid succession - pause to adjust aim - fire two more shots. If so, this shows Pistorius to be a well-trained shootist who knew what he was doing.
I know that a defence lawyer could refute all I have said here as conjecture and wisdom after the event. When all is said and done, there are no witnesses to the shooting and no conclusive proof that Pistorius committed murder. He may well walk free to try and rebuild a shattered life. Even if he is convicted, he will be released one day; the family of Reeva Steenkamp face a life sentence. This is one more tragedy in a country that has already endured far too many tragedies.

The Great War, a Common Meadow, and the Ukraine

There is a Spanish proverb that says: "History is a common meadow in which everyone can make hay". In this centenary year of the outbreak of the First World War (WW1), we are seeing just how true that is, with two leading historians, Max Hastings and Niall Ferguson, presenting two separate BBC programmes giving opposing views on whether or not Britain should have gone to war in 1914. Interestingly, both these pundits are men of the Right, which gives the lie to Michael Gove's recent claim that all opponents of WW1, past and present, were people of the Left. Personally, I watched both programmes with great interest, although I do not wish to express my own opinion here.
Instead, I would like to give some guidance, for those interested, through the plethora of information that is coming our way in the next four years. It will come as a surprise to many friends and acquaintances of mine to learn that I take an interest in WW1, and have quite a good selection of books that give insight into various aspects of this huge disaster that claimed so many lives and shaped the modern world.
A good general history of the conflict that I have is "The First World War" by Sir Martin Gilbert, and there is another book with the same title by John Keegan. Gilbert's book is the better narrative, and provides some fascinating snippets of information. I gave the Keegan book to a charity shop.
Anyone who wishes to learn more about the beginning of the war can do no better than read two new books on the subject: "Catastrophe" by Max Hastings, in which he lays the blame for the war on German militarism and there is "The Sleepwalkers", by Christopher Clark, which is an exhaustive (and exhausting!) account of the events leading up to the war. For Clark, the statesmen of 1914 were: "sleepwalkers...blind to the horror they were about to bring into the world". Whatever we think of Hastings' politics (Private Eye calls him "Hitler"), he writes interestingly; I am still wading through Clark's book.
Most people already have a view of WW1 as a futile exercise, in which young men were sacrificed in their thousands by callous, bungling generals safely ensconced behind the lines in luxurious chateaus. To reinforce this view, there is the well-known "Blackadder Goes Forth" series and the lesser known book by John Laffin : "British Butchers and Bunglers of World War One". Added to this, of course, is the incomparable war poetry of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Isaac Rosenberg, Rupert Brooke and many others. "The Penguin Book of First World War Verse" provides a good selection of their poems, but there are many such selections. It needs to be said, though, that not all WW1 poems were anti-war in the modern sense. For me, the most distressing book - although not meant as polemic by the author - is "The First Day on the Somme", by Martin Middlebrook, which describes, in harrowing detail, the destruction of Lord Kitchener's "New Armies" on July 1st, 1916. I first read it nearly 20 years ago, and found it so upsetting that I have not been able to bring myself to read it again. I still have it, and intend to reread it in July, 2016. The individual general usually targeted for opprobrium by holders of this viewpoint is Earl Douglas Haig, who commanded the British troops in France from 1915 to 1918. As the Liverpool poet, the late Adrian Henri, puts it:
"Don't be vague - blame General Haig".
For those interested in a different point of view, there is Hasting's "Catastrophe", in which he refutes what he calls the "poets' war" perspective by arguing that Britain was right to go to war to prevent German domination of Europe. Hastings also mounts a defence of WW1 generals, which may be of interest. Niall Ferguson, opposed to the view that Britain should have entered WW1, provides a cold, critical analysis of British generals in his book "The Pity of War". Ferguson is no proponent of the "Poets' War" theory, however. One of his conclusions in the book, and the recent TV programme of the same name, is that British generals were less professional than the Germans, who were better at killing their enemies. I leave readers to form their own conclusions on that view. For those interested in the strictly military side of WW1, there are the books of John Terraine, who, incidentally, was a staunch defender of Earl Haig.
For the human interest angle on the war, there is Middlebrook's book on the Somme, mentioned above. There is also "Death's Men", by Denis Winter, which depicts the ordinary Tommies as just that - passive, fatalistic, cannon fodder. More positive, and much more moving, are the books of Lyn Macdonald, all marvellously told, largely in words of veterans of the conflict, most of whom Macdonald interviewed personally. Another outstanding writer who uses first hand accounts from veterans is Max Arthur. His "Forgotten Voices of the Great War" is essential reading for anyone seeking eyewitness statements of the conflict. For books on the Home Front, there is "Blighty", by Gerard J. DeGroot and, though much less detailed, "Great Britain's Great War", by Jeremy Paxman. Both these authors refute the "Lost Generation" view of the (British) casualties of WW1, although acknowledging the impact upon British life by the conflict - especially the change in the role of women in society. They both play down the importance of British conscientious objectors in WW1. Paxman caused controversy recently by describing the "conchies" as cranks.
I am the first to admit that my selection is not comprehensive and is heavily slanted to the British experience of WW1. There are many authors on this massive subject that I have not read, but I hope I have given a good account of those I have read, and that my insights may prove useful. As for the British angle, I recognise that WW1 was a disaster for the whole of mankind, in which ten million died. Other nations lost far more men than Britain. Germany lost 2, 037 000, while Britain lost 723 000 (Ferguson, p295, "The Pity of War").
I know that some people will dismiss an interest in WW1 altogether. After all, it was a long time ago, and what does it matter now? So runs the "argument". Hopefully, most of us will dismiss that view. The world we know arose from the aftermath of WW1. From the ashes of destroyed empires, other quarrels grew, leading to WW2 and many other post-war, post-imperial conflicts. And WW1 taught some very hard lessons, one of which is being remembered now.
The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo, July 28, 1914, happened in a so-called "backwater" of Europe. 37 days later, Europe was plunged into war. The grave situation in Ukraine at present has the potential to escalate into something more serious. Wisely, our politicians are not reacting like the politicians and potentates of 1914, and are seeking to bring about a peaceful solution. We can only hope they succeed.

Michael Gove, OFSTED, and Present Realities

There is currently (as everybody knows) a good deal of controversy around the recent public statements made by the Education Minister, Michael Gove. While cronyism in politics is a serious matter, I do not wish to comment upon Mr Gove's replacement (aka sacking) of the Chief of OFSTED, Baroness Sally Morgan of Huyton. Like many teachers, retired teachers and Fascinating Aida, I have little sympathy for OFSTED employees; as far as I (and many others) am concerned, Gove can abolish OFSTED altogether.
Instead, I wish to comment upon Mr Gove's proposals to lengthen the school day, and improve school discipline by re-introducing good old-fashioned punishments, such as lines, detentions and picking up litter in the playground.
I have no real objection to lengthening the school day, provided it does not make the workload of teachers and teaching assistants even more onerous than it is now. If extra staff are to be recruited in order to provide children with more extra-curricular activities, then that is no bad thing. What is questionable is the fact that Mr Gove appears to want to make the extra hours compulsory. Understandably, many pupils have spoken of their disapproval of this measure - especially older pupils, who have lives of their own to lead after school. I don't think that all parents will be in agreement, either, especially if they feel that they see little enough of their children. Besides this, many schools already have voluntary after-school clubs (and I should know - I've run a few), and even provide after-school snacks. The clubs which presently supply food - breakfast or evening meal - have to be paid for by parents. If staying on after school is to be compulsory, these meals should be free.
As for Mr Gove's disciplinary measures, I do not believe that Gove is aware of present realities. It is all very well to talk of turning the clock back to what are, essentially, 1950s punishments. The trouble is, we are not dealing with 1950s children or parents. I foresee problems with older children, who might simply refuse to abide by these punitive measures, which they will regard as demeaning. Not only this, but weekend detentions could very well cause problems with angry parents, who will not accept that their children have to give up part of their weekends. On "This Morning" today, Mr Gove said that violent pupils should be excluded from schools. In this matter, Gove shows his ignorance of OFSTED procedures. Schools which exclude too many troublesome pupils face being commented upon adversely by OFSTED, which helps to make Heads of schools unwilling to exclude if they can avoid it.
All in all, then, Mr Gove's proposals are not as original as he seems to think, nor are they as wide-ranging enough to deal with classroom indiscipline as his admirers in the press seem to believe. He is not even providing teachers with extra powers to implement these unoriginal sanctions of his. As so often on previous occasions, Mr Gove "could do better".
Besides all this, there is the question of funding, which has been raised by no-one, least of all Mr Gove.
 The funding needs to be quantified and a matter of public record in school budgets this year by Easter, for use in September. As budgets have already been set for 2014 - 2015 this will need at least a year before any school can make proposals. For implementation in Sept 2015, this would have to be sorted and in the school budgets by Easter 2015. Schools will not even consider  employing additional staff for 2015 -2016 unless the cash is there.
Government funding will have to be approved and - very important - there is an election approaching. Unless the Conservative Party wins an outright majority at the next election, I predict that Mr Gove's ideas will go down as yet another failed initiative in education.

Public sector bad ~ private sector good

Tax staff in Bootle opposing the cuts

That was one of the slogans used in the 1980s by those opposed to the first great swathes of privatisation that were cutting across state-owned industries during the Thatcher era. It could be argued that the state had no business running industries such as British Leyland: that's not a view I'd automatically endorse, especially in relation to manufacturing, because rescuing industry in trouble and thereby saving jobs, preserving skills and improving our balance of payments by reducing our need for foreign imports makes a lot of sense to me.

That's all yesterday's debate. The principle of privatisation has a quarter of a century or more later become an article of faith, rather than a different view of how to run the economy. All opinion polls showed that the privatisation of the post office was opposed by a clear majority. The Coalition went ahead all the same, even though the Post Office was making a healthy profit, unlike the old British Leyland; being a drain on the public purse was not a factor here. However, we tax payers were still conned because the government took over the expensive responsibilities of the pension fund, thereby making the Post Office sell-off very attractive indeed to potential investors. Furthermore, the share prices were either deliberately or incompetently set too low; the surge in price straight after privatisation was a nice bribe for the investors, but another financial loss for us tax payers. This took us right back to the bad old days of "Tell Sid", when the British Gas share prices were pitched so low at privatisation that within 24 hours you had an unearned bonanza at the nation's expense. The prospect of quick winnings was to entice ordinary people to invest and, by involving them, break down a lot of the opposition to privatisation.

In tandem with these latter day privatisations are drastic cuts to public sector jobs. The propaganda against the public sector has been so successful - uncaring bureaucrats with jobs for life and gold plated pensions - that people don't react very much when they hear that the jobs of civil servants and local authority workers are being cut. In terms of council jobs, people simply complain that they're not getting the same level of service that they had before the cuts and rarely link cause and effect. For example, my own council has laid off library workers and closed many libraries, not because they weren't being used, but because of the Coalition's cuts to council funding - and yet many of our local residents complained because the Christmas tree the council put up on our main shopping street was smaller than in previous years. After all, the thinking goes, they've only got rid of a load of useless pen pushers who wouldn't know a hard day's work if it hit them over the head.

I'll conclude with a couple of examples of civil service cutbacks that are damaging and self-defeating; similar stories can be heard across the public sector, including in the NHS, education and social services.

1. In 2013, the Environment Agency (EA) issued 7,000 flood warnings, the highest in its history, and in recent weeks there have been as many as 188 flood warnings at one time, 14 of them involving danger to life. We seem to be moving into a period of more extreme and unpredictable weather, probably associated with global warning and we may well need more staff to deal with it, but the Coalition's response will be to get rid of 1,550 EA staff in 2014. (Numbers from Private Eye)
2. Tax avoidance and evasion cost the tax payer 16 times the amount lost through benefit fraud. The Coalition is cutting HMRC (tax) staff and closing down offices all over the country. If we're not dealing effectively with tax fiddling now - and we aren't - what chance do we have with fewer staff? The conclusion I draw is that tax fiddling is respectable, whereas benefit claimants are routinely reviled by politicians and in the media. If tax fiddling got the same relentless flood of shock-horror stories in the press, TV documentaries and ministerial denunciations, there is no way the Coalition could turn a blind eye to it, as it does now. We get an occasional token swipe at Amazon or Vodaphone, and that's our lot. (Tax/benefit comparison from Channel 4 News website)

When your job cuts damage the economy and people's lives, homes and livelihoods, you are in the realm of irrational dogma. Yes, you can argue that the state shouldn't own car manufacturers, but you cannot argue that cutting staff who warn about floods or who could be chasing tax fiddlers makes any kind of sense all.

The Rhymes and Routes Christmas Message

The Rhymes and Routes Christmas message this year comes from the Reverend John Faraday,  Rector of the Anglican churches (St James', St Peter's and Emmanuel) in Gorton, Manchester.

John (centre) pictured in Pakistan.
 

I am very grateful to Geoff for the opportunity of writing his blog Christmas Message. To have been preferred over a message from (Ex) President Ahmajinedad is a great privilege… I think.

For the benefit of your readers I will give a brief pen-picture of myself so that you will know where I came from and something about what makes me who I am. I was born in 1949 in Bootle, where bomb-sites were a normal part of life. At the age of 9 my father got a promotion and we were able to move nearer to his work in Southport.

When we got to Southport I was welcomed into the local Boys’ Brigade. I enjoyed their games nights and the local Church. By the time I was in my teens I was a committed Christian. (Yes, I know there are some who think that every Christian should be committed! I agree that all Christians should be committed, but I do not quite mean what they mean!)

While in my teens I met Geoff and we became life-long friends.

I trained at University to be a civil engineer. I am very glad I did because I met people of every social position. On a single day I could be at the bottom of a site trench or in a tunnel with the hard working (usually Irish) men who translated the drawings into reality, then in the evenings dining with directors.

However, my first work in civil engineering was not in the UK and I met no Irishmen. I was accepted as a volunteer for Voluntary Service Overseas and packed off on a flight to Sierra Leone. I learned a lot about myself while I was there. I went there thinking that I was exactly what Sierra Leone needed! I found out that my pride and inexperience made me useless to Sierra Leone. At the end of a difficult year I got home wondering if my time there was any use. I am now convinced it was useful, to me if not for Sierra Leone!

I am now a priest in the Church of England, but I have benefited a lot from meeting all manner of people in my life. (That is one of the great bonuses of work in civil engineering and in the Church).

Although I have made mistakes (and yes, I continue to do so) I am sure that if I had not been a Christian I would have found life a lot more difficult to cope with. When I feel like complaining I can reflect on Jesus. When he was born his parents had nothing. He was born in a stable and soon the family had to flee southwards to Egypt, several hundred miles from their home in the Galilee area. At the age of twelve he was so keen to consider important issues that he spent a couple of days with the Temple leaders, much to the annoyance of Mary and Joseph who thought he was with the party returning to Nazareth where they lived at the time.

Later he had a successful but controversial preaching tour talking about the love of God and forgiveness, about right and wrong- and their results, about what kind of values we should have. People who could not take his message put Him to a very painful death.

I think that it is great when people celebrate Christmas, especially when they take time to consider just what the season is all about- The Son of God coming to earth and ‘roughing it’ with the rest of us. The events of that first Christmas are monumental and meaningful. But they are not the whole story by any means! A tiny baby does not challenge beyond the need for safety, food, warmth and medical care.

A grown person, especially one who challenges every single human being yet is worshipped by so many, should be taken seriously. I believe that Jesus is nothing less than the unique Son of God! The best Christmas present people can give themselves is a copy of the Bible and then start to consider the New Testament. If you would like to ‘dabble’ but spend less money, have a look at a site such as ‘Biblegateway.com’ and read the Bible online, in whatever your native language is. You can find out all about God’s greatest gift to mankind. Start with the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and think about who Jesus was and why He is still a person people live and die for.

My best wishes for a happy Christmas.

John Faraday.

Tom Daley and a Far From Ideal World

On a day when the world mourns Nelson Mandela, who did so much to inspire the world by his struggle against Apartheid, I think it would help to consider  another struggle, which has run contemporaneously with the anti-apartheid struggle and the fight against racism - the issue of gay rights.
 One might think that there is no longer anything to discuss on this matter. Gay people are tolerated to a degree that would have been unimaginable when I was a teenager. Unlike many people of my age group, I admit to having had anti-gay prejudices, which the passing decades have eroded. A recent telephone chat with a cousin whom I have not seen for years provides a good example of how times have changed.
When my cousin phoned, like the proud dad and granddad that he is, he told me all about his four children and their offspring. He then told me about one of his children who is gay and in a civil partnership. What impressed me was the way he mentioned this - as if it were perfectly natural (which it is). To his immense credit, he sounded equally proud of all his children (which he is). Shocking though it may sound now, gay teenagers were still being thrown out of the family home by their parents as recently as the 1980s.
Which brings us to the recent "coming out" of Tom Daley. The story is well enough known, without my needing to repeat any of the details. What is of interest is the public reaction. Now, as Tom Daley himself has said, in an ideal world, he would not have needed to make this announcement. Like many people, my reaction was "So what? We've moved on - haven't we?". Gay pressure groups described him as gay, while some national newspapers labelled him as bisexual. Overwhelmingly, though, the reaction was sympathetic. All this pointed to a question which no-one wanted to answer.
The question is: When leading politicians, musicians, actors and fashion designers, etc, can openly declare themselves as gay or bisexual, why is it such a big deal for a sportsman or woman to do the same? Well, I am not going to attempt to answer this, but the homophobic abuse that has been dished out at rugby matches to the gay rugby player, Gareth Thomas, could indicate part of the explanation.
As for Tom Daley, I think that he should be left alone to develop his sexuality in the way (or ways) that he chooses (so should everyone!). However, going public like he has done will not help his case. There has been immense press speculation about the identity of his male date, and Daley may well find that he receives more unwelcome media attention than ever.
There is no such thing as an ideal world, as Tom Daley acknowledges. What may be ideal to one person is not ideal to another. An ideal world to a homophobe is a world without homosexuals; for racists, a world with no people of a different colour. I would not describe my view as "ideal", but  personally, following the publicity surrounding Daley's announcement, I would like to see all of us - not just the press, who only print what we want to read - learning to mind our own business. That would put paid to the awful cult of "celebrity" and "gossip mags". If you don't like what celebs do in private, stop reading about them; if you don't like what your neighbours do behind closed doors, stop squinting through the keyhole. As the Christians said in their perceptive song of some years ago: "This ain't no way to treat mankind" - and the song, incidentally, is called "Ideal World".
Or am I being too idealistic?

No Minor Detail - a Tribute to Alice Abes

Last Friday, my sister-in-law, Alice Abes, pictured above, died in a hospital in Manila, capital of the Philippines.63 years of age, she succumbed to leukaemia, which seems to have gone untreated for some months or years. At a time when many thousands of Filipinos have died, been injured, gone missing or made homeless by Typhoon Haiyan, Alice's death may be regarded by some as a minor detail.
Except it is not a minor detail. No-one's passing is a minor detail. As John Donne observed, when the funeral bell tolls, it tolls for all of us. Alice lived a life no different from that of many Filipinas. Born into a large family, she married, worked hard, battled poverty and raised a family. She leaves behind four children and twelve grandchildren, besides her eight siblings, one of whom is my wife. For them, losing Alice is no minor affair, nor any trifling detail.
Unfortunately, I never really got to know Alice. We met only a couple of times, and never really had a conversation (many Filipinos think I am either German or Australian, and find that very suspicious, for some reason). Nevertheless, I salute Alice's memory, and believe that her last days are of significance to us here in Britain.
Alice's final stay in hospital was made doubly traumatic for her family by the brutally simple fact that healthcare in the Philippines is not free - you pay for it. As many Filipinos are desperately poor, they often cannot afford medical treatment, and as my wife says: "In Philippines, if you don't pay, you die". Without support from her family, Alice would have faced a grim end; without support from the wider family, her children could not have afforded to pay for her treatment.
Why should this concern us, here in Britain? Well, it does not take much research to find that there are some right-wing British politicians who would dearly love to dismember the National Health Service (in which, ironically, many Filipinos work) and privatise as much of it as possible. This is not always overtly stated, but it is not difficult to read between the lines.
Fortunately, many British people recognise the warning signs, and are campaigning (not a moment too soon!) to "Save the NHS". If you, dear reader, support this campaign, when you are signing petitions, writing to your M.P. or joining in street protests, then please - remember my sister-in-law, Alice Abes. In a way, her passing encapsulates all we fight for, and all we are campaigning against.
There could be no better tribute to her memory.

No Pasaran! - the Musical

I have never reviewed a musical before, and welcome the chance to do so now. If I leave out anything important, I hope readers will forgive my omissions. Now I've got that out of the way, I can begin.
Last weekend, my wife and I went for a short break to Bournemouth. It is our favourite resort on the south coast, and I was glad to combine our trip with a visit to the De la Salle Theatre to watch "No Pasaran! - the Musical" by Roy Gaynor (lyrics and music) and Doug Gould (musical orchestration).
Now, at this point, I must declare a personal interest. Roy and myself share an interest in the Spanish Civil War (SCW), that epic struggle which still has the ability to arouse passion and anger. I met Roy through the International Brigade Memorial Trust, of which we are both members. I write lyrics myself, and Roy had already set one of my lyrics to music. Naturally, I was interested to see what he made, musically, of the war in Spain during the 1930s.
The SCW lasted from 1936 to 1939, and presents difficulties for theatrical presentation. There are many detailed accounts of the conflict, and Roy would have been faced with the problem of depicting the passage in time of the war, while condensing the material into an acceptable time limit.
I think he solves the problem brilliantly by telling the story of a divided Irish family whose two sons set off to fight in Spain. One goes to fight for Franco and the other (hurray!) for the Republicans in the International Brigades. The experiences of these two drive the action. Wisely, Roy has not included every SCW battle, and there is a time lapse between the Battle of the Jarama (1936) and the Battle of the Ebro (1938). Without spoiling the ending, there is a love triangle story that runs through the musical that is poignantly resolved at the end of the play when one of the brothers returns to Spain. My wife, who loves musicals, was moved to tears by this charming climax.
Of course, as a music lover, and a lyricist myself, I was very interested in the songs and music that run through the production from beginning to end. I am pleased to say that Roy does a first class job here. Writing songs about a historical event calls for freshness of insight and arrangement and there is a wide variety of songs in No Pasaran! - from ballads to blues. At no point will you be bored when watching this musical. The singers are outstandingly good, singing with passion and expression of  a professional standard - no mean achievement, considering that many of the cast are amateurs. A marvellous Spanish touch is the appearance of Flamenco dancers throughout the play. They give impressive performances, and remind us of the people for whom the International Brigades fought.
I must admit to the fact that both the love triangle and the superb choral performances in "No Pasaran!" reminded me at times of "Les Miserables". If I was some sniffy national newspaper critic, I'd comment adversely about that, but I'm not, and I won't. If similarities in stories were wrong, then Orwell's "1984" would be dismissed as a copy of Zamyatin's "We", and "Pilgrims Progress" as a mere derivative of the Bible. The story of the musical is believable and moving, and the choruses are admirable of themselves.
If "No Pasaran!" does not become better known, then there ain't no justice. Whatever, congratulations to all concerned for a great performance and a great night out for the audience. I am pleased to say that it will be performed again in Bournemouth next year - and hopefully elsewhere.

Tommy Robinson, Islamophobia and the Problems of Heresy

Following on from Rednev's item about the growth of Islamophobia among young Britons, I think it worth turning to the recent resignation of Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) from the English Defence League (EDL). Having been categorised as anti-Muslim and a racist, Robinson has now announced his intention to work with Quilliam to break down extremism among Muslims. He expounded his opinions this morning, on the BBC TV programme, "Sunday Morning Live". Unsurprisingly, there has been a good deal of scepticism about Robinson's "conversion" to moderation, especially from anti-racist groups and some Muslim commentators. Others are prepared to give Mr Robinson the benefit of the doubt. I belong to the latter group, albeit with some caution. The EDL is in decline anyway, and Robinson might just be abandoning a sinking ship. If he is sincere, then he should watch his back - if the Neo-Nazis who have been agitating against Robinson's leadership actually take over the EDL, they will regard Robinson as a traitor (some already say he was an MI5 agent), and be out for revenge. Jihadi groups take a similar position towards people who leave their ranks.
And there lies the crux of the problem. The EDL, the far right and their Jihadi enemies need each other in order to justify their own extremist positions. As has been noted before, they resemble each other in a number of significant ways. Moving to a more moderate consensus is not acceptable to either side.

Tommy Robinson (and the rest of us) might like to start by asking why there is a growth in Muslim extremism in the first place. The argument that it is all because of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan is too simplistic - although it is undeniably a factor. Al-Qaeda existed before 9/11, and most of the hijackers were Saudis, not Afghans, Iraqis or Pakistanis. It is a mistake to regard Islamist terror attacks as retaliation for attacks on countries; all the terror groups say that they see the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as attacks on Islam itself. It is that, I believe, which is alienating some Muslims from our society, and causing their rejection of liberal democratic norms in politics and societal behaviour. Fundamentalist Islam, which Robinson and others detest, is a total lifestyle choice, involving cultural issues, not just politics and violence. Besides which, we should bear in mind that not all fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists, nor are all Muslims fundamentalists.
At this point, I must say that I have taught many Muslim children (still do teach!), worked with Muslim colleagues in my career, and never encountered the slightest hint of extremism. My experience of encountering Islam has been generally  positive. I have learned a lot from Muslim children about their faith, and been impressed at how articulate they can be when discussing their beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, never having met any extremists, I have no problems with the vast majority of Muslims.
However, Islam itself, I believe, has a problem organisationally. Not only is it divided into two main camps, Sunni and Shia, but it has no central controlling body. This makes it very difficult to rid itself of extremist groups. The Church of England has the General Synod; the Roman Catholic Church had the Inquisition; the Communist Party in the old Soviet Union had an all-powerful Central Committee. This meant that all these bodies could rid themselves of heretics and ideological deviationists (the two terms are interchangeable!). Islam has no central body to do this, and the Jihadis remain Muslims, tarnishing the name of the religion they profess to follow.
Besides this, the image of Islam is not helped by the fact that, of all the countries in the world where faith minorities and unbelievers are badly treated, the majority of such countries are Islamic states. I have discussed this in previous postings, researching the treatment of Atheists, Christians and Bahais around the world, and found that Islamic countries are the worst offenders. This varies, of course, from country to country. Egypt has a large Christian minority, and Turkey has a quite lenient attitude towards unbelievers. However, the picture is very different in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran. While Islamic countries practise intolerance towards minorities, groups such as the EDL, etc, will be able to portray Islam as a threat to our way of life. Nor does it help when some Muslims admit to this - see the picture above, or read some of the pronouncements of Jihadi hate preachers.
To return to Tommy Robinson, Esther Rantzen made the point this morning that, if we reject, with cynicism, extremists such as Mr Robinson who want to come in from the cold, we will only discourage others who seek to do the same. Let's hope that Tommy Robinson moderates his views and many others (EDL and Jihadis) follow him.

Islamophobia and British youth

"Borrowed" from 1st Ethical website

28% of 18-24 year olds interviewed in a survey say they do not trust Muslims: I even heard one 20-year old woman say on the radio, “They’re all the same”. I am very disturbed by such prejudice towards followers of a faith that constitutes 23% of the world’s population. As a comparison, Christianity represents 33%.

If I were an 18-24 year old living in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya and had seen my country invaded by British and American armies, or in Libya’s case heavily bombed, especially if my community had been destroyed with neighbours, friends and relatives killed or injured, I suspect I would feel hostile towards those responsible.

We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan when neither country posed a risk to our security; who can forget Tony Blair’s dodgy dossier about weapons of mass destruction? A count of civilians killed by the fighting and the breakdown of law and order after our invasion of Iraq puts the figure at 114,566 (based on data drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures), equivalent to 38 September 11 attacks - see Iraq Body Count.

The New York and London bombings and the horrific murder of Drummer Lee Rigby are unforgiveable atrocities, but is it surprising that our actions provoked a response? Unlike the days of empire, if we throw our weight around nowadays, those we attack can retaliate. Most of course do not, but it only needs a tiny number to commit terrorist acts. Condemning one and a half billion people for the actions of the few is ignorant, unjust and inflammatory.

Syria : Some Thoughts and Questions

Saying anything original about the Syrian crisis is difficult. So much has been said already, and the last word will not be said, unfortunately, for many years to come. The situation is developing (I wish I could say improving) even as I type, and my observations will be out of date in a very short space of time. Nevertheless, I do have some questions and thoughts on this evolving tragedy, and hope they remain relevant.
My first question relates to the recent horrific chemical attack in Damascus which, as we know, killed 1,400 people. We have witnessed a very rare rebellion on this issue in the House of Commons, which has put paid (supposedly) to any British military involvement in the promised US-led "punishment strikes" against the Assad regime. President Obama, who always said that proven use of chemical weapons would result in military action, has still not managed to put together enough international (or domestic) support to launch any punitive measures. This farcical state of affairs has given President Assad time to move his troops and weapons into civilian areas and, presumably, his chemical weapons into secret locations. Quite what any air or missile strike would hit now is anyone's guess. My question, though, is this: 100, 000 people have died in Syria so far, and no action has been taken. In which case, then, if the 1400 unfortunates slain by Sarin gas had been shot instead, would there still have been a House of Commons debate or any talk of action by the United States?
Next, I would like to know why we are not hearing more about the crimes of the supposed "good guys" - the Syrian rebels. Our media reports, accurately enough, that there is a strong Al-Qaeda presence among the rebels ("Al-Nusra"), but we hear very little about their victims. One of the main targets for this group, as has been seen in Iraq, is the Christian population, who are fleeing Syria in huge numbers. Both sides are committing war crimes, but the reporting of rebel misdeeds is somewhat subdued. I know that there is a difference between the violence of the oppressed and that of the oppressor, but that distinction becomes blurred as we look more closely at both sides in this conflict. The whole situation shows signs of becoming a Sunni versus Shia battle, with Rebels + Al-Nusra + Saudi Arabia on one side and Assad + Iran (our dear friends again, folks!) + Hezbollah on the other. In other words, this could become a religious war. Let's hope I'm wrong, as such a war would have a worldwide impact, and would not remain within Syria's borders.
Next, I'd like to make an observation on the supposed military inaction by western countries, especially the USA and Britain. This is of particular relevance in light of the recent House of Commons vote and the firm declaration of "no boots on the ground" by British and American politicians. If the USA and Britain were looking to launch air and missile strikes, they would need to have trained "spotters" on the ground in Syria itself. These spotters are necessary, in order to ensure accurate hits on chosen targets, and to avoid the disastrous mistakes made in the Balkans and Iraq by so-called "Smart" weapons. Now, these spotters could be trained rebel personnel, but are more likely to be experts from British, American and French special forces (serving or retired), who have a proven history of working covertly in the world's troublespots. In other words, there is probably a Western military presence already.
Lastly, I recently saw a photograph in "The Independent" of an elderly Syrian man, gazing on the ruins of his village after a government bombing raid. His face was a mask of utter despair, like that of so many Syrian victims in this obscene conflict. His story was typical of so many others as well; most of his family had been killed by one side or another. I wonder: would anyone like to explain to him (and all the others) why the rest of the world stood by and argued among themselves while his life was devastated?
Any volunteers?