Democracy Under Attack: From the Capitol to the Mash Report

 2021 hasn't been a good year for democracy. On January 6, we saw the appalling invasion of the US Capitol by anti-democratic demonstrators who could not accept the result of the bitterly-contested US Presidential Election. I have a lot of good friends in the US, and I know that many Americans thought this disgraceful event made them a laughing stock around the world. As far as I was concerned, there was nothing to laugh at; this attack on American democracy heralded the rise of an organised force that was willing to resort to violence for political ends. What I did not realise was that this was the beginning of an assault on democratic freedoms around the world. 

Dawn on February 1st saw an even more violent onslaught against democracy: the military takeover in Myanmar which saw the deposing of the democratically elected government headed by Aung San Suu Kyi, who was forcibly detained, along with around 400 MPs. To the credit of the people of Myanmar, there have been widespread protests, both within and outside Myanmar. The military regime has responded by using lethal force. 38 protesters were killed on one day, the BBC reported on March 3rd. So far, despite internal opposition and foreign condemnation, the regime has not relaxed its grip. As the BBC says:

"The coup and the violent suppression of protests that followed have led to international condemnation, which Myanmar's military has so far ignored."

Switching continents, we don't need to look too far to find a parallel to the Myanmar repression in the land of Venezuela. I had already been told that Christians were being victimised, but Human Rights Watch has stated this year, following a visit from the United Nations Human Rights Council in September last year:

"The government of Nicolás Maduro and its security forces are responsible for extrajudicial executions and short-term forced disappearances and have jailed opponents, prosecuted civilians in military courts, tortured detainees, and cracked down on protesters. They used a state of emergency implemented in response to Covid-19 as an excuse to punish dissent and intensify their control over the population."

Now, of course, there are many other states around the world that violate human rights. Off the cuff, I can think of far too many - starting with Iran. However, these countries have continuing histories of such violations; the three countries mentioned above were regarded as exceptions. Venezuela was celebrated as a shining example of socialist democracy; Myanmar was regarded as an emerging democratic Asian state; the USA is thought of as  the world's great home of liberty and democracy. Fortunately, the anti-democratic forces in the USA are (hopefully) held in check. We can only hope that matters improve in Myanmar and Venezuela.

If what I have written above sounds like finger-pointing, it is meant as nothing of the kind. There is a fourth country where democracy is under pressure, and that's here in the United Kingdom. We were brought up sharp over the weekend by the clumsy police action against the London vigil for the tragic young murder victim, Sarah Everard.

Unlike most commentators, I regard the events of last Monday as a PR disaster, rather than a direct assault on democratic rights per se. Unlike other vigils, the London protest was badly handled, as opposed to vigils elsewhere which went well. Nonetheless, images of the police action now stand as images of the right to protest being trampled upon.

Far more concerning for civil liberties is the Police Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament. Some of the new laws are not repressive in principle, but could well become  so in practice. As The Good Law Project says:

"Clauses 54 and 55 amend sections 12 and 14 respectively of the Public Order Act, which deal with public processions and public assemblies. These raise two grounds for concern – first, they significantly expand the police’s ability to place conditions on the right to public processions and assemblies and second they leave entirely open what those conditions can be."

My understanding of the public order sections indicates that the police will have the right to close down a protest if it becomes too noisy. Anyone who has attended a demonstration knows that this is absurd; chanting slogans is an integral part of public protest.

The interpretations of these new laws will be very much up to the police officers on the spot. The implications of this are huge:

"As Professor David Meads (who specialises in the law of protest and public order) observed: “Th(e) real problem for protesters and activists is not (always) so much the law – the legal rules and position – but how this is implemented and interpreted on the ground by officers; generally speaking the wider framed the law, even more widely used will be the operational power”.

Turning to the TV programme, "The Mash Report", which is being axed by the BBC, it might seem almost frivolous, compared to the outrages perpetrated in the Capitol and the shooting down of unarmed demonstrators in Myanmar. It might be the thin end of the wedge, but is still part of what I regard as a right-wing campaign against public dissent. The Mash report is a satirical programme, and is hated by the right-wing press. The Sun says it is:

"preachy, self-righteous [and] left-wing".

Knowing "The Sun" like we do, it is the last of those three that concerns them the most. Now, this government does not like criticism, and regards the BBC as a thorn in its side (if only it was!). The new director-general of the BBC, Tim Davie, was favoured candidate for the job by Boris Johnson, and seems to be showing us why. As the "Daily Telegraph" said last year:

"The BBC’s new director-general is planning to tackle perceived Left-wing bias in the corporation's comedy".
 "Have I Got News For You", a star programme for 30 years on BBC 1, which satirises political figures of all hues, will inevitably be a future target for Johnson and Davie. It will not stop there, but will continue until the present government renders the Beeb "impartial" (aka, neutered). 

All told, then, a bad year for democracy, and we need to consider: how can we protect it?

Harry, Meghan and Elephants in the Room

 

As lockdown continues, television has become even more important for keeping us informed. Now, as the world knows, the Oprah interview with Harry and Meghan has aroused massive media activity which has divided the British public and pundits into three broad opinion groups: Harry and Meghan Partisans (HMP), Buckingham Palace Loyalists (BPL) and Not Very Interested (NVI).

I personally belong to the latter group, but am not so naïve as to ignore this matter altogether. The Harry/Meghan issue raises the problem of several elephants in the room when it comes to wider British society. At first, I thought there was just one (racism), but reflection on Meghan's words ( yes, I watched some of the interview) pointed to two more. I shall look at these three elephants in turn. It's a mistake to ignore elephants without seeking to control them...

The first is the issue of social media. The evidence of direct racism against Meghan is disputed. Piers Morgan, the now ex-presenter on Good Morning Britain, said he could find none, as has the Society of Editors. This is challenged, of course, by many journalists. As The Independent says: 

"Even before the wedding, Harry had complained in 2017 about the “racial undertones” in British media coverage of his then-girlfriend. One tabloid columnist referred to Meghan’s “exotic” DNA. A Daily Mail headline described her Los Angeles roots as ”(almost) straight outta Compton” and claimed she came from a “gang-scarred” neighbourhood. A TV host described Meghan as “uppity.”

What was not noticed by Oprah, or anyone else, was the fact that Meghan spoke of horrendous racist abuse and death threats on social media. As this type of harassment and trolling is a worldwide problem, we should remember how distressing it can be for the victim. If Meghan was stuck in a palace all day, feeling isolated, it could well have affected her mental well-being. As such, she illustrates a problem that we must deal with. Online persecution is bad for anyone's mental health.

Which leads me to the second elephant in the room; the fact that Meghan spoke of feeling suicidal. Piers Morgan, among others, said that he did not believe her claim. I find it unlikely that she would invent something as traumatic as this, but I don't have any evidence either way. Whatever we believe , this is a serious matter, which impacts upon every society, not just the UK. If a member of the Royal Family can admit to mental health problems - and suicidal feelings are just such a problem - we need to recognise that mental illness is a fact of our lives that we must stop trying to hide. It is far more common that we care to admit, and this must change. Mentalhealth.org.uk points out: 

"Mixed anxiety & depression is the most common mental disorder in Britain, with 7.8% of people meeting criteria for diagnosis.
4-10% of people in England will experience depression in their lifetime.
Common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety are distributed according to a gradient of economic disadvantage across society. The poorer and more disadvantaged are disproportionately affected by common mental health problems and their adverse consequences.
Mixed anxiety and depression has been estimated to cause one fifth of days lost from work in Britain.
One adult in six had a common mental disorder."

Meghan might have done us all a favour by owning up to problems of this kind. Hopefully, more people who suffer in silence will now feel empowered enough to talk about their problems and seek professional help.

The final elephant, as if you hadn't guessed, is racism. This, of course, is a wider issue than the racism directed against the Duchess of Sussex. The Oprah interview went out on Monday evening on ITV, but another programme went out on Monday on BBC 1 which dealt with this issue in more detail: "Let's Talk About Race", presented by BBC breakfast host, Naga Munchetty.  As a white guy in a mixed marriage, I was pretty depressed at some of the stories I heard in the programme. There was Munchetty's own experience when younger: 

"I have experienced racism. You never forget the first time you hear that painful and distressing word. I was seven, when someone I thought was a friend at school, told me we could no longer hang out. They used the P-word, making clear the reason was because of the colour of my skin".

There was a chilling contribution from a black East ender, Jason: 

"I also met Jason, a black man born and raised in east London. He remembers his mum being chased by the National Front and shot with a pellet gun in her leg. He says she still has a scar. He tells me that the racism he experiences today is different, not as overt or blatant, but more under the surface, and no better. "There's no way you can feel or live my life unless you have that shade of skin."

"The Conversation.com" points to some evidence of the persistence of racism in our society from a survey it conducted: 

"We asked whether interviewees agreed that “some races or ethnic groups are born less intelligent than others” and found that 18% of the British public agreed with the statement. We also asked whether “some races or ethnic groups are born harder working than others”, to which a substantially larger percentage – 44% – said yes".

This former statement angers me. As someone who taught for the better part of 34 years in multicultural schools, I know that the first trope is complete rubbish. As for the second, the bigots who hold this ignorant, racist view should reckon with the fact that many of our dedicated NHS staff who have behaved so magnificently during the pandemic come from BAME backgrounds.

These are the three main issues arising from the Oprah interview that I believe have relevance for us. It was interesting how Thomas Markle, Meghan's father, said that he did not believe that the Royal Family or the British people were racist (he thought that California was, but didn't say how he knew). He might be correct about the Royal Family but, as I know and the evidence shows, racism does have a presence in our society. I believe that it powered the Leave campaign  and has increased since the referendum. As one young activist said in the Naga Munchetty programme:

"It's no longer enough to be non-racist; we must all become anti-racist".

Thomas Markle - now a neighbour to Harry and Meghan. A 70-mile drive lies between them

Shamima Begum - Justice and Revenge

 

Well, I must begin by owning up to a mistake. Back in February, 2019, I was waffling away confidently about how sure I was that Shamima Begum (pictured above) would eventually return to Britain. I confidently declared that: 

"...no person can be made stateless. This, together with her family's impassioned appeals for her return, some sympathetic voices in Parliament and some of the media surely points to the probability of her return in the near future".

Well, I got that wrong. As we know, the Supreme Court has ruled that her human rights were not breached when she was refused entry to the United Kingdom and that she cannot return to fight her citizenship case. The president of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, said: 

"The Supreme Court unanimously allows all of the home secretary's appeals and dismisses Ms Begum's cross-appeal."

Commenting upon the Court of Appeal's verdict allowing her return, he further said, according to the BBC: 

"He said the Court of Appeal's judgment "did not give the home secretary's assessment the respect which it should have received" given the role's "responsibility for making such assessments" and accountability to parliament".

So, for the time being, and perhaps for the rest of her life, Shamima Begum and her child remain in a Syrian detention camp. Now, I am well aware that many people will welcome the Supreme Court's ruling. However, to my surprise, I have found that there is a cross-section of political opinion from Right to Left that is disturbed by the court's verdict. Amanda Platell, the Daily Mail columnist , showed surprising compassion when she said: 

"Begum has now lost three babies to starvation and pneumonia. She is living under armed guard, in conditions far more squalid than she would face in any British prison. Her husband — an equally idiotic Dutch-born jihadi — is in jail. Her family cannot see her.
Lord alive, what kind of risk does this 21-year-old — who would surely be watched closely by the authorities and the country at large were she ever to come home — pose?"

Quite right - but I never expected to agree with a Daily Mail columnist! Even David Davis, M.P. (no liberal) was quoted in the Hull Daily Mail as saying on Twitter:

"Disappointing verdict in the Supreme Court. Regardless of what individuals like Shamima Begum have done, the UK cannot simply wash our hands of Brits in the Syrian camps. The correct approach would be to return them to the UK to answer for their crimes".

That statement came as another surprise to me. Perceptively, The Guardian commented:

"While the UK government believes that Ms Begum’s return would go against the public interest, the opposite is true. To prevent similar things from happening in the future, it is important to understand how a schoolgirl became radicalised..."

If Begum has violated UK law, she should be tried here. It is immoral to expect other countries to take responsibility for our criminals. In future, when we try to deport foreign criminals, their countries of origin would be perfectly entitled to deny them entry, quoting the Shamima Begum case as a precedent.

But to return to the public interest - if we refuse entry to Shamima Begum, she must go somewhere. She could rot in a refugee camp - or she could escape, as so many others have done, to rejoin ISIS and serve their vile cause once again. Her child, and others that she might have, could grow up hating Britain and actively seek revenge - as terrorists. So much for public safety being protected.

To revisit what I said two years ago, I must point out that at that time, 400 former Jihadis were thought to have returned to the UK already. I have no current figures. I also pointed out that, at the end of WW2, the UK rehabilitated 57 former traitors who had fought for Germany in what was called "The British Free Corps" (BFC). The most odious of these fascist turncoats was one Thomas Cooper. who, before joining the BFC, had actually served in the SS on the Eastern Front. In 1941, libcom.org says:

"Finishing his training in May he was posted to SS Totenkopf Wachtbatallion Oranienburg stationed near Krakow, it was here that he would later boast that he participated in massacring both Polish Jews and Russian Prisoners of War."

To be exact, he bragged of murdering 200 Poles and 80 Jews in one day in Warsaw. And yet, after being tried for treason after the war, his death sentence was commuted and he was released in 1953. Most of the BFC never faced treason charges and were allowed back into British society.

The question, then, is obvious: if we can rehabilitate an avowed murderer and war criminal like Thomas Cooper, together with his fascist comrades, why can we not do the same for Shamima Begum, whose alleged crimes bear no comparison?

Jack the Ripper: the Victims' Dignity Restored

 

Like so many other people since 1888, I have had an interest in the mystery of Jack the Ripper. Again, like so many others, I have read a number of books and watched no end of films and documentaries about what we saw as of prime interest: who was Jack the Ripper? Why did he kill five prostitutes in Whitechapel in the autumn of 1888? Why was he never caught? The identity of Jack, and his motivation, have been of almost exclusive and obsessive interest for over a century. I even wrote about it myself back in October, 2012.

Halie Rubenhold's book comes as a welcome counterbalance to our preoccupation with who Jack was by investigating the lives of what are called the five "canonical" victims of Jack the Ripper (Ripperologists say there might be more). Rubenhold has meticulously examined all the documentary evidence available to the modern researcher, including the coroner's reports (three cannot be found) and a mass of newspaper articles. She does not include details of the victims' deaths, which are usually described in chilling detail in the popular books about the Ripper. I had always believed that all the victims were prostitutes. Rubenhold demonstrates that there is no evidence of prostitution for three of the victims; the press at the time simply attached that term to all women who lived in "common lodging houses" or slept rough on the streets. She says:

 "...on the nights they were killed, no-one came forward to state they had been solicited by Polly, Annie, Kate or Elizabeth".

The murders themselves, instead of being prostitute/client liaisons, might have happened simply because the victims were asleep, or helplessly drunk.

Frances Wilson, in The Guardian, says of the victims:

"Their lives are grimly similar: born into hardship, they moved from the briefest of childhoods into a cycle of childbearing, alcohol dependence, poverty, emotional despair and homelessness.

After reading the book, I totally concur in that verdict. Besides this, Rubenhold illustrates the invidious position of women - especially working class women - in Victorian society. Women were expected to be paragons of faithfulness and propriety. Any deviation from this norm was severely frowned upon; any woman who had sex before marriage, committed adultery, or drank too much, risked losing everything, while no such calamity awaited men. Besides this, there was the hazard of domestic violence, which was widely tolerated at the time. There were also the burdens of frequent pregnancy and the daily struggle to survive.  The five Ripper victims were victims of all these factors before they encountered the Ripper. Death at his hands for them could almost be described as a sort of merciless release.

Polly Nicholls, the first victim, endured four years of a violent relationship before she was driven from her family after her husband began an affair with the woman next door. Annie Chapman was married to a coach man with good prospects but, at a time when alcoholism was not recognised as an illness, became an alcoholic. This led to her marriage break-up and the road to Whitechapel.

The third victim. Elizabeth Stride, nee Gustafsdotter, came from Sweden where, as a young girl, she had contracted syphilis and become something of a social pariah. Coming to work in London as a domestic servant, she later married John Stride and, for a time, ran a coffee-shop. The failure of her ventures led to a descent into alcohol abuse, homelessness and her murder on September 30, 1888. Catherine Eddowes, who died on the same September night in Mitre Square, also had a history of wandering, together with domestic violence. When younger, she left her Wolverhampton home for Birmingham, then London. She lived with a "chapman" (an itinerant seller of tracts and ballads) who beat her frequently. After leaving him, she teamed up with one John Kelly. 500 mourners turned out for her funeral. The final - and most horribly mutilated - victim, Mary Jane Kelly, was something of an enigma. After her gruesome death, no relatives ever came forward, so it is uncertain whether we have her real name or not. She seems to have escaped back to London after being trafficked to Paris by an organised gang of pimps. She had previously worked in a brothel in a fashionable part of London, but it's now thought she went to Whitechapel to escape the traffickers. Sadly, she did not escape Jack the Ripper, who took her life on November 9th, 1888.

Reading this book was a salutary experience, and I shall not think of Jack's victims in the same way again. Rubenhold's aim was to restore their dignity as human beings, and in that she has succeeded. I cannot better this conclusion from Frances Wilson: 

"The Five is not simply about the women who were murdered in Whitechapel in the autumn of 1888: it is for them. This is a powerful and a shaming book, but most shameful of all is that it took 130 years to write."

Brexit: The Human Cost

 

In the previous blog post, Rednev admirably sums up the hypocrisy of Leave campaigners and details the emerging economic costs of Brexit. I totally support him in this, as I endorse the views of the pro-EU groups who work tirelessly to highlight the negative impact of Brexit upon the fishing industry, on travel to Europe, the deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland and the worsening nightmare of traffic congestion near Dover. Brexit is an unfolding economic disaster, if present trends continue. I do hope things improve, but that will be no thanks to Brexit or any of the Brexiteers.

However, there is one negative effect of Brexit that cannot be improved upon, and that is the human cost. In my view, this cost already amounts to a disaster of huge proportions, dating back to the referendum campaign itself. I am sad to note that none of our leading politicians or media commentators recognise this, so I think it worth mentioning here. 

There are three broad categories to this disaster, the first of which is the rise in hate crime following the referendum. Home Office figures in 2019 bear this out. BBC Wales reported:

"North Wales Police reported 416 crimes in 2014, rising to 476 in 2016 and 858 in 2018.
Gwent Police reported a rise from 374 in 2015-16 to 651 in 2018-19
South Wales Police said there were 879 incidents in 2013-14, rising to 1,102 in 2014-15, 1,232 in in 2015-16 and 1,244 in 2017"

The human rights group, Rene Cassin, in a report submitted to the Home Affairs Select Committee commented: 

"We are concerned that reports of hate crime have risen almost by three-fifths since the aftermath of the EU referendum vote as recorded by True Vision.2 Complaints filed increased fivefold after the EU referendum, with 331 hate crime incidents reported to the site, compared with a weekly average of 63.3".

I know several victims of hate crime, and recognise what a disaster it is for them. Not that any prominent Leave politicians have ever recognised this.

This would be bad enough, but there have been unpleasant personal consequences in the social divisions over Brexit in wider society. The Independent commissioned an opinion poll, which found: 

"More than one in 20 Britons (6 per cent) say they have fallen out with or stopped speaking to a family member and almost one in 12 (8 per cent) with a friend because of rows over Brexit, according to a new survey... the polling suggested a stark generational divide over the issue, with 42 per cent of 18-24 year-olds and 28 per cent of 25-34 year-olds reporting heated arguments with other family members over the issue of EU withdrawal."

Even foreign commentators have written about this British trauma. The New York Times, in an article titled "Of Civil Wars and Family", said, in 2019: 

"Like the election of President Trump, the 2016 Brexit referendum vote crystallized divisions between cities and towns, young and old, the beneficiaries of globalization and those left behind...in the aftermath of the referendum, Relate, a counselling service, said that a fifth of the 300 relationship support practitioners surveyed had worked with clients who argued over Brexit."

Nor are these divisions likely to heal at any time soon. As the economic effects of Brexit worsen, those of us who voted Remain will justifiably speak out with forcefulness. How Leave voters and campaigners react should be interesting - some might even admit to having been wrong.

But there are two people for whom there will be no possible change in their situation: the two people who have died violent deaths following the start of the EU referendum campaign, before and after the actual vote. One, of course, was the much-loved Labour MP, Jo Cox, murdered by Thomas Mair, June 16, 2016. The other, lesser known death, was that of Duncan Keating in Ancoats, Manchester, June 25, 2016, two days after the EU referendum. Jo Cox was a passionate Remainer, while Duncan Keating had voted Leave. Thomas Mair was a fascist with a history of mental illness, but was triggered into action by the Leave campaign. As The Guardian says: 

"Brexit campaigners were claiming that a remain vote would result in “swarms” of immigrants entering the UK, that it could trigger mass sexual attacks. Just hours before the murder, Ukip unveiled its infamous “breaking point” anti-immigration poster. Mair came to regard Cox as one of “the collaborators”, a traitor to his race. The passionate defender of immigration and the remain campaign was a legitimate target in his eyes".

Duncan Keating was a 58-year old pensioner who had a violent argument about the referendum with a Remain-voting neighbour, 62-year old Graham Dunn. As the Manchester Evening News said:

"Brexiter Duncan Keating, 58, was hit with a parasol, thumped repeatedly, and threatened he would be set alight in an attack at a retirement complex just days after the (referendum) result."

Six hours after being beaten up, Keating was found dead from causes which the coroner ruled did not relate to his assault. Dunn, when taken to court, admitted assault and was jailed for four years and five months.

To conclude, I believe that, in human terms, Brexit already is a disaster. Economic harm can be mitigated; nothing can bring back the dead or truly eradicate the effects of racist violence. Leave politicians and campaigners will doubtless dismiss these matters as "collateral damage". It is up to the rest of us to condemn them for this and challenge them: in human terms, was Brexit worth it?

Jo Cox, M.P.

You never stopped moaning, so why should we?

I recently read in our local paper a Leaver declare how delighted he was that the UK had finally left the EU, thus finally implementing the will of the people. While it's wholly understandable why a Eurosceptic would be pleased just now, I consider that he is on shakier ground when he describes the outcome as 'the will of the people'. A democratic vote is essentially a snapshot of opinion at any given moment - it is not a mandate for all eternity, proved by the fact the 2016 EU vote was the second we have had on the subject. The 1975 referendum resulted in more than two thirds voting to remain. If referendum results are supposed to last forever, the second vote should never have been called, but as we have had two, there is no logical reason why at some future date we cannot have a third.

I have looked at the results of eleven opinion polls conducted since September 2020 and all reported a majority for Remain by margins of between 4% and 10%. While I tend to take opinion polls with a pinch of salt, such consistency is fairly unusual, suggesting that the will of the people may well have changed in the four and a half years since we voted. Before the final result was declared in 2016, Nigel Farage stated that if it turned out to be 52% Remain to 48% Leave, that would not be the end of the matter. Oddly enough, when the actual result came through at 51.9% Leave to 48.1% Remain, he moved the goalposts and declared the result was final.

Some Leavers demand that, after more than four years, we 'Remoaners' should accept the democratic result and just shut up, sometimes even suggesting that we should now 'get behind the vote' for the good of the country. This is a bit rich, seeing that Eurosceptics never stopped complaining about Europe in the entire 41 years between the two referenda.

Although my politics are profoundly different from our prime minister's, I genuinely would like his breezy optimism about the UK's future to be justified as I do not want to see our country go into decline. However I am not encouraged by the sight of huge lorry parks in Kent, our fish going rotten before it can be exported due to bureaucratic delays, many thousands of financial services jobs being relocated to EU capitals, or musicians booked to perform in Europe facing copious and expensive red tape. If our future is so rosy, why have some wealthy and vociferous Leave campaigners obtained passports from EU countries for themselves and their families and in many instances moved their own businesses abroad? What do they know that they're not telling us?

The whole referendum campaign was skewed by barefaced lies - such as £350 million per week for the NHS - and not all just from one side. Regrettably, the flood of distortions has yet to be stemmed, and problems arising from leaving the EU will hit us ordinary people on the ground the hardest, not the rich and powerful who have the means to cushion themselves. As the old music hall song says: "It's the poor what gets the blame, it's the rich what gets the pleasure".

I hope I'm wrong in seeing little benefit in leaving the EU, but I seriously doubt that I am.

Streaming and the Future of Music

 

I suppose a lot of people will find the issue of royalty payments of little interest, if any, compared to the major problems caused by the Covid-19 virus and Brexit. "Right now", they may say, "what does it matter about who gets what when we are enduring lockdown and facing food shortages?". I feel sorry for anyone who takes that view, as they are clearly ignorant about the importance of music in our lives. I haven't taken an opinion poll, but my guess is that music has mattered hugely to people everywhere during the lockdown, making the restrictions on our lives more bearable.

So - what's the problem with paying royalties on streaming songs, as opposed to other forms of payment? The answer is that composers, lyricists and songwriters (who combine both roles) get paid much, much less than they do from radio play, mechanical recordings (i.e. pressed copies on CD) and live performance payments. I can vouch for this myself, as I write lyrics and have participated, with the help of various friendly artists, in the production of a number of  CDS. We sell the CDs for charity, but have received a good deal of radio play over the years. A single play on radio earns a royalty payment of several pounds. Payment for streamed songs, however, is dramatically less. My last royalty payment from PRS/MCPS was predominantly for streamed songs. One of the songs was played 282 times in Saudi Arabia, for which I received the princely sum of £0.0124! (No, your eyes do not deceive you!). For just one play of the same song, streamed in Germany, I earned (wait for it!) £0.0003. For 3544 streaming plays, I earned £3.16, which is about as much as would be received for a single radio play here in the UK.

Now, as it happens, I can laugh at these minimal amounts, because I do not seek, and never have sought to make a living from musical royalties, which is probably just as well. The trouble is, there are many people who do rely on their music royalties to make a living, and streaming is no laughing matter for them. This has become such a pressing issue that, as The Guardian said on December 1 last year:

"The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) committee is examining the effect of services including Spotify and Apple Music on the wider music industry,"

Fiona Bevan, who has written hits for One Direction, Lewis Capaldi and Steps, testified to the committee that many of her fellow writers were struggling to get by because of the way streaming royalties are paid. The BBC says:

"Bevan revealed she had earned just £100 for co-writing a track on Kylie Minogue's number one album, Disco.
"The most successful songwriters in the world can't pay their rent," she added.
"Right now, hit songwriters are driving Ubers. It's quite shameful." (Some may be in the picture above).

Music legend, Nile Rogers, told the committee: "We don't even know what a stream is worth,"  adding that "there's no way you can find out," because of non-disclosure agreements between record labels and the streaming services.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that many musicians - especially younger ones - are intimidated by the possibility of retaliation from the record companies and the streaming services, who are doing very nicely out of this state of affairs. As Nile Rodgers pointed out, each play of a streamed song is counted as a sale. This means the record labels take the bulk of the profits. Again, as the BBC says:

"Often, the recording artist will only receive about 13% of the revenue, with labels and publishers keeping the rest".

My own, very limited experience suggests that could well be an overestimate, with the artist receiving a lot less. And, if the artist is receiving such a niggardly amount, what does it mean for the writer and composer? Well, my experience, and that of Fiona Bevan answers that question. One hopeful sign is that the committee chairman, Julian Knight MP, has said that any attempts by the record labels to interfere with proceedings will not be tolerated. Let's hope so.

So - why does it matter? Well, as the lead singer of Elbow, Guy Carvey, told the committee, the way artists, writes and composers are paid for streaming threatens the very future of music. The BBC, again, say:

"That sounds very dramatic," he told MPs, "but if musicians can't afford to pay the rent... we haven't got tomorrow's music in place."

Quite right, and our lives, for those of us who love music, which is most of us, will be the poorer. This present system of payment threatens the very creativity of music itself. Jazz musician, Soweto Kinch, said:

"We'd never have a Kate Bush or a David Bowie in today's music ecology, because it's very risk averse...You are making songs for playlists, you are not taking the incredible musical risks that Bowie might have taken years ago."

We can only wish the artists and the DCMS committee well. London's cabbies will tell you that driving taxis is not a profitable job at the moment.

Analysing Donald – By His Niece

 

Tolstoy, the great Russian writer, says at the beginning of his book “Anna Karenina”:

“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”.

I wonder what Tolstoy would have made of Donald Trump’s family, as depicted by Mary L. Trump, Donald’s estranged niece, in her book “Too Much and Never Enough”. The book was published on July 14 to become an instant best seller in the USA and received with great interest here - not least by me. I am very grateful to my friends in the US for sending me this important book.

Mary Trump is a clinical psychologist, and spends most of the book detailing the family background which created the psychological phenomenon that is her uncle, although she admits that she does not have the definitive analysis of her uncle’s personality. That, she says, would require a full battery of tests that he would refuse to take.

Soap fans – especially those who remember “Dallas” – will be fascinated by the fallouts and arguments within this wealthy, but "malignantly dysfunctional" (Mary's term) family that are covered extensively in Mary Trump's book. The central figure in the story is not Donald, but his father, Fred, described by Mary as "a high-functioning sociopath". This paterfamilias made a fortune from property development in New York City for projects that were not always built. Donald’s mother came from The Isle of Lewis in Scotland. Not long after landing in America, she met and married Fred. Both, as the old English saying goes, “knew the value of money” – a euphemism for frugality.

They had five children, Donald being the second son, the first being Fred junior, Mary Trump’s father. Fred junior, put simply, was a “disappointment” to his father, failing as a businessman and incurring Fred senior’s displeasure by trying to launch an abortive career as an airline pilot. Fred junior returned to the family fold, only to descend into alcoholism, dying in 1981. When Fred senior died, in 1999, it appeared that he had cut his oldest son’s children out of his will, which led to a law suit.

Donald, on the other hand, remained in his father’s good books, because, as Mary says: “..although his middle son didn’t have the temperament for the day to day attention to detail…he had something more valuable: bold ideas and the chutzpah to realise them”.

He also developed traits that would serve him well later in life. In his teens, he paid someone else to take the test that he, Donald, needed for admission to the University of Pennsylvania. Also, according to Mary, her uncle tried to get his father, Fred senior, to make him his designated heir. Besides this, she gives numerous examples of how Fred senior funnelled funds to Donald, giving “The Don” an undeserved reputation as an adept businessman.

All this will be of interest to many, but only in the final chapter does Mary Trump examine Donald as a strictly political creature. And she does a very good job.  In a nutshell, she states: “His real skills (self-aggrandizement, lying and sleight of hand) were interpreted as strengths unique to his brand of success…his cruelty serves…as a means to distract both us and himself from the true extent of his failures”.

Well, as we know, his failures have led to his being impeached for the second time as a president. So far, says Mary Trump in the last sentence of her final chapter: “…he’s gotten away with everything”. With his failure to effectively handle the Covid-19 pandemic, and his whipping up of the mob that ransacked the US Capitol building, the Trump wagon might be coming off the rails. Whether this happens or not, it’s clear from the book and his tenure as president, that he will remain blithely innocent in his own eyes. I recommend this book for anyone seeking to understand the environment that created Donald Trump.

Lastly, a note of caution for us in the UK: Trump has said that he would leave the US if he lost the election. What’s not generally realised is that he is perfectly entitled to come and settle in Britain – probably Scotland. He has many friends in high places here, and it would not take him long to acquire citizenship. He still has a great deal of money, and the Conservative Party would most likely be grateful for any contributions he made – and welcome him as a member. We could even see Donald Trump standing for election to the UK Parliament – and what a sensation that would make! This will undoubtedly be scoffed at by many readers, but it is not beyond the grounds of possibility, and no more unbelievable than some of the things Trump has done already - including becoming President of the United States.

Trump fans celebrate the end of his presidency.

A Trump admirer honours his hero's achievements.

A Real Christmas Message

 After the less-than-charitable Christmas message from the prime minister, I am happy to follow it with a more positive Christmas message from an old friend, the Rev. John Faraday, seen on the left in the photo below.

I am very grateful to Geoff for asking me to do a Christmas Message. Sadly when he didn’t receive my message he replaced me. Even worse, he replaced me by Boris Johnson! Actually, the mix-up is all my fault because Geoff asked me for my message a month or two back and it completely slipped my almost geriatric memory until I saw the replacement! I hope that Geoff will accept my late, late message.

Before I say more, perhaps I ought to give you some idea about who I am. I have known Geoff since about 1966. Our paths crossed at various times after that, like when I was 27 years old and newly married. Geoff was selling what (at the time) I regarded as extreme literature on Southport’s Chapel Street Station. When police appeared to shift Geoff & co I stayed with them for a few minutes, appalled that this could happen in our ‘free’ country. My political views were then right of centre, so I didn’t support Geoff through political persuasion!

I was then and still am an Evangelical Christian and since 1983 have been an Anglican clergyperson. Some will be surprised to hear that I also joined the Labour Party in appreciation of Jeremy Corbin’s direction. It seemed to me that his aim was simply to make the country work better for everyone, especially those who are worst off. (Though I do not agree with some of his ideas).

My time in the ministry in the Church, almost forty years, have convinced me that many people at the ‘bottom of the heap’ have no way of getting out. The holes they end up in seem to get bigger as they try to claw their way out. For me it was a privilege to spend a lot of my time in the poorer areas where I served with the people with the worst problems. Often the ‘professionals’ who worked with them from local or national government treated them as just ‘cases’, and forgot about them at 5pm.

The clergy lived amongst them! Our doors were opened at any time of the day or night. I met drunkards, swindlers and murderers. In those areas I also met many of the most genuine, honest people I have ever met.

Over the years many people have asked me questions such as ‘Why do it?’ ‘Wouldn’t you be better off using your abilities elsewhere?’ People have made statements like ‘We make our own destiny. The people in a mess get what they deserve!’

This is where the ‘Christmas’ side of the message starts!

God has an amazing love for people. Proud people, liars, cruel people, robbers, psychopaths, rapists, murders and Conservatives! He even loves you and me! Nobody gets everything right however hard we try, so when I meet a person, whatever their background I am never able to say ‘You are too bad for me to deal with!’ I am just one sinner talking to another!

When the Son of God came to Earth He didn’t wait for people to be good enough for Him. (Just as well! He would still be waiting). He came to experience our world, and He didn’t take the easy way. The ultra-conservative majority scorned His family situation. When he was about two years old His family had to flee from the bitterness of Herod the Great and went as refugees to Egypt. (They say that early experiences have a telling effect throughout life).

He was God’s Son on Earth, yet He was prepared to accept the worst that the world could throw at Him, as far as being crucified. Even on the cross He prayed that God would forgive His torturers.

Jesus rose again! He showed that human death does not have the last word! If someone trusts Him it should never be as if we say ‘I am good enough!’. On the contrary, we say ‘I am a sinner, & I’m sorry’. That is when God begins to change us. I never claim to be better than another person. (It is only a matter of degree- nobody is ‘good enough’.) It is us saying ‘I want to be more like Jesus.’ He is the only one who never failed!

So why is Christmas special to Christians? There are several reasons but I will just concentrate on one. At Jesus’ birth and in the months after we are told of two main groups of visitors, shepherds and wise men.

Shepherds were tough men who would fight a wild animal rather than risk the life of a sheep. They would have to do their share of night shifts and battling against fierce storms, and probably were not too well paid for their pains.

The wise men were unlikely to be kings(!) but they would have been rich worldly-wise travellers and traders.

When Jesus was born both were invited to meet Him. Both went out of their way to see Jesus and both benefitted from the experience.

I am convinced that God’s love for people today is as great as it has ever been. He doesn’t promise to make life easy (as so many sufferers from Coronavirus will tell you) but He gives life and the best direction for that life.

He came to the world in a first-century stable. He wants to work in you and me today. Who will let Him?

My best wishes for a joyful and meaningful Christmas (even though it will be very different to the usual).

John Faraday.

The Blogmeister writes: Thank you very much, John, for an uplifting message for Christmas, so unlike that of our dear old PM. Retrospective thanks for standing with us in my SWP days. I think it must have marked the beginning of a change in your own views. Merry Christmas to you and your family.

The Rhymes and Routes Christmas Message, 2020

 

The Rhymes and Routes Christmas Message for 2020 comes from The Rt Hon Boris Johnson, M.P. for Uxbridge and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Cripes! The things I get asked to do as Prime Minister! Don’t get me wrong, I love this job, as I am eminently suited for it. An Eton education is never wasted. But I am gagging with anger at writing Christmas platitudes on this stupid blog which is staffed by two geriatric Bolshies. Still, my old mate, Dom, with whom I still speak when my present other half isn’t around, says it’s always a good idea to brass it out with the Left, so here I am.

Well, I don’t have an oven ready Christmas spiel, but I think I can safely say that this has been a trying year, especially for me. No sooner did this bally silly Covid disease arrive in the UK that I caught the damn thing. I received excellent care and am especially grateful to two nurses, one of whom is Portuguese. I like him so much that I hope he stays in Britain. If he ever gets deported, or forced out, I’ll come and wave him goodbye. I must try to remember his name.

Christmas, as we know, is a time for families to get together and celebrate. I am a true family man, and, as everyone knows, I have at least three families to take care of. I consider myself very lucky to have a young fiancé and new sprog here with me in Downing Street and don’t intend to start any more families. But - you never know! As the song says: “I was born under a wandering star…” and, at Christmas time, it’s always a pleasure to pull a cracker! Ha! Ha! Still, as long as my better half keeps off my f(word deleted by Blogmeister)g laptop, all will be well.

One of my sternest critics, and occasional contributor to this blog, is a belligerent bolshie called RedNev, who persists in dragging up rumours and half-truths about me and my past. In the spirit of Christmas, I wish him well and enjoin him to get his facts right. The Garden Bridge project cost £52 million, not 53.

As for the cantankerous Blogmeister, he seems to have nothing good to say when it comes to Brexit, which I got done! I say to him: just look at the present situation regarding Europe. Could anyone else have created such a state of affairs? Christmas is a time for peace and forgiveness, and the IOG* of a Blogmeister should seek to be reconciled with Nigel Farage, Anne Widdecombe, Claire Fox, me, and all the other Brexiteers that he has attacked on this blog. Has he never read The Bible?

To conclude: I would like to wish all the readers of this blog a very Happy Christmas and a Joyful New Year. 2020 has been a trying year for me, and I intend to keep trying in 2021.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Boris the P.M. – as some people call me.

*IOG – Irritable Old Git

Blogmeister replies: Thank you for your message, Prime Minister. I am sure that I speak for millions when I say that no-one but you could have created the present mess resulting from Brexit. You are correct in that. As for peace and forgiveness towards the individuals mentioned – how do your previous wives, mistresses and colleagues feel about being reconciled to you? No reconciliation from them and none from me towards any Brexiteer, especially the ones you’ve mentioned. And as for reading The Bible – what’s your take on the Seventh Commandment?

Another Note of the Same Refrain

 

I am sad to return to this topic so close to Christmas. I have written about it many times before, knowing that it would be a recurring theme, and indeed it has been. Twice this year, I have written on the topic of murderous attacks on innocent members of the public by mental health patients. In February, I wrote of the attempted murder of a French child by Jonty Bravery at the Tate Modern, followed in March by the horrific murder of 7-year old Emily Jones in Bolton by the paranoid schizophrenic, Eltiona Skana. In both cases, the perpetrators were known to be dangerous, yet, for one reason or another, they were out on the streets. 

The same applies to the case featured today. On August 24, 2019, 69-year-old Allan Isichei, a Jazz musician and former Rugby Union player for the Wasps, was on his way home from his local pub in Southall, West London. 30 metres from home, he had the misfortune to encounter 36-year-old Gurjeet Lall, who, like so many similar killers was (and is!) a paranoid schizophrenic. CCTV shows some kind of verbal exchange after which Lall stabbed Allan Isichei several times. Mr Isichei died in the ambulance taking him to hospital.

Five days ago, Gurjeet Lall was found guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Like so many killers of this type that I have written about, the verdict remains the same. Etiona Skana, Jonty Bravery, Robert Ashman, etc, all received similar verdicts. What such reports do not include is the unspoken caveat to the verdict: subject to response to treatment. All such offenders become eligible for release if they are judged to no longer be a danger to the public. Robert Ashman, for instance, was released eight years after attacking the then LibDem MP, Nigel Jones (now Lord Jones) and killing Jones' assistant in 2000. There is nothing to stop Gurjeet Lall being released after a period of treatment. He will be sentenced next Monday, but, whatever the length of the sentence, it will be subject to future revision.

The BBC says:

"At the trial at Inner Crown Court in October, jurors heard the killer had been arrested for possession of a knife in 2014 and 2019.Lall told the court he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia but could not remember the last time he took his medication."

This is yet another familiar refrain. Nicola Edgington , the first such killer (i.e. another schizophrenic) I wrote about, murdered her mother in 2005 and was released "conditionally" in 2009. In 2011, having failed to admit herself to a secure unit, she murdered  Sally Hodkin on he street in Bexleyheath. In her defence, non-taking of drugs was one of her explanations/excuses.

Allan Isichei's family have asked, rightly:

"Why was a person with a history of carrying knives who was only arrested while carrying one in January 2019 allowed to be back out on the streets unsupervised to carry out this senseless killing?"

Daniel Isichei expressed the view of many relatives who have fallen victim to murderous mental health patients:

"The absolute lack of remorse and denial by the killer, combined with obvious mistakes made by authorities in not having him under some form of supervision licence has all added to our grief."

The Isichei family are calling for a public inquiry into this case. I wish them luck with that, as does, hopefully, every reader of this blog. But, judging by the reactions of the authorities to previous such murders, we will be told that "lessons have been learned", staff "have been spoken to" and there is nothing to stop similar murders from happening in the future.

Boris, Blunders and Battles Over Fish

 It's becoming difficult to say anything new about Boris Johnson. He is such a shambles of a prime minister, with such a lurid past, that his constant blunders attract adverse comment on a daily basis. The Daily Mirror has published a list of 25 such misdemeanours that  he has committed in the past year. As we hurtle towards a no-deal Brexit, we face the appalling prospect of the Royal Navy being deployed to defend our fishing grounds from French ships. Only a lunatic or a blimp could welcome that prospect. As Tobias Ellwood, Tory chair of the defence select committee, has said in The Guardian:

"...he (Ellwood) was concerned that the navy would be overstretched at a time when Russian submarines were increasingly operating around the UK. “Our adversaries will be smiling as the biggest European militaries spar against each other over fish.”

Mention of Russian submarines is very apt here, but we will come to that. For now, though, readers might like to know what Boris has put out on his Facebook page. It came as a surprise to learn that he had such a page; even more of a surprise that it accepted public comment. If you wish to read it, or pass comment, click on the link. Reading his latest post, you are left wondering if Boris knows what planet he inhabits. He says:

"We said we'd get Brexit done. We did, leaving the EU on 31st January this year. Whatever happens in trade talks with the EU, our new trading relationship will be in place from January 1st ... to build back better and stronger ... this Conservative government will double-down on the pledges we made to the people, the pledges we were elected on, to build a better country for everyone."

The Mirror comments here:

"The Prime Minister might yet get a Brexit trade deal with the EU at the last moment... the 11th-hour wrangling is hardly the image he projected when he pledged an “oven-ready” Brexit deal last year".

No surprise there, but there might be something else happening that is not drawing much attention. The "something else" relates to the owners of the submarines that Tobias Ellwood is so concerned about - the Russian government. By happy coincidence, the anti-Fascist magazine, "Searchlight", has just put out its latest edition, in which we find a section called "Russia Traffic" which exposes links between the present government and Russia. I already had some idea of these links, but this report reveals more. The author, Searchlight editor, Gerry Gable, says:

"Johnson will find it difficult to set aside the overwhelming evidence of Russian influence that presents a dangerous challenge to our democracy"

We learn that Boris himself is named after a Russian émigré that his parents knew. He has received support from several  Russian oligarchs friendly with Putin. These include Alexander Temerko, Alexander Lebedev and his son, Evgeny, who owns The Independent and Evening Standard. When Johnson was Mayor of London, he was planning to hold secret talks with some unsavoury Russian figures in Moscow and Switzerland.

Among other individuals with Russian links named in the article is none other than Carrie Symonds, Johnson's fiancé. Two of her former boyfriends, Oliver Haiste (a man with far-Right connections)and Harry Cole have well-documented links with Moscow. All very cosy, of course. Johnson is on record as telling the Mayor of Moscow in 2008 that he has "many happy memories of Moscow". It looks like he is not alone in this. There are others named in the article, which makes it worth reading.

The article goes on to say that the official government response to the "Russia Report", published in July, is very evasive about Russian influence on the government itself. It is also noteworthy that Boris made strenuous efforts to appoint Chris (Failing) Grayling as head of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but failed. One wonders if Johnson was expecting Grayling to keep the report secret - "in the public interest", of course.

If President Putin is happy to see two NATO countries at odds, he could not have better placed agents to help him achieve it.

Spot the turkey...