Downing Street, a Rat and a Mouser

Although having passed it a number of times when in central London, I did not know much about Downing Street. I knew, of course, that the Prime Minister lived at Number 10, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer lived next door, but I knew nothing of its history. Then, a few weeks ago, I was in the National Gallery shop and bought, on impulse, "Killers of the King", by Charles Spencer and learned about the man whom Downing Street is named after - Sir George Downing. I shall return to Sir George later, but here are a few fun QI facts about the Prime Minister's official residence, which Pitt the Younger referred to as: "A vast awkward house":
- The first residential house on the site of Number 10 was built by Sir Thomas Knyvet in 1581. He was a favourite of Queen Elizabeth I and arrested Guy Fawkes after the gunpowder plot.
-  No 10 was originally No 5 and did not acquire its present number until 1779.
- The last private resident of No 10 Downing Street was called Mr Chicken. Nobody knows anything about him other than his name. He moved out in 1732.
- In the early days of Downing Street the area was much livelier. There were lots of pubs nearby, such as the Cat and Bagpipes and the Rose and Crown.None of these pubs was a branch of Wetherspoons, but I bet the price of a pint was higher than anywhere else in Britain, even then.
- It is only since Arthur Balfour became prime minister in 1902 that the prime minister has been expected to live at No 10.
-  Only one former prime minister has ever died there: Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who resigned on April 3 1908 but was too ill to move and died 19 days later. His last words were: “This is not the end of me.” Famous last words, if ever there were any.
- The front door cannot be opened from the outside because it has no handle, and no one can enter the building without passing through a scanner and a set of security gates manned by armed guards.
- In the first five years after Tony Blair became prime minister, 37 computers, four mobile phones, two cameras, a mini-disc player, a video recorder, four printers, two projectors and a bicycle were stolen from the building. No comment is necessary about that.
- The first cat designated as Chief Mouser, Larry, a Londoner, was sacked by David Cameron because he slept on the job. He was replaced by George Osborne's cat, Freya. Osborne certainly knows how to get rid of his opponents. Freya is responsible for keeping numbers 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street free of mice. Let's hope she lasts.
To return to Sir George Downing (1623 - 1684): we need to briefly set him in a historical context. Born in Dublin, his family emigrated to Salem, Massachusetts, and the young George was one of the first nine students to graduate from Harvard in 1642. He returned to England in 1646 and became an ardent supporter of the Parliamentary cause. Colonel John Okey, who had sponsored Downing's education at Harvard, took the impoverished graduate under his wing, making George his unit's regimental chaplain. In 1649, Oliver Cromwell made Downing his Scoutmaster-General (intelligence chief) in Scotland. In 1657 he was appointed resident at The Hague, in the Netherlands, to effect a union of the Protestant European powers.
At this point, we need to hark back to the historical context. There is still a romantic aura about the English Civil Wars that needs to be dispelled. As John O'Farrell has said:
"The death toll of the English Civil wars was catastrophic: when you add in related deaths and from Cromwell's massacres (in Ireland), a larger percentage of the British population was killed in this conflict than in even the First World War".
O'Farrell is right. From combat, starvation and disease, the Civil wars are thought to have claimed the lives of nearly 200,000 people in England, out of a population of just five million. In Ireland, the figure for dead, Catholic and Protestant, is thought to be 616,000.
After the execution of Charles 1 on 30 January, 1649, Cromwell instituted the first British experiment at a republic, which O'Farrell describes as: "...the Protestant version of the Taliban". Pubs and inns were closed down, Easter and Christmas were banned, swearing and gambling were punished and all theatres closed. It was the Commonwealth, without the games. After Cromwell's death in1658, his son Richard took his place but wasn't up to the job. Thanks to political confusion in London, and a military intervention led by General Monck, Charles the Second was restored as King in 1660, to what seems to have been widespread relief. I don't know if the pubs opened specially.
Known to history as "The Merry Monarch", Charles 2 had promised no hard feelings to former opponents who had supported the Parliamentary cause - with exceptions. The exceptions here are known to history as "The regicides", the men who had been involved in putting Charles 1 to death. Charles 2 was less than merry regarding these men, and sought to hunt them all down and put them to death. One of these men was George Downing's former patron and comrade - in - arms, John Okey. Like most of the regicides, Okey sought to escape Charles 2's vengeance by fleeing abroad - to the Netherlands in his case. He might have chosen to do this because the English ambassador was none other than his old friend, comrade and chaplain - Downing.
Downing, like many former Parliamentary soldiers, had decided to change sides and become a strong supporter of the Restoration. Okey, trusting in the power of past friendship, contacted Downing to see if he and his fellow refugee would be unmolested. Charles Spencer says here:
" (Okey)... received assurances of their wellbeing from Downing, who claimed that he had no orders to look out for them". Alas, Downing lied, and later seized Okey and two others in Delft, producing a blank Dutch arrest warrant to concerned Delft authorities. Okey and his two fellow regicides were shipped to London to be hung, drawn and quartered. The bitterness of Okey and his family towards Downing can well be understood, even after all the intervening centuries. Spencer quotes a friend of Okey as saying of Downing:
"...his New England chaplain whom he clothed, and fed at his table, and who dipped with him in his own dish should prove like the Devil among the twelve to his Lord and Master".
In 1682, Downing secured the lease on a piece of land close to Westminster and set about building the street that bears his name. He prospered after the Restoration, and died a very wealthy man. Samuel Pepys described him as a “perfidious rogue”; I think I would describe him as a despicable, ungrateful, treacherous rat. And this is the man after whom one of our most famous streets is named.
If I could, I would like to give a present to Freya, the Chief Mouser. It would be a large plump mouse of any colour - and I would name it George Downing.

Freya, the Chief Mouser.

Sir George Downing, the rat.

Spiral, French TV and Dixon of Dock Green

I had never watched the French police series "Spiral" ("Engrenages" in France). French TV does not have a good reputation anywhere - not even in France, so I never bothered. Anyway, a friend recently lent me the box set of  Series 1-4 and, as I have been laid up for the past couple of weeks with a virus, I thought I might as well watch the whole set. Series 1 was produced in 2005, Series Two in 2008, Three in 2010 and Four in 2012. I have not seen Series 5, and Wikipedia says that Series 6 is in production now. It would be reasonable to suppose from this that "Spiral" is a success story for French TV and it is worth examining what has brought about that success, given that French TV is rated as being so dire.
To attempt to answer that question, I shall use the French word for gratuitous -" gratuit". There is plenty that is gratuit in Spiral, and I think this what has made the show so successful. In a nutshell,  there is gratuit horror, gratuit violence and gratuit sex.
When first you encounter the Parisian police squad who are the heroes of this series, your initial impression is of a seedy, down-at-heel bunch, dressed in clothes that come from the French equivalent of Primark. That impression is a lasting impression, as they are wearing the same clothes in Series Four that they wore in Series One. Paris police must be badly underpaid.
There are six main characters in the show, three belonging to the squad and three to the legal profession, who appear in every series. Heading up the squad is  Police Captain Laure Berthaud, a formidable young (ish) woman with a tempestuous love life and a ferocious temper. One example of this happens when she does not get her way in something, shouts "Shit! shit! shit!" ( in French of course) and bangs her head against a wall in front of her colleagues. Juliet Bravo or Vera would not have approved.
Another squad regular is Police Lieutenant Gilles "Gilou" Escoffier, who is a bit of a lad, to say the least. In the first series, we see him snorting cocaine and cavorting with prostitutes. Mind you, he's given that up by Series Two. In a later series, he provides a police firearm to gangsters which they use to murder a man. Somehow, he gets away with all his misdeeds, but he'd never have lasted with Inspector Morse. Police Lieutenant Frédéric "Tintin" Fromentin is the nice guy of the team and thought of as being stable. As he tells his colleagues in nearly every programme that he has four children, it's a surprise they don't think of him as just being bloody boring.
The legal eagles are: Judge François Roban, (earnest and dependable); Assistant Prosecutor Pierre Clément, (weak, divorced and easily led); Lawyer Joséphine Karlsson (Venal, very good defence lawyer and very sexy). Roban is a man of integrity who frequently upsets his less-than-incorruptible superiors. Through the four series, Clement abandons his role as a prosecutor and goes into partnership with Karlsson, with whom he enjoys good relations of every kind, despite not approving of her working for gangsters.
We may well wonder what has catapulted a show with dubious characters like this into prominence around the world, so much so that Wikipedia says:
"Spiral has been an export success, with sales to broadcasters in more than 70 countries including, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom"
Well, as I said above, the three gratuit factors of horror, violence and sex must have helped greatly. Horror is endemic to the show; photographs of mutilated corpses are presented indulgently to camera (so you get plenty of time to look!), as are all the many cadavers littered throughout the action. Autopsies are carried out with chilling sound effects (the programme makers must have used frozen meat).
As for violence, it becomes rather difficult to distinguish between the violence of the police squad and that of the criminals. Gilou, for instance, beats up suspects in a way that Dixon of Dock Green (or should I say "Dixon de Dock Green"?) would never have countenanced. Captain Berthaud is a little more restrained, although, on an off-duty date, she pulls a revolver on a man who gets fresh with her. Anyway, there is plenty of violence, physical, mental and sexual - enough for all the family.
Sex is never far from Captain Berthaud, and she strikes you as a lady who needs as much of it as she can get. I lost count of her affairs in all the series - I should have kept score, but didn't. Her relationship with another police squad leader blossoms in Series Three and Four, as evidenced in a memorable nude sex scene. Gilou and Tintin, alas, are not so lucky, but, then, Tintin has four children. Roban has little success, if any, but Clement and Karlsson hit the jackpot on several occasions. Clement enjoys (very much) a dalliance with Captain Berthaud, while Karlsson has successful encounters with a number of people, one being a lawyer some years older, who she thinks will advance her career. Clement and Karlsson get it on together on the lawn outside her father's house at her sister's wedding reception. I found it hard to comprehend this: Karlsson sees her widower father; he gasps; she alludes to something that passed between her and her father years before; she and Clement have stand-up sex on the lawn. I must have missed something here. Whatever, the incredible thing is that they are enjoying each other vertically about 20 feet from a window, and none of the partygoers inside seem to notice, not even when Karlsson has her loud "When Harry Met Sally" moment (i.e. an orgasm). I know French people are thought to be highly sophisticated in these matters, but that is ridiculous.
Well, it looks as if Spiral is turning around the fortunes of French TV, but we're certainly a long way from Dixon of Dock Green.

Marching Against Trident Yesterday

Yesterday, I took part in the anti-Trident march in central London. I didn't march because I am a CND activist - I'm not. To be honest, I only went because my friend and colleague, Rednev, was coming down from Southport for the demo, and I thought it would be nice to meet up and have a pint or two (it was three for me, as it happened). Still, it was a worthwhile experience in many other ways.
Like I said, I'm not a CND member, and have never been. Not because I don't sympathise, just that I think that the Americans did the right thing in dropping atom bombs on Japan in 1945. Such a viewpoint is tantamount to blasphemy in CND circles. Peace activists can be surprisingly intolerant at times.
 I arrived at Marble Arch at noon, and made my way to Park Lane to join what appeared to be the head of the march. As contingents from the north and Scotland were still arriving, we had a long wait before the start of the march, and we were entertained by the incomparable Robb Johnson, a veteran folk singer, activist and Brentford FC supporter.

Anyway, we set off at last. Rednev and I met up, thanks to mobile phones and a bit of good luck. The march was from Marble Arch to Trafalgar Square, a walk of about 25 minutes normally, but yesterday took about 35 - not a bad pace for a large demonstration, which, some reports say, attracted about 100, 000 people. There were certainly some colourful characters on the march.

Besides the lady above, there was a large Scots contingent which included some SNP branches. Their chant was "Bairns not Burns". Quite what the Robert Burns societies will make of that, I have no idea. There was even a dancing leprechaun who attracted attention from the marchers.

Well, it takes all sorts to make a demo. I was relieved to see that the violent anarchist fringe, who I have seen in action before, did not attend in force on this occasion, although I did spot a couple of suspects in Trafalgar Square. When we arrived there, the sight was amazing. I have never seen Trafalgar Square fill up like it did. It was announced from the stage that the rear of the march had not even begun to leave Piccadilly yet. All speakers commented favourably on the numbers they saw before them, and it must have been gratifying to see such a good attendance.

As for the speakers, the most impressive for me were Nicola Sturgeon (who joined Scottish CND before she became a Scotnat), Leanne Woods, Plaid Cymru leader and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party. It was definitely a day for the ladies, including a young woman from Israel who represented the Israeli anti-nuclear lobby. There were many cogent and emotional points raised, but the most telling point for me was made by Nicola Sturgeon, who said that if Jeremy Corbyn swings the Labour Party against Trident, then the majority of political parties in the UK will be opposed to a UK nuclear deterrent. The CND dream might well be approaching reality.

As Rednev and the Merseysiders (not a group) had to be on the coach home by 5pm, we left at about 3.45, which meant I did not get to hear Jeremy Corbyn, but, thankfully, missed Tariq Ali. After a couple of pints, Nev found his coach and I found another pub and one for the road (or Tube in my case). Yesterday's Guardian reported the march as Britain's largest anti-nuclear march for a generation. All in all, it was a worthwhile experience for me and it should be a wake-up call for the Establishment - the sands could be starting to slip beneath their feet, and the world may be changing...well, maybe.

Teaching Assistants - Supply Teachers on the Cheap

I am often amazed at the slowness of this government to discover "matters of concern" in education, but this latest discovery takes the biscuit. As today's BBC web page sets out:

"Teacher shortages mean classroom support staff are doing work normally done by qualified teachers, suggests a survey of union members.

Some two-thirds of almost 700 classroom supervisors who responded felt they did the work of supply teachers, says the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
"This can only lead to lower educational standards," said ATL general secretary Mary Bousted.
The government said support staff should not be used to replace teachers."
Well put, but what surprises me is that it has taken so long for the government to find out; I personally have known about this for years. When the DFE brought in Planning, Preparation and Assessment Time (PPA) in 2005, it became normal practice in some schools to leave non-core subjects to be taught by Teaching Assistants (TAs) for one or two lessons while the teachers were on their PPA release time. As I did this myself, I can attest that all my TA colleagues worked very well, scrupulously following the plans that I left for them. When I retired from full-time work in 2011 and worked as a supply teacher for several years, I found the situation to be no different in any school I worked in. I even know of a London secondary school where security staff were used to cover classes, some years ago. No-one ever seemed to question this. Many schools appointed full-time PPA teachers, but a large number did not.
In the early stages of my 30-year full time career, there were no TAs; the teacher was responsible for all teaching and non-teaching tasks, which were time-consuming and arduous. Since the 90s,TAs have gradually grown in numbers and importance in schools. In fact, I don't think our schools could function without them.
For this reason, and because I have friends who continue as TAs, I think it worth examining more of the ATL's overdue discoveries. Back to the BBC item:
"Dr Bousted said teacher shortages, along with increasing pressure on school budgets, were leading to the use of support staff to replace teachers "in a way that was never intended".
"So rather than hiring a temporary teacher, schools are asking support staff to teach.
"They should not be asked to do it," said Dr Bousted."
This is true. Some schools, though, use TAs as supply teachers for no other reason than budgetary considerations - although they might well now use the teacher shortage as an excuse. In the event of teacher absence, through sickness, courses, etc, it is standard practice to employ a supply teacher to cover their absence. Some schools, however, in order to save money, as Dr Bousted says, cover their classes with TAs, as I know for a fact. Once again, I quote the BBC:
"Of almost 700 who answered questions on supervising classes for absent teachers, 72% of TAs asked said it was impossible to supervise without teaching some form of lesson.
And 64% felt their work as cover supervisors was indistinguishable from supply teaching."
Quite. It also needs to be said that any supply teacher would be better paid than a TA. And yes, I do know of schools where it is happening, but I am forced to be discreet. Nor do all Heads value and cherish their TAs - I am told of one school where the incoming Head slashed the TAs' lunch hour by 50%! Besides this, the practice of using TAs to cover lessons while teachers have their PPA time continues in many schools, although we now know that they should never be used in such a role.
Finally, let us look at the government response to this newly discovered scandal that everyone knew about.
"This survey shows that, sadly, support staff feel over-utilised and undervalued.
"It is driving experienced and valuable staff from the profession," said Dr Bousted.
A Department for Education spokeswoman said: "We trust heads, governors and academy trusts to plan their staffing.
"Support staff are best used when they add value to what teachers do, not when they replace them."
I am astonished at this; the DFE trusts schools with very little usually. The last three decades have seen unrelenting top-down pressure from successive governments and the DFE. Why was this matter overlooked? Don't watch this space for the answer. Already, offending heads, governors and academy trusts will be preparing their excuses and warning their TAs not to talk to the press. The long and tedious inquiry has begun.

Holocaust Memorial Day - Reflections and Memories

Back in the 1970s, as an active member of the Anti-Nazi League (ANL), like all members and supporters, I was involved in distributing posters, sticker and leaflets which depicted scenes from the Holocaust below a banner headline : "Never Again". This was part of a campaign against the National Front (NF) which we saw (rightly) as a neo-Nazi organisation with plans for Britain's ethnic minorities and their political opponents similar to those of Adolf Hitler's NSDAP (Nazis), i.e. mass murder.
Fortunately, the NF imploded at the end of the 70s, and never got to implement their policies. Undoubtedly, the campaigning by the ANL had played its part in this; even in the 70s, memories of the Holocaust and the crimes of the Nazis were still fresh in our national memory. Holocaust Memorial Day, chosen for the 27th January as the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army, is intended to remind future generations of the multitude of crimes committed durng the Holocaust, as well as honouring the Holocaust's victims.
Today, of course, is of particular poignancy to the Jewish people, who Hitler had marked down for total annihilation. We usually attribute the figure of six million to Jewish victims, but this is probably an underestimate. Thousands of infants and babies were killed before their births could be registered.
Even back in the 1970s, there were people who pointed out that there were millions of non-Jewish victims in the Holocaust. As the Huffington Post says:
"Historians estimate the total number of deaths to be 11 million, with the victims encompassing gay people, priests, gypsies, people with mental or physical disabilities, communists, trade unionists, Jehovah's Witnesses, anarchists, Poles and other Slavic peoples, and resistance fighters."
And we should remember them all, even though remembering can be traumatic. As Shakespeare's Macbeth says in Act 5, Scene 5, merely reading of Holocaust statistics and survivors' memories can leave you saying:
"I have supped full with horrors".
Here are just a few carefully chosen examples:

1. Approximately 220,000-500,000 Romanies (Gypsies) were killed during the Holocaust.
2. More than 870,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka with a staff of just 150 people. There were fewer than 100 known survivors of Treblinka.
3. In one infamous concentration camp experiment, newborn babies were taken away from nursing mothers to see how long they could survive without feeding.

And that's quite enough for a short blog item...

That's why we in the ANL campaigned under the slogan "Never Again!". The trouble is, it has happened again, albeit in circumstances we could never have anticipated. Pol Pot in Cambodia, between 1975 to 1979, oversaw the murder of about 1,700,000 people; Idi Amin of Uganda slaughtered 300 000; 900 000 were killed in Rwanda in 1994; 320 000 are estimated to have perished in the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2012.

Besides this, which is only a sample (click on link for full list), I was saddened to read in the Guardian and on the BBC website that hate crime shows no sign of disappearing. As the Guardian says today:

"A quarter of the British public have witnessed racial hate crime in the last year, according to research released to mark Holocaust Memorial Day as the millions who fell victim to genocide are commemorated".

We can only be grateful that the neo-Nazis have failed in their attempts to create a mass movement in this country. Efforts to counteract hate crime, though, must be stepped up, not by a successor to the ANL, but by all of us. Ethnic and religious minorities, asylum seekers, LGBT people and even the disabled are targets for hate crime. Just how bad this has become is borne out by statistics:

"Home Office statistics on recorded hate crime released in October showed a rise of 18% on the previous year. In 2014-15 there were 52,528 hate crimes recorded by police, compared with 44,471 hate crimes the year before.
Of those, 42,930 (83%) were hate crimes based on race, 5,597 (11%) were about sexual orientation, 3,254 (6%) were to do with religion, 2,508 (5%) were directed at disabled people and 605 (1%) were transgender hate crimes."
In sum, we must all become campaigners against hate crime; we owe it to the victims of all the Holocausts to prevent another.

The Guardian, the DWP and Unintended Consequences

"The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended." - so says the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, although we are all surely aware that this can happen, whatever course of action we follow. Or perhaps not - the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the last century and the disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in this are examples to the contrary. Failure to think ahead before proceeding with well intentioned actions, as the old saying says, has paved the way to Hell itself.
Recently, I came upon two Guardian articles, written with the most laudable of aims, which could well have unforeseen repercussions.
One, by Diane Taylor, dated on the 6th of this month, is titled: "The DWP – a bureaucracy of outstanding brutality"; the other, by Aisha Gani and written on the 7th January is titled "DWP told woman she was not ill enough for benefit on day she died". Both are well written, and sincerely concerned for the victims of apparent DWP malevolence.
Diane Taylor's article is a moving account of how a young African woman she calls Hawa, illegally trafficked to the UK as a sex slave, escaped, was granted asylum, and turned to the DWP for support, only to be denied benefits. Taylor says:
"It eventually emerged that Hawa’s benefits had been pulled because she had not shown the DWP a letter she had recently received from the Home Office extending her refugee status into indefinite leave to remain. But why were her benefits being axed for failing to comply with an instruction that was never received? It was explained that the benefits could be applied for again but the process would have to start from scratch".
Aisha Gani's article covers a subject that featured more widely in the media: the outrageous case of tragic 67-year old Dawn Amos whose sickness benefit was cancelled in a letter sent on the day she died. Gani writes:
"Sent on the day she died, it notified her that her allowance was being withdrawn based on “treatment, medication, symptoms and test results”.
Both these cases are deplorable, and I completely support what these journalists have done. What worries me is that these articles, and others like them, could well have highly unpleasant consequences for ordinary DWP staff.
Now, if you type "Guardian" and "DWP" into Google, you will see that the Guardian has run a number of articles attacking the actions of the DWP and the politicians whose policies they implement. They are unique in doing this, as right-wing newspapers (guess who!) usually attack the DWP for lavishing huge amounts in benefits on scroungers, migrants and bloody foreigners in general. The problem is, as I see it, that it is the front line DWP staff who have to follow the directives handed down to them and suffer the backlash from the public.
In May 2014, I posted an article - "Biting the Helping Hand"- which looked at violence against public sector workers. I looked at the rate of assaults on teachers, police, NHS staff, and the DWP. Assaults against DWP staff at that time were showing an increase, but I have been unable to locate figures for 2015. With apologies for this, I quote myself here:
"The DWP's own stats showed staff reported 476 assaults in 2012/13 - up from 228 in 2009/10, before the coalition took power and began changing the benefits system...Of the 476 assaults reported last year, 80 resulted in cuts and bruises and 23 in an injury greater than a cut or a bruise..."
I have written about this since, but omitted to describe the effect that these incidents have on DWP staff. From "The Sunday Post" of two years' ago, I found this:
"Policies to slash the benefits bill have led to a rise in assaults. Increasing violence in job centres is leaving staff scared to go to work...Last year alone there were more than 20,000 attacks."
I am not suggesting that Diane Taylor, Aisha Gani and other Guardian journalists are inciting these attacks or condoning them, but I wish they would make a distinction between politicians who frame policy, senior staff who order that policy to be carried out, and the poor staff at the sharp end who have to follow their directives. As a Guardian reader of many years sitting and standing, I expect far better.

David Bowie, Music, and the National Front

No-one takes the National Front (NF) seriously these days. They are estimated to have no more than 400 active members and, as Hope not Hate comments:
"Few of the NF’s branches have ready access to party materials and the party is often seen as a drinking club".
That is welcome news, but things were not always like this. Back in the 1970s, the NF were seen as an approaching menace, growing in number, influence and credibility by holding provocative street marches, rowdy public meetings and recruiting soccer hooligans. At times, and especially in the violent street confrontations that took place, it was possible to believe we lived in Weimar Britain, facing a neo-Nazi takeover. I was in the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) at the time, largely because they were - to their credit - spearheading the campaign against the NF, widening the base of the campaign by founding the Anti-Nazi League (ANL) and Rock Against Racism (RAR). Some pundits will have it that Mrs Thatcher caused the NF's demise by her restrictions on immigration. Anyone, like me, who took part in any of the many events organised all over Britain by ANL and RAR at that time, finds that hard to swallow. In 1978, they held a joint rally and music festival in Victoria Park, Hackney, which starred anti-fascist bands such as The Clash, The Tom Robinson Band and Sham 69. I was there, and well remember the exhilaration of the event. I cannot bring myself to believe that all the activism of those times had no effect. Or perhaps I'm just being sentimental?
RAR began because of the declarations of support for Fascism and racism by three leading musicians. One of these musicians was Eric Clapton, who, drunk on stage in Birmingham, August 1976, praised Enoch Powell and told the audience to "get the coons out of Britain". A number of times during the concert, Clapton shouted "Keep Britain White!" - an NF slogan. (Clapton has never lost his admiration for Powell). Another singer listed by RAR was Rod Stewart, and the third - of interest here - was David Bowie. At the time, there was a rumour that one of these three was secretly financing the NF, but this was never proven.
David Bowie went further to the Right in his statements. The eulogies written about him since his recent death (January 10) praise him for many things. His individualism, his ambivalent sexuality and flouting of the dull conventions of 60s and 70s Britain, would appear to make him, as Rod Liddle has said in "The Spectator":
"...  a sort of combination of Harvey Milk and Peter Tatchell rolled into one: a fearless fighter for LGBT rights, pushing back the barriers of conservative morality and heralding, almost single-handedly, a brave new world of equality for gays, transgendered persons, bisexuals, etc."
It comes a shock to learn that Bowie:
1. In 1975, said that Britain needed a good dose of fascism.
2. Again at that time, he said: ‘I believe very strongly in fascism… Adolf Hitler was one of the first rock stars."
3. On the moral decay he believed he saw in Britain at that time: ‘You’ve got to have an extreme right-wing front come up and sweep everything off its feet and tidy everything up."
There were unconfirmed rumours that he had been caught with Nazi literature in his luggage by Swedish customs. There were also reports that he had been photographed giving Nazi salutes in one of his personas - the Great White Duke. As the Jewish Chronicle says:
"As the Duke, Bowie was known to make pro-fascist comments, praising nationalism and Hitler in interviews. He subsequently blamed heavy drug use for his behaviour."
He also blamed his persona for having led him into making extremist statements. This is a remarkable thing to say, rather like Steve Coogan blaming Alan Partridge for his (Coogan's) getting a job as a TV presenter.
And Bowie survived this storm - why? Some artists would have been finished by such events, but he bounced back. One reason could be that no-one really believed Bowie to mean what he was saying. And he didn't - he went on to marry an African woman and father a mixed race child, on whom he doted. He was a great supporter of Live Aid and a huge admirer of black funk and soul  music. He recently teamed up with P Diddy to re-record "This is not America". These are not the actions of a hard line national socialist, but Bowie should have counted himself lucky to have survived as a performer.
If all this is relevant, it shows the power of Bowie to change his personas, his musical styles, his lyric content and infuse them all with enduring passion. His early tracks still sound as fresh and original as they did when he first began, even the "Laughing Gnome". He went from being an Anthony Newley clone to an androgenous sex god, to a diamond dog, then a Great White Duke, then a guy in the group ("The Tin Machine") to a musical recluse. He could sing rock, blues, soul, funk, ballads and Christmas songs (with Bing Crosby). He even played saxophone on a Steeleye Span album track.
I can only wonder: did all these fluctuations reflect a psychological defence mechanism which he developed from childhood? Perhaps he only felt comfortable when he pretended to be someone else? Also, in his lyrics, marvellous as they are, there seems to be an affinity with outsiders. Major Tom, Ziggy Stardust, Jean Genet ("Jean Genie"), the narrator in "Where Are We Now?" (off the penultimate album, "The Next Day") are all outsiders in some way. Did Bowie think of himself in these terms? Was he the kind of person who could feel lonely in a crowded room? I shall never know, and he might well have been none of these things. His self-imposed isolation of recent years might hint at this, however, as well as the opaque nature of some of his more recent lyrics.
This is all speculation, of course. What can definitely be said is that the worlds of music and art have lost a towering genius. Perhaps the most significant of the many tributes to Bowie came from the first British astronaut, Major Tim Peake, who tweeted from space:
 "Saddened to hear David Bowie has lost his battle with cancer – his music was an inspiration to many."
I think it fair to say: Major Tom's creator would have liked that.

The Rhymes & Routes Christmas Message 2015

By the time we reach December, it seems as though Christmas has already been around for months. That's because it has: I saw my first Christmas merchandise in September. In 1956, the science fiction writer Frederik Pohl published a short story called “Happy Birthday, Dear Jesus.” It's set in a future when September is the height of the Christmas season, and the shopping frenzy has only another three months to go. On Christmas night, everyone removes all traces of Christmas to prepare for the next selling season, unaware, or perhaps uncaring, of the fact that Christmas Day is meant to be the beginning of the holiday, not the end. It's a tale that seems increasingly prescient as time goes by.

Religious types sometimes complain that all the shopping and partying detracts from what they call the true meaning of Christmas, but even they know that Jesus wasn't really born in December and that his year of birth is variously estimated between 2 BC and 5 BC. It's a bit rich of them to complain about Christmas being hijacked when the early Fathers of the Church themselves decided to claim pagan winter festivals, such as Saturnalia and Yule, as their own. Christians are fully entitled to celebrate at this time of year, but they cannot claim exclusive rights.

This is all by the by. There are nasty elements in our society who can only see this time of year, irrespective of whether it's a time of religious celebration or of parties and materialism, as an opportunity to further their own malicious ends. They surreptitiously spread the message that it is politically incorrect to celebrate Christmas in case it offends people with other religions, and many ordinary people fall into the trap of believing it. We hear stories of Christmas being “banned” by local councils and schools; such tales are almost always a deliberate misinterpretation of the facts, which are usually quite innocent when properly examined.

This is a complete lie

In recent years, we see people posting Christmas pictures, such as nativity scenes, on Facebook with messages stating that Facebook is trying to get such scenes removed because they are offensive, so let's keep posting them to prove them wrong. This is a malicious falsehood without the slightest basis in fact and is a deliberate attempt to make people think that the symbols of their culture and their celebrations are under attack. Why would anyone tell such lies? Because they wish to stir up ill-feeling against religious minorities in this country. They are extreme right-wing racists who aim to get ordinary people unnecessarily worried so that they become unwitting allies by making them think that everything that defines their way of life is under attack. Unfortunately, I've seen too many ordinary decent people fall for this malevolent nonsense.

The truth is entirely different.

Ten years ago, in my capacity of union rep, I visited one of my members at his home in December to discuss his personal case. In the corner of the living room there was what I took to be the family Hindu shrine, and while we were talking, his younger sisters were decorating a Christmas tree, and doing a really good job too: it was all looking very festive. Inspired by the sight of young Hindu girls putting up Christmas decorations, I said to him as I left, “Happy Christmas”, and he replied similarly. No offence intended, or taken.

In 2013, the Muslim Council of Britain produced two cards wishing everyone a HappyChristmas, along with a statement that said: "Who wants to ban Christmas? Not Muslims. So put up the Christmas tree, prepare the roast, wrap the presents and spread the Yuletide joy. None of us will be offended if you go ahead and enjoy the Christmas cheer. We'll remember too the blessings Jesus gave to all of us. He was, after all, an important Prophet to Muslims.”

There you have it: it is not politically incorrect to celebrate Christmas, and no one really minds if you do. Living in a multicultural society doesn't mean anyone has to surrender their own way of life. It simply means we have various different cultures living side by side, and there is absolutely no reason why, with good will, we can't do that in peace and harmony. Surely that is at the heart of the Christmas message.

So whatever your religious beliefs, or if you have none at all, I sincerely wish you a Happy Christmas, however you choose to enjoy it!

RedNev

alias Nev Grundy

OFSTED, Standards and the Pantomime Season

As Christmas approaches, the pantomime season begins. Pantomime was once regarded with scorn by serious actors, but it has grown in esteem among the acting fraternity, and it is now common to see thespian luminaries such as Sir Ian McKellen, Jo Brand, David Hasselhoff and even Anne Widdicombe (she was a Fairy Godmother) tread the boards in productions such as Aladdin, Puss in Boots, Cinderella and Jack and the Beanstalk. I think it a good idea, then, to continue the trend by casting a pantomime with leading figures from politics and education. No better candidates for pantomime can be found than the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, who has recently been passing comments and judgements on secondary schools in the North West and the Midlands.
In the annual OFSTED report (a sort of round robin Christmas card), the BBC comments:
"... the report highlights concerns about a north-south gap - with stronger GCSE results in London and the South and weaker results in parts of the North and Midlands.
"This gap is a worrying one. We don't want to see a divided country after the age of 11," Sir Michael said.
More than 400,000 pupils in the North and Midlands go to a school that is "less than good", and the Ofsted chief said this could not be "explained away" by higher levels of deprivation.
Primary schools were much more successful than secondary, Sir Michael said, despite facing similar problems of social disadvantage".
Sir Michael, you see, has anticipated the obvious criticism: the fact that many areas in the North and Midlands are areas of severe poverty and social deprivation. This grossly obvious point, please note, is regarded as merely "explaining away" the situation.
Now, in my casting of the OFSTED panto, my initial casting for Sir Michael was as the rear end of a pantomime horse. This is because his apparently logical conclusions are not as accurate as might at first be believed.
Firstly, schools in areas of deprivation tend not to be as well resourced as those in more prosperous areas. I have personal experience of this. As a Religious Education (R.E.) co-ordinator in a Liverpool primary school in the 90s, I was allotted an annual budget of about £50. When I took on the same role in a West London primary school in the noughties, I was allowed nearly a thousand pounds! And, please remember, R.E. is generally regarded as a Cinderella subject in primary schools (no irony intended). Core subjects received much more funding. Resources are vital to all schools in order to help in the delivery of the curriculum, and this is a factor that OFSTED should have accounted for in their report.
Another point missed by Sir Michael and his acolytes is the fact that many secondary schools in deprived areas find it difficult to motivate pupils to work for examination success when they can see no job at the end of it. It may be argued that there are deprived areas in the South, but that does not hold water - in the South, and London especially, there is always the chance of some kind of a job. This is not the case in Skelmersdale, Toxteth or Rotherham.
There is also the fact (ignored by Sir Michael) that teaching is increasingly becoming a good profession to leave. As the BBC article says:
"Head teachers' leader Brian Lightman linked the north-south gap to the "very serious difficulties" that schools faced in recruiting teachers.
Mr Lightman, head of the ASCL head teachers' union, said schools in challenging areas were finding it "incredibly hard" to find teachers in some shortage subjects, particularly affecting schools in some parts of the North...
Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said: "More needs to be done to deliver educational excellence everywhere."
Mrs Morgan, significantly, shows no recognition of the obvious problem, and perforce offers no solution to it - the fact that hazards such as classroom violence, OFSTED pressure and a pay freeze are making teaching an unpleasant job, leading to a teacher exodus and grave difficulties in teacher recruitment. Max Fischel, an assistant headteacher, said in a letter to the Guardian:
" Anyone (like me) who has tried to recruit teaching staff over the past couple of years knows there is already a desperate shortage of qualified teachers out there...
Headteachers’ and governors’ relentless pursuit of “outstanding” ratings from Ofsted is a major factor in driving teachers away; pressure on classroom teachers to churn out data which Ofsted will like is not only pointless but anti-education, yet it is the mantra across the country. In the 20-odd years since its invention, Ofsted has cost hundreds of millions, but has done nothing to improve education."
So - where does this leave my OFSTED pantomime? Well, I have chosen Aladdin as a suitable play. The role of Aladdin goes to Mrs Nicky Morgan, Abanazar can be played by Michael Gove, and Sir Michael Wilshaw can be Widow Twankey. The role of Wishy Washy, Aladdin's brother who works devotedly in the laundry without reward or recognition, can go to any ordinary teacher who gets treated in their jobs in exactly the same way. I have yet to cast someone to play the Genie of the Lamp, though. Can anyone suggest a suitable candidate?

Syria, Bombing and Avoiding the Terrorist Trap

I think it fair to say, that if there is one issue that we have heard enough about this week, it's the House of Commons vote to bomb Syria.  Not that it has been uninteresting - far from it. The marathon debate on Tuesday made for riveting viewing, with many good speeches made by proponents of both sides of the argument. There is no point in my revisiting the arguments here, except to express my own view on the vote and its consequences.
For me, the crucial question is: how effective are the RAF bombing attacks going to be? After all, many other countries have been bombing ISIS in Syria for months, and it has not stopped attacks in Tunisia, Paris and, now, San Bernardino, California. Even President Assad has said that the bombing raids have had a nugatory effect on ISIS, who have continued to advance in Syria. There has been much discussion on how to deal ISIS a severe economic blow, and the RAF has joined in the attacks on oil installations with gusto and, I'm sure, with great skill. But knocking out oil production is not as simple as it sounds - especially since ISIS have scattered oil production over a wide area, with many small oil pumps that will be impossible to eliminate.
There is also the risk of alienating civilians. This is so obvious now, that I won't bang on about it too much. All I will say is that ISIS must be looking forward to an influx of new recruits, rather like the IRA experienced after Bloody Sunday in 1972.
The only benefit from the Commons' decision will be to reassure our allies that we will support them if they are attacked - and we can now feel free to ask for their co-operation if we suffer terrorist atrocities. However, as Gerald Kaufman MP said, our bombing runs will be little more than a gesture, as we, the nation that launched 1000-bomber raids against Nazi Germany in WW2, will be providing less than 15 planes. And, as some anti-bombing Tory MPs pointed out, bombing alone, unaccompanied by ground troops, will be largely ineffective.
Reading the above, you might think that I am opposed to the bombing of ISIS in Syria. It will come as a surprise to some people to learn that I am not against bombing ISIS - it is a vile organisation that must be extirpated from the face of the earth. I listened with sympathy to the anti-bombing lobby, but they failed to present a viable alternative strategy. Whether we like it or not, we are at war with ISIS, and we must take decisive action against them. The key word, for me, then, is decisive. I believe that we must assess where bombing has been effective, and that the RAF would be better employed in these areas. There is one area where bombing has been successful, and that is ground support for ground troops - especially the Kurds. With air support, the Kurds have gallantly taken the war to ISIS, recapturing much ground and many villages. I support bombing if it is to be used effectively; had I been an MP on Tuesday, I would have voted for it.
At this point, someone might well be looking at my previous posts about terrorism and terrorist strategy and saying: "Hang on - aren't you falling into the trap of doing what the terrorists want us to do?" Well, no, I'm not. ISIS are counting on indiscriminate bombing in Syria/Iraq and a rise in Islamophobia in Europe and the USA. The former would be a huge blunder and the latter, totally wrong (even though there are worrying signs of an increase here). Nevertheless, ISIS must be destroyed intellectually, strategically and physically, even if we have to make alliances with detestable states and individuals. After all, we've done it before.

UK Bombs Syria? - a Ridiculous Mouse

There is a Latin proverb: "Parturiant montes, nascetur ridiculus mus" - "The mountains are in labour, and a ridiculous mouse will be born". More prosaically put, "Big fuss, small result". No better example of the truth of this can be found than the present controversy over the projected UK bombing of ISIS targets in Syria. Despite argument and counter-argument, the fact remains that UK involvement in this campaign would be very limited; we do not have the aircraft to make more than a token contribution. There also is the fact that such actions are not proving very successful. When France promised retaliation for the hideous Paris atrocities and launched air strikes against ISIS bases, ISIS simply evacuated their bases. They are not going to sit in static positions, waiting for us to bomb them. They have been bombed relentlessly for a long time and still control large swathes of territory. Nor have they been prevented from launching attacks against innocent people in Europe and North Africa.

This is not to say that air strikes have been pointless; they have certainly helped to stop the ISIS advance and supported anti-ISIS offensives, particularly by the gallant Kurds. It does, however, point to the limitations of what can be achieved by air power alone. As a US military adviser said during the Viet-Nam War:
"Trying to win a guerrilla war by aerial bombing is like trying to delouse yourself with a club"
Even in conventional war, it can prove controversial. There is a strange convergence of opinion on the Allied bombing of Germany in WW2. The pacifist Left and neo-Nazi revisionist "historians" howl with condemnation of this offensive, conveniently forgetting the fact that the German Luftwaffe were every bit as merciless wherever their invading forces went. But the ruthlessness of both sides failed in one crucial aim: they did not succeed in destroying the morale of the enemy civilian populations, despite many thousands on both sides being killed. The USA bombed North Viet-Nam for years during the Viet-Nam War, only to fail in the same way. As a North Vietnamese officer said after the war:
“The Americans thought that the more bombs they dropped, the quicker we would fall to our knees and surrender. But the bombs heightened rather than dampened our spirit.”
The fanatics of ISIS are unlikely to be any different, and the killing of innocent non-ISIS civilians could well be counter-productive.
The only way out of this, I think, is to co-ordinate air power with ground offensives. As ISIS has succeeded in alienating all the major nations. It ought to be possible now for united action against ISIS, with or without the deployment of ground troops (special forces are already there). How possible is it? Well, the shooting down of a Russian aircraft by the Turks does not bode well for unity. ISIS must be dancing around in glee.

The Paris Massacres - Triumph Through the Tears?

My mind, like that of every sane person, is still in a state of shock following last Friday's atrocities in Paris. For so long now, I have been commenting upon terrorism, terrorists and their methods. This year alone, we have seen innocents slaughtered in Paris, Tunisia, Egypt and finally Paris again. Yet again, I find myself struggling to analyse the aims and intentions of Jihadi killers - usually fanatics from ISIS. I shall do so again here, as I feel I owe it to the victims of these attacks to try and make some sense of such despicable crimes. So much has been said already in the media, but I shall make an attempt to bring a personal perspective .
I was pleased, if by no means happy, to see a terrorism expert recognise that the Paris attacks are meant as a provocation. He rightly said that ISIS want to bait France into a violent retaliation, either militarily in Syria, or by attacks on the Muslim community in France. This strategy, which I have written about before, is intended to further resentment against French society among already alienated Muslim youth, and thus bring Jihadi groups more recruits.
These crimes are also attacks upon European culture. Isis hate the very idea of people enjoying themselves on beaches, in concerts, restaurants, sports fixtures and concert halls, most of which were viciously assaulted on Friday evening. As Billy Bragg said on Twitter:
"This is an attack on anyone who goes to a bar, to a restaurant, to a gig or a game. Abhorrent."
When David Cameron talks of ISIS being an existential threat to us, this is what he means. Their aim is to create a miserable, joyless existence for all humanity, and they are prepared to inhumanly slaughter innocent people of all ages to do it. They are also prepared to die to bring this about; only one terrorist was shot dead on Friday evening, while the other seven committed suicide. This is because, like Hitler's Einsatzgruppen or Stalin's NKVD, they believed they were doing the right thing. We must not lose sight of that. You cannot change beliefs unless you understand them - especially fanatical beliefs.
These, I believe, are the main aims of ISIS strategy, but there is also the question of their tactics. As has been noted, ISIS are slowly giving ground militarily in Syria and Iraq, and as a tactic, and perhaps also a morale raiser, are launching increasingly bloody attacks on the European mainland. As we have seen, they like "soft" targets, where there is little or no chance of effective resistance. By massacring unarmed civilians, they are baiting European governments, effectively saying:
"See how weak you are. Despite your military muscle, you cannot protect your own citizens from us."
To their (twisted) minds, last Friday in Paris will be a great achievement. For the loss of just eight "martyrs", they have killed 129 "infidels", and wounded hundreds more. They might be losing on one front, but they will seek victory on other "fronts". It is not too far-fetched to say that all of us in Europe are on the front line against terrorism.
One aspect of these crimes puzzled me: how is it possible for terrorists in France to acquire AK-47 rifles so easily? The AK-47 has been a favourite with guerilla and terror groups for some time - the IRA called it "the widowmaker". France, like the UK, has strict gun laws. As Al-Jazeera says:
"In France individuals, except for certified collectors, are prohibited from owning military-class arms. Those hoping to possess a handgun or hunting rifle in France must pass a stringent background check and a mental health evaluation and must obtain a license."
The answer would appear to be: smuggling and the Internet. It is only too easy to move illegal goods and weapons around Europe. I am reliably informed, for example, that it is possible to drive from Brussels to Paris without any customs checks. The source of these weapons appears to be so-called "failed states" and conflict zones. Again, as Al-Jazeera says:
" Weapons left over from wars are also often trafficked across borders, which was the case after the Libyan revolution in 2011. The New York–based nonprofit Foreign Policy Association says that there are millions of weapons from the conflict and there is little regulation by government officials. "
The "dark internet" is also a means to an end of buying illegal guns. But this is not a French problem; it is a European problem, and we must unite to deal with it.
Personally, I see no alternative now other than to eradicate ISIS by all means necessary - even if we have to forge alliances with Russia and (I can't believe I'm saying this) Iran. Even then, we are in for a long, hard battle, and ISIS will fight like cornered rats on steroids. Nonetheless, they must be defeated, despite tragedies like that in Paris on Friday evening. I suppose people will object to this view by pointing out, correctly, that ISIS only came into being because of the invasion of Iraq. That does not preclude action by us now - if we caused the problem, then we should help to solve it.
I don't know if anyone in Paris or France will get to read this blog, but, should they do so, I wish to send my condolences and those of my regular contributors and readers. Our hearts are with you, and we know that the City of Light will be victorious over the forces of darkness. Through your tears, you will triumph. As your national hymn says:
"Aux armes, citoyens !
Formez vos bataillons !
Marchons ! Marchons !
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons !"